Delhi Court April 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
V.P. Garg Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secretary and Anothe ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J): 1. The applicant, a Dy. Supdt. Grade-II in Central Jail Tihar, has filed this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for following reliefs :- “8.1 To direct the respondents to release the annual increments falling on 01.07.2004, 01.07.2005, 01.07.2006 and 01.07.2007 when the applicant was under suspension and on the basis of pay so arrived recalculate the subsistence allowance and pay the arrears. 8.2 To direct the respondents to refix applicant’s pay in the wake of 6th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2006 on the basis of pay arrived notionally after calculating the increments due on 01.07.04 and 01.07.05 and pay the arrears as a consequence thereof. 8.3 To direct the respondents to pay interest on the arrears @ 10% p.a. 8.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit under the circumstances.” 2. The applicant was placed under suspension on 21.2.2004 by respondent no.1 in cont...
Harinder Pal Singh Chawla Vs. Vineet Tiwari and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
P.K.BHASIN, J. The revisionist is the unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,1963( in short “the Act of 1963”) filed by him against his sister, respondent no.2 herein who was impleaded in the suit as defendant no.2 and shall hereinafter be referred to as “defendant no.2”, and one total stranger to their family, respondent no.1 herein who was impleaded in the suit as defendant no.1 and reference to him in this judgment also shall be made as “defendant no.1”. As normally happens that outsiders only benefit from the fight between family members particularly over some immovable property, in this case also this stranger has become the beneficiary of the fight between the brother and sister by managing to get a sale deed executed in his favour from the sister in respect of a portion of a property in a prime area of Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi over which brother and sister are litigating since the year 1991 in civ...
National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Siemens Atiengesellschaft
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
1. These two petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (’Act’) by the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (‘NTPC’) challenge the partial Award dated 31st July 2002 and the final Award dated 6th January 2009 passed by the International Court of Arbitration (‘Tribunal’) of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) by which NPTC has been directed to pay the Respondent Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (‘SAG’) a sum of Euro 17,158,557 on account of Claims C-2 to C-8, with Claim C-9 being rejected and further that NTPC should pay SAG a sum of Euro 7,604,296.38 by way of interest at 6% simple per annum on the aforementioned sum for the period from 20th August 2001 till the date of the Award i.e. 6th January 2009 and post Award interest at 6% simple per annum. PTC was also directed to bear the cost of arbitration i.e. USD 877,000 excluding USD 30,000 set aside for stamp duty and Euro 989,100 towards attorneysR...
Filo Interior Decorations Pvt Ltd. Vs. L.K.Modi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated August 25, 2010. CS(OS)No.683/1996 filed by the appellant has been stayed till CS(OS)No.2408/1994 is decided by the Bombay High Court. 2. The appellant was awarded interior designing work as per order No.92/20 3097, requiring it to refurbish the South- East Wing at the third floor at Nirlon House, Dr.Anni Besant Road, Bombay - 400025. The premise is owned by the Modi Group of Companies, and it is the case of the appellant that the space to be refurbished was to be used by the Walt Disney. 3. Exclusive of sales tax, the price at which the work was awarded is `14,17,531.30 and requires the appellant to manufacture or procure; and supply furniture as also renovate at the site the place in question. 4. As per the appellant by an under another work order No.92/20 2817 on May 28, 1992 additional work was assigned a...
Sahni International Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Nisha Raj and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Mrs.Nisha Raj and her husband Ranjit Raj i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 in both above captioned appeals, filed a suit, registered as CS(OS) No.2630/1994 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.09.1986 (Ex.PW-1/2) in respect of property bearing No.A-2, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi. The agreement to sell was executed by Mrs.Vijay Malini Kaula (hereinafter referred to as „the seller‟), the owner of the property, whose right to sell is not disputed. The agreed sale consideration recorded is `29 lakhs and out of which the unearned increase payable to DDA had to be deducted and paid to DDA for the reason, the subject property was lease-hold. `10,000/- was received as part sale consideration on 30.09.1986 itself. 2. Being the requirement of law, an application (Ex.PW-1/3) under Section 230(A) of the Income Tax Act was filed by the seller seeking permission to sell the said property in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2. The permission...
Union of India and Others Vs. Kailash Niharika and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The present Review Application has been filed by the respondent department on the ground that the applicants in OA-369/2010 were not entitled to the benefits of Office Memorandum dated 27.03.2011 of the Department of Personnel and Training as they were holding Group-C post in the parent department whereas they were appointed on deputation against Group-B post. Since they were not having the same post prior to their deputation they are not entitled to the benefits of the O.M. dated 27.03.2011. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents (original applicant in the OA) submits that the present review application is not maintainable: firstly, it has been filed after limitation period was over and no justification has been given for condonation of delay; and secondly, the respondent department wants to re-argue the whole matter, which is not permissible as per the settled law on the scope of review. 2.1 He further submits that the applicants were in the same pay sc...
Syed Mohd. Jawed Alam Vs. the General Manager, Northern Railways, Head ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 22.02.2011 whereby applicant’s request for voluntary retirement has been accepted with immediate effect after deleting the allegations made by him in his application for voluntary retirement (page 13). He has further sought a direction to the respondents to continue him as Chief Inspector, Catering in the Northern Railways with all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that he had given a request for voluntary retirement on 30.9.2010 with effect from 31.12.2010 and had also sought LAP with effect from 4.10.2006 to 16.12.2010 (page 18) on the ground that he was unable to work due to communal and corrupt environment. The respondents asked him to explain and give specific instances of the allegations made by him vide Memorandum dated 30.12.2010 (page 19) informing him that his request for voluntary retirement would be considered after receiving his reply. No reply was given by th...
Richpal Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Through Its Chairman Ip ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
M. L. Chauhan: 1. The applicant has filed the present OA against the order dated 17.1.2011 whereby his claim for promotion with consequential benefits from 6.7.1984 has not been allowed. In fact, the applicant has not annexed the copy of the said order dated 17.1.2011 along with this OA, though the grievance has been made by him regarding the said order. Be that as it may, the respondent - Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) have annexed the copy of the order dated 17.1.2011 as Annexure R-1 with the reply affidavit. 2. By way of this OA, the applicant has prayed that direction may be given to the respondent-DTC to grant promotion and consequential benefits w.e.f. 6.7.1984. 3. In order to decide the aforesaid controversy, few facts may be noticed. The respondent-DTC vide order dated 5.7.1984 (Annexure A-2) promoted as many as 38 persons, including the applicant, to officiate as Blacksmith w.e.f. 6.7.1984 subject to conditions mentioned therein. One of the conditions incorporated in the sa...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. M/S. Pymen Cable India) M/S. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeals which are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order. 2. I have heard Shri B.L. Soni, learned AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Naveen Mullilck, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. M/s. Pymen Cable(India) is manufacturer of wire and cable and M/s. Metro Electricals Pvt. Ltd. is a trading unit. Shri Sandeep Garg, is director of M/s. Metro Electricals Pvt. Ltd. and is son of the proprietor of M/s. Pymen Cable(India). 4. As per facts on record, the residential premises of Shri Sandeep Garg were put to search on 11.8.04 and some incriminating documents in the shape of katcha parchis were recovered. Along with the said katcha parchis certain goods manufactured by M/s. Pymen Cable(India) were also seized from the godown of M/s. Metro Electricals Pv...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow Vs. M/S. Sigma Castings Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the order of the original adjudicating authority, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. I have heard Shri Shri R.K. Gupta, learned AR appearing for the revenue and Shri A.K. Dixit, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent. 3. As per facts on record, the respondents manufacture the M.S.Ingots from scrap. On 27.11.07, their factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers and stock checking was conducted. At that time, as against the recorded balance of 1576.12 M.T. in R.G.I Register, the physical stock of M.S.Ingot was found to be 1532.923 MT. and thus there was shortage of 43.197 MT. involving duty of Rs.117461/-. On enquiry, Sh. Nathan Lal Chowdhary, Authorised Signatory of M/s. Sigma Castings Pvt. Ltd. could not give any explanation for the shortage. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »