Delhi Court April 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Constable Anil Kumar Vs. Govt. of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.08.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) whereby OA No. 2639/2010 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition can be summarized as under: On 23.08.2007, the petitioner was posted in Police Station Dabri and was placed on Sentry duty at the lock up and malkhana from 9.00 pm to 12.00 midnight. The arms and ammunitions were also given to the petitioner, while placing him on duty. One Abdul Shamshad alias Raju was lodged in the lock up at that time. During a power failure between 9.00 pm and 12 midnight, Shamshad alias Raju bent the iron bars of the lock up and escaped from police custody. The petitioner was chargesheeted on the allegations that he had performed security duty in a very careless and negligent manner which had resulted in Shamshad escaping from lawful custody of the poli...
Parshadi Lal Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Vide instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment dated 04.04.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, whereby he dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by petitioner against the judgment dated 17.01.2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, Delhi whereby convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 419/468 Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The facts in brief of the case are that the complainant made complaint against the petitioner as under:- “During routine check one individual claiming to be a ex-Lance Naik of Pioneer Corps was found in Catt. Area. On checking his document, it was found that the individual is impersonating as an ex-serviceman of Pioneer Corps and claiming to be an PVC awardee of 1971. On checking up from concerned Unit it is confirmed that no PVC was awarded to above name individual. It is also brought to your notice that the individual had falsely repre...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vii and Another Vs. Shri Karan Khandelwal a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. By this common judgment, we shall dispose of both the appeals referred above. ITA No.334/2009 is directed against the order dated 25.04.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (herein after referred to as „the Tribunal‟), dismissing ITA No.454/del/07 filed by the Revenue, in respect of assessment of the respondent Sh. Karan Khandelwal, for the assessment year 2003-04. ITA No.82/09 is directed against the order dated 09.05.2008 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the ITA No.2008/del/06 filed by the revenue in respect of the assessment of the respondent Sh. Sunil Bedi, for the assessment year 2003-04. The facts giving rise to filing of these appeals can be summarized as under: Prem Shanker Khandelwal HUF was the sole owner of the land measuring 18 biswas comprised in Khasra No.374 and land measuring 17 biswas comprised in Khasra No.375, in the revenue estate of Village Sikandarpur, Ghosi, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, situated at Main Mehrauli Gurgaon ...
V.L.S. Finance Ltd. Vs. Sunair Hotels Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
P.K. BHASIN, J. This appeal under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, (‘the Act’in short) has been filed by the appellant Company (hereinafter to be referred as ‘VLS’) against the order dated 16.05.2007 passed by the Company Law Board(‘CLB’in short) whereby two applications were dismissed. One of the two dismissed applications was filed by the Central Government(being C.P.No. 01 of 2004) seeking permission of the CLB, as required under Section 235(b) of the Act, to investigate the affairs of respondent no.1 Company(hereinafter to be referred as ‘SUNAIR’). The other one was filed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by VLS(being C.A. No.172 of 2003) for proceeding against respondents no. 3-5 herein, for their having forged one Memorandum of Understanding(MoU) dated 10th March, 1995 and using it in their defence in the petition under Sections 250/397/398 of the Act(being C.P.No.45/1998) in which they were impleaded being the ...
R.K. Kapoor Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.4.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby OA No. 994/2010 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition can be summarized as under: The petitioner joined as Appraiser of Customs, in the Customs and Excise Service, in the year 1964. In the year 1976, he was promoted as Assistant Collector on ad-hoc basis and his services as Assistant Collector were regularized in August, 1978. On 23.5.1991, he was promoted as Deputy Collector on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner superannuated from service of the Government on 31.3.1995. The issue of seniority of promotees vis--vis direct recruits had been a matter of litigation and was finally resolved by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 8.5.1996, inter alia, directing that a fresh All India Combined List of Appraisers be prepared on the basis of...
State Govt of Nct of Delhi Vs. Khalil Ahmed
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Vide instant petition, the State - petitioner has sought to quash the impugned order dated 16.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, (Central) Delhi whereby learned Trial Judge found no sufficient evidence to make out prima facie case against respondent Khalil Ahmed for the offence punishable under Section 3(2), 3(4) and Section 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as the MCOCA). Thus, learned Trial Judge discharged the respondent for the offences alleged therein. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 384/387/506/467/468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2), 3(4) and Section 4 of MCOCA. However, finding prima facie offences punishable under Section 386/387/506-II and Section 467/468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860, which are triable by the Court of learned Magistrate, the matter has been sent back, according...
Maj Gen D.L. Chowdhary Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
1. The OA No.166/2011 was filed in the Armed Forces Tribunal on 27.04.2011. 2. Vide this OA, the applicant has prayed to quash the Special Selection Board (SSB) proceedings for General Cadre Officers of 1975 Batch fresh cases and 1974 review cases held on 07.01.2011. The applicant has also prayed that the respondents be directed to hold the SSB again by applying the parameters laid down in the preceding policy dated 31.12.2008 read with letter of 15.04.2009 and redraw the merit list of Select Panel. The applicant has also sought that in case of empanelment, the applicant be promoted to the rank of Lt General by 01.04.2011 and thereby grant all consequential benefits despite his retirement on 30.04.2011 in the present rank of Maj Gen. 3. As an interim prayer, the applicant has sought the declassification of the SSB held on 07.01.2011 be withheld and the retirement of the applicant on 30.04.2011 in the present rank of Maj General be stayed. 4. Brief facts of the case as submitted in the ...
Rita Ratra and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vic ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): M.A.No.2194/2011: 1. The MA for joining together is allowed. O.A.No.3334/2011: 2. In this OA, the applicants (2 in number) are aggrieved by E.O.No.911 dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure A1) issued by Respondent No.4 (Deputy Director, DDA, New Delhi) in terms of which the second financial upgradation granted to them under the ACP Scheme of the Government of India have been ordered to be withdrawn. 3. The case of the applicants [who are working as Surveyors in the Delhi Development Authority], is that the above EO should not have been issued as they had been granted 2nd ACP, as per the Assured Career Progression Scheme of August, 1999, vide EO No.468 dated 13.02.2009, which was before introducing the issue of the OM dated 19.05.2009 pertaining to the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) of the Government although effective from 01.09.2008 and that as per Clause 11 of the MACPS which is clearly prescribed that `no past cases would be re-opened’. ...
Balbir Singh, (Asstt., Fitter) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. This application is directed against the order of the respondents dated 03.03.2011 (Annexure A1), in terms of which the respondents have denied the entitlement of the benefits of Leave Encashment as per the OMs of 1980 and 2006 issued by DoPT, Government of India, having been passed in compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal on 10.05.2010 in TA No.703/2009. 2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the OA, are that the applicants are working as workshop staff in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) and are governed by the provisions of the Delhi Road Transport Act, 1971. It is stated that prior to this, they were governed by the DTA Act, 1950, and that the DTC had opted to be governed by Chapter VIII [particularly Sections 78 and 79, which pertain to earned leave] of the Factory Act, 1948. It is further stated that the Delhi Transport Corporation (Respondent No.1) is an autonomous body and is being provided financial help from the Centr...
Dharam Singh and Another Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation I.P.Estate Ne ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Common: Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. As the facts and circumstances and the issue involved in OA Nos.3223/2011 and 3152/2011 are similar, we propose to dispose of the same by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts from OA No.3223/2011. 3. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the applicant (a Driver in the Delhi Transport Corporation) had challenged the order dated 17.04.2009 (Annexure A1), declaring him as unfit for the post of Driver in OA No.3497/2010, which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated 31.05.2011. In the present OA also the applicant has challenged the order dated 17.04.2009 and also the order passed dated 23.08.2011, in compliance of the directions passed by this Tribunal in OA No.3497/2010. 4. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the OA, are that the applicant had been appointed as a Driver with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) in 1979, after having been found fit by the Medical Board, and had ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »