Delhi Court May 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.
Dharmendra Kumar Vs. Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalya Sangathan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. Oral: CM No. 6147/2012 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. WP(C) 2843/2012 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.03.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No. 760/2011. The petitioner had filed the said original application challenging the termination letter dated 16.09.2010 which was a termination of his services simpliciter in terms of paragraph 5 of his appointment letter dated 27.07.2009. 2. The petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) Social Science by virtue of the said appointment letter dated 27.07.2009. One of the conditions stipulated in the said appointment letter was set out in paragraph 5 thereof which reads as under:- “5. During the probation and thereafter, until he/she is confirmed, the services of the appointee are terminable by one month notice on either side without any reason being assigned, therefore. The appointing authori...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arun Gupta and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM APPL.8884/2012 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 537/2012 and CM APPL.8883/2012 (stay) 1. Appellant New India Assurance Company Limited impugns a judgment dated 27.03.2012 whereby while awarding a compensation of `7,58,946/- in favour of Respondent No.1, the Claims Tribunal instead of exonerating the Appellant, made it liable to pay the compensation and to recover it from Respondent No.3, the owner of the vehicle No.HR-55-A-9460, which caused the accident. 2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that since it was established that Respondent No.2 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, the Insurance Company has no liability to pay the compensation at all. My attention is drawn to para 19 of the impugned judgment which is extracted hereunder:- “19. I have gone through the material on record. It is apparent from the te...
Vinay Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. * CM No.4900/2012 This is an application by the petitioner seeking to produce additional documents marked as Annexures P8 to P10. Perusal of the application reveals that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner, are copies of the Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) for the recruitment in the GREF Centre and Records and the certificate issued by the Military Hospital at Dehradun dated 8th June, 2011 and a write up on the description and definition of Hydrocelectomy from Surgery Encyclopedia. The documents sought to be produced by the petitioner are relevant for the determination of the real controversies between the parties and there may not be any doubt about the genuineness of the said documents. The notice of the writ petition has not yet been issued to the respondents. Consequently, the application is allowed and the documents, annexed as Annexure P8 to P10, are taken on record. CM No.4899/2012 This is an application by the petitioner for fil...
Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Raj Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
S.RAVINDRA BHAT 1.This appeal challenges the judgment dated 27.07.2009 in SC No. 318/2009/2004 whereby the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Patiala house) convicted the appellant, Rajeev Kumar, for the offence of murder under Section 302, IPC. It also impugns the order of sentence dated 01.08.2009 awarded to the appellant, by which he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case was that on 01.07.2004, by DD No. 13A (Ex. PW-13/A) information was received by P.S. Ambedkar Nagar that someone had been stabbed at J-92 opposite the Church. SI Gajraj Singh, who was handed over the matter, went to the spot and recorded the statement of Sehnaz Bano, wife of the victim, Saleem. She stated that the accused used to treat and address her as his sister and he had been visiting their house for long. He went to their house and told Saleem that there had been leakage of electricity from the board in his (Rajeev’s) house, and that it was dangerous. Taking a scr...
Sep Ashok Kumar Vs. Chief of the Army Staff and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
1. The applicant had filed WPC 2338/1997 in the Honble Delhi High Court. The same was forwarded to this Tribunal on 07.09.2009. The applicant has prayed that the following be quashed : (a) Summary punishments awarded to him. (b) Show Cause Notice dated 14 Aug 1995 (Annx P-3) (c) Order of Discharge dated 30.09.1995 (Page 45) The applicant has also prayed that he be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The applicant was enrolled in the Army as Clk on 25 March 1987 and subsequently rose to the rank of acting Naik. 3. The applicant states that his superior officer, Capt B P Hatwal, was biased against him and got him punished several times which led to the issue of Show Cause Notice first on 1 July 1995 by Capt B P Hatwal (Annx P-1) and subsequently on 14 Aug 1995 by Brig A S Punia, Cdr Merrut Sub Area. The applicant states that he replied on 5 July 1995 (Annx P-2) and denied all allegations of intoxication levelled against him. The applicant averred that all four red i...
Shri Suresh Chandra Verma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2012
By Dr. Veena Chhotray: The CP 16/2012 has been filed by the original applicant alleging contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents in respect of the directions issued by the Tribunal vide the order dated 23.03.2009 in the OA 2235/2007. The contempt has been alleged on the ground of the respondents’ decision to treat the period between ‘Removal from Service’ and ‘Reinstatement’ as dies-non on the basis of ‘no work no pay’, vide their Office Order dated 28.12.2010. The present order is being passed after hearing the counsels on both the sides and considering the averments in the CP as well as the status report filed by the respondents. 2. Through the OA 2235/2007, the applicant was challenging penalty of ‘removal’ on the charges of securing reengagement as Mobile Booking Clerk on the basis of forged and fabricated certificates. The said penalty had been imposed after a disciplinary proceeding. The impugned orders had been set...
M/S Narbada Industries Sanjiv Goel, Managing Director Vs. Cce, Meerut
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2012
Per. Justice Ajit Bharihoke, J. 1. Shri I. Baig, ld. AR for the department has placed on record the report of Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II duly supported by his affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-II. 2. Heard both the sides. Though these matters were listed for hearing of stay application only, after hearing the same for some time, we were of the view that the same can be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and the matters are heard for final disposal with the consent of both the sides. 3. Perusal of the report dated 10.05.2002 of Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut as well as the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise would show that although the reply of the main assessee M/s Balaji Aromatics as also M/s S.B. Aromatics was received in the office of the Commissionerate respectively vide entry No. 2341 and 4104 dated 30.03.2011, those were n...
Cit Vs. Sweta Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2012
ORDER 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties in this appeal, which pertains to the assessment year 2005-06, we frame the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the interest of Rs.63,08,097/- and Rs.2,23,787/- paid to bank on account of interest free loan of Rs.28,00,000,00/- granted to sister companies?” 2. Before examining the aforesaid issue, we record that the Revenue has raised another issue/aspect, which relates to failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source on payment of US $ 86250 (Rs.75,90,001/-) on two occasions to M/s. HOK International (Beijing) Limited for the architectural work undertaken by them. 3. The tribunal has referred to the Article 14 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and China, which reads:- “ARTICLE 14 - Independent Personal Services &...
Hari Krishan and Another Vs. the Management of M/S. Northern Scales Co ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2012
P.K.BHASIN, J. 1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner-workman, who was employed as an attendant with the respondent Company, had challenged the award dated 04-10-06 in ID Case No. 137/1996 whereby the relief of re-instatement in service with back wages was denied to him by the Labour Court even after coming to the conclusion that his services had been illegally terminated by the respondent-management and he had not abandoned his job and only a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded to him. The petitioner-workman felt that he was entitled to be re-instated in service with full back wages and so he knocked the doors of this Court for getting that relief. 2. The petitioner-workman was employed as an attendant with the respondent-management in August, 1991 and as per his case his services were terminated w.e.f. 06.12.1994. He had approached the labour authorities alongwith one other workman, whose services had also been terminated by the respondent, for their re-i...
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Krishan Pal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appellant Insurance Company impugns a judgment dated 31.01.2011 whereby a compensation of Rs.9,03,000/- was awarded for the death of Smt. Savitri who died in an accident which occurred on 17.10.2009. 2. The Appellant’s grievance is that it was not given opportunity to prove that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence and that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive. 3. The application for additional evidence filed by the Appellant Insurance Company was dismissed by an order dated 07.02.2012 wherein it was held that sufficient opportunity was granted to the Appellant Insurance Company to prove its defence. Since no evidence was produced by the Insurance Company to prove that the Respondent No.5 (Joginder) the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any valid driving licence on the date of the accident, the Appellant Insurance Company having failed to discharge the onus, cannot avoid its liability to indemnify the in...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »