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.
Shri U. Rai Arya (Exsde) Vs. Union of India : Through Secretary, D/O T ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
By Dr. Veena Chhotray: The applicant is deemed to have retired on superannuation from the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Telephone) on 30.6.1994. He is agitating claims for Time Bound Promotion to the next higher scale after completion of 12 years of service. The present OA is second in the series. The earlier OA No.3333/2011 had been disposed at the admission stage by the Tribunals order dated 15.9.2011 giving directions to the respondents to consider the OA as a supplementary representation and decide it by passing a speaking and reasoned order. In pursuance of the directions, the respondents have passed an order dated 24.3.2011 considering the claims of the applicant but not finding the same as entertainable. This has occasioned the instant OA. 2. Through the present OA, the following reliefs have been sought:- “8 (i) to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 24.03.2012. (ii) to direct the respondents to consider for promotion to the post of divisional Engineer Telepho...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarter, I.P. Estat ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
By Dr. Veena Chhotray: The applicant, an Ex-Constable in Delhi Police has been removed from service on grounds of being a habitual and willful unauthorized absentee. In pursuance of initiation of departmental proceeding dated 22.2.2008 and the charges being ‘proved beyond doubt’ during the enquiry, the aforesaid penalty has been imposed vide the Disciplinary Authority’s order dated 17.7.2008. The appeal against this order has been rejected by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 8.3.2010. Seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders, the OA seeks directions for his reinstatement in service, as he is on the verge of retirement. As an alternative prayer, it has been submitted: ..”in case is there is any hesitation by the department to reinstate the applicant back on duty with continuity of service in that case keeping in view the condition of applicant, the applicant offers voluntary retirement, so that the applicant can get the benefit of ret...
J.P. Singh, S/O Shri B.N. Prasad and Others Vs. Union of India Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
(ORAL) Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): By this common order we propose to dispose of these OAs, as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicants were initially appointed as Receptionist, except the applicant in OA-1584/2012, who was initially appointed as a Tele Clerk and further promoted to the post of Receptionist in the Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Urban Development, in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000, which according to the applicants are equivalent to the UDC grade. The applicants are working on the posts of Receptionist since the years from 1980, 1995, 1996 and 1998 onwards. They were also given the benefit of revised pay scale in the revised pay grade Pay Band-I Rs.5200-20200+Grade Pay Rs.2400, which was equivalent to the UDC grade consequent upon the acceptance of the recommendations of the VI Central Pay Commission (VI CPC, for short) by the respondents. Since there were no adequate avenues of promotion to highe...
Ms. Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India, Cabinet Secretariat
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
JusticeS.C.Sharma, Acting Chairman: Instant Original Application has been instituted for the following reliefs: “(A) Forbear the Respondent from proceeding against the Applicant in any manner on its allegation that she was unauthorizedly absent from 29.08.08 - 26.11.09 in view of its failure to comply with the order dtd. 28.04.11 of this Hon’ble Tribunal in OAs No.1665/10 and 1967/10. (B) Direct that in view of (i) its failure to comply with the order dtd. 28.04.11 of this Hon’ble Tribunal in OAs No.1965/10 and 1967/10; (ii) the findings in 18 pages of the report of enquiry into the Applicant’s complaint on sexual harassment supplied to her vide order dtd. 04.07.11 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.1257/10 and (iii) the material on record, the Respondent must drop recovery claims from the Applicant’s pension made vide its order n.2/20/92-Pers.5-8681 dtd 10.05.10 and immediately regularize the period of Applicant’s alleged unauthorized a...
M/S. Schankar Clearing and Forwarding Vs. Commissioner of Customs Delh ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
Per D.N. Panda (for the Bench): 1. These matters were heard this matter for two days, i.e. 10.5.2012 and 11.5.2012. 2. Appeal No. 582/11 was filed before the Tribunal challenging Order dated 12.10.11 passed by learned Commissioner ordering immediate suspension of the CHA licence of the appellant based on evidence gathered during preliminary investigation with consequence of suspension under law. Soon after passing such order, ld. authority proceeded to pass another order on 20.1.2012 confirming the above suspension till the proceedings contemplated against them under Regulation 22 of CHA Licensing Regulation are completed. 3. During pendency of appeal No. 582/11, against the order dated 20.1.2012, the appellant again came in appeal to Tribunal which was registered as in appeal No. 129/12. Prima facie, we find that appeal No. 129/12 is against the order of suspension absolute and calling for disposal, appeal No. 582/11 became infructuous for which that is dismissed. We order accordingl...
Corporation Bank Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. These appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment inasmuch as facts and issues are more or less the same. For the sake of convenience, facts pertaining to RFA No.490/2004 are stated. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff-bank filed a suit for recovery against the appellant-bank for a sum of Rs.8,14,007/- alongwith interest at 16% per annum by pleading that the appellant/defendant no.1 acting as the collecting bank for its customer/defendant no.2, Bhupinder Singh, sole proprietor of M/s. Radha Trading Company, collected from the respondent/plaintiff an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- under the forged bank draft bearing no. RUG 071395 dated 25.5.1999 issued by the branch of the respondent/plaintiff-bank at Begum Bridge, Meerut, UP. The proceeds of the bank draft, which were collected, by the appellant, were credited to the account of the defendant no.2, and which amount was withdrawn on 27.5.1999. The bank draft was presented by the...
Army Welfare Education Society and Another Vs. Shalu Kataria and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
A.K. SIKRI,J. 1. This intra-Court appeal is filed by the Army Welfare Education Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’) and Army Public School run by the said Society. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.12.2010 in W.P.(C) No.4277 of 2010 thereby allowing the writ petition of the respondent No.1 herein and directing the appellants to issue an appointment letter in favour of the respondent No.1 for her appointment on regular post of Trained Graduate Teacher (English) in the school, pursuant to her selection by the Selection Board which selected her on 23.2.2008. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the sequence of events and facts in detail and it may not be necessary to reproduce all those facts. We would, however, like to take stock of the material facts in brief. 2. In December, 2007, the Society had advertised certain vacancies of Post Graduate Teacher/Trained Graduate Teacher/Primary Teacher (‘PGT/TGT/PRT’in short) in diffe...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Nirmala Kwatra and Oth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. These are two Cross Appeals, FAO 131/1999 has been preferred by the United India Insurance Company Limited; the Insurer of the vehicle No.DEA-5703 involved in the accident. FAO 412/1999 has been preferred by Smt. Nirmala Kwatra and Ors; the Claimants before the Claims Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. 2. In FAO 131/1999, Respondents No.1 to 5 are the Claimants, Respondent No.6 is the driver of the offending vehicle, Respondent No.7 is the registered owner and Respondents No.8 to 10 are stated to be the rightful owners. The dispute is with regard to the liability to pay the compensation and on the quantum of compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant shall be referred to as the Insurer. Respondents No.1 to 5 as the Claimants, Respondent No.6 as the driver, Respondent No.7 as the registered owner and Respondents No.8 to 10 by their respective names. 4. On the night intervening 05-06.09.1983, S.P. Kwatra (the deceased) who was working as Commo...
D.D.A. Vs. Videocon Industries Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. This Bench has vide judgment dated 14th November, 2011 allowed the appeal of the DDA by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge insofar as limiting the claim of the appellant DDA for unearned increase, to the rate of Rs.100/- per flat/floor space, and upholding the demand of the appellant DDA for unearned increase. While so upholding the demand of the appellant DDA, notice in para 13 of the judgment was taken of the argument of the respondent/Review Applicant that the appellant DDA while computing the unearned increase had considered the market rate / price, more than that declared by the Delhi Government from time to time. The said argument was however negatived by holding that the appellant DDA having itself from time to time published market price for the purpose of unearned increase and the demand on the respondent/ Review Applicant being in terms of the prices so notified, in the absence of any challenge to the said Circulars of the DDA, DDA ...
Driplex Water Engineering Ltd Vs. Delhi Jal Board and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
1. The challenge by the Petitioner, Driplex Water Engineering Limited, in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) is to an Award dated 31st January 2006 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator, Respondent No. 2 in the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 Delhi Jal Board (‘DJB’) arising out of the award of work of supply, installation and commissioning of the electrical and mechanical equipment in respect of the effluent pumping station at the sewage treatment plant of DJB at Okhla, New Delhi under a contract agreement dated 18th August 1987. The completion period of the work was 13 months reckoned after expiry of seven days of issue of work order. The stipulated date of start of work was 3rd October 1987 and the completion date was 2nd November 1988. 2. With disputes having arisen between the parties, the Petitioner invoked arbitration clause. By an order dated 14th December 1992 the Commissioner of the M...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »