Delhi Court May 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.
Havildar Shajan Thomas Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2012
BY CHAIRPERSON: 1. Petitioner by this petition has prayed for issuing directions to the Respondents to quash and set aside the age criterion fixed in Para 149 of the Regulations for the Army (1987) duly amended by Ministry of Defence Policy letter dated 4.5.1999, especially in the light of Army HQ letter dated 1.1.2010 so as to meet the ends of equity, justice and fairplay. Petitioner has also prayed to issue directions to the respondents to immediately send the applicant for NCC course and promote the applicant at par with his batchmates and pay all consequential benefits. 2. Petitioner was enrolled on 26.9.1986 as a Sepoy and with passage of time he was promoted to the rank of Naik and Havildar. However, since January, 1995, he is Havildar but he has not been promoted to Nb. Sub. despite qualifying in his promotion cadre in the first attempt, because he was considered overage for promotion on 6.4.2010 after having attained the age of 46. Petitioner aggrieved by this filed the presen...
Ex. Nk. Rohtas Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2012
S.S. Dhillon, Member. 1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings of 27th June 1992 as well as the rejection orders dated 27th June 1992 and 2nd January 1993 and 17th September 1993 whereby his mercy petitions under Section 164 of the Army Act were dismissed. 2. The Petitioner was enrolled in the Army as a Sepoy on 26th December 1974. After serving in the Army for 17 years he was chargesheeted on 22nd June 1992 and was Court Martialled on 27th June 1992 for an offence under Sections 36D and 40 (a) of the Army Act. The charge sheet is as reproduced below: CHARGE SHEET The accused NO. 7768790M (subs) Nk/MP Rohtas of 101 Area Provost unit is charged with:-First Charge Army Act Sec40(a)Using criminal force to his superior officer In that he, at field, on 18th June 1992 at 2040 hours when JC-153477L Sub (MP) Om Prakash Senior JCO of his unit ordered No. 7768158 F Hav (MP) S.N. Mehto to place him under close arrest start...
Hemant Kumar Rai and Another Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2012
ORDER Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. In both these OAs since the facts are common, even the counsel representing both the parties are common, therefore, with their consent both the OAs are being disposed of by a common order. For the purpose of narrating facts, OA No.3832/2010 is taken as a lead case. 2. Applicant has challenged order dated 28.9.2011 (page 18) whereby it was decided by the Chairman, National Technical Research Organisation (hereinafter referred to as NTRO), to repatriate him to his parent department with immediate effect. He has also challenged order dated 19.11.2011 whereby his request for continuing them in NTRO has been rejected. He has further sought a direction to the respondents to reconsider his recruitment on a direct recruitment basis or in the alternate direct the respondents to continue the period of deputation until absorption takes place. 3. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that an advertisement was issued by the respondents on 7-13 Apr...
Vir Singh Vs. the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan, New Del ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2012
ORDER (ORAL) : Justice S.C. Sharma, Acting Chairman : The instant OA has been instituted for the following reliefs:- “A)To direct the respondent to:- a)to stop the further deductions of Rs.1000/- per month from the Pension of the applicant immediately and to refund the illegal deductions made w.e.f. 18.3.2011 continuously every month as against the orders passed by the disciplinary authority was only the token cut of Rs.1000/- which covers the period from 18.2.2011 to 17.3.2011 only. The respondent be further directed to say the interest on the amount illegally withheld till date at the rate of 18% per annum till payment and to pass any other or further order, directions or relief in favour of the applicant and against the respondent which this Hon’ble court may deem just and proper under the circumstances of the case To award the costs of the present petition in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.” 2. Pleadings of the parties in brief are as follows....
Ludhiana Steels Ltd Vs. Cc, Amritsar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: 1. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Sudhir Malhotra, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent and Ms. Renu Jagdev, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue, I find that the appellant imported goods on 30.08.2000 and 30.09.2000 under the claim of benefit of Notification No.34/97 in terms of DEPB scrip purchased by them from one Beni Exports. 2. During the course of investigation, it came to light that Beni Export has procured the said DEPB scrip on the strength of forged/substituted shipping bills. Accordingly DEPB scrip were cancelled ab-initio by the Joint Director of Foreign Trade on 24.10.01.3. By the time, the DEPB scrip were cancelled, the import had already taken place. In view of the above, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) dtd. 31.10.02 proposing confirmation of demand of duty of Rs.1,29,089/- on the ground that imports stand made on the basis of DEPB scrip which were ...
Cce, Ludhiana Vs. Nand Mangal Steels P. Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri Sanjay Jain, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Sudhir Malhotra, ld. Advocate appearing for respondents. 2. It is seen that respondents who are engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots availed Modvat credit to the tune of Rs.2,58,455/- during the period 28.02.2000 to 06.12.2000 on the strength of invoices received from registered dealers namely M/s Adhunik Ferro Alloys and Nepa Steels India. The said two dealers had purchased the materials from Tata Iron and Steels Co. Ltd. (TISCO). 3. Proceedings were initiated against the respondents for denial of Modvat credit on the ground that the vehicle nos. mentioned in the invoices issued by TISCO are registered as scooters, tractors and motorcycles which were not capable to transport quantum of such huge scrap shown in the respective invoice. As such it was...
Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd Vs. Ajb Developers (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2012
V.K. SHALI, J. 1. These are two petitions filed by the petitioner u/S 9 and Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking a direction restraining the respondent company from transferring, mortgaging, creating any charge or lien on the share holding of the company and/or registering any transfer of shares or causing the same to be registered by the respondent company and from alienating, transferring, creating any third party right or interest, parting possession with and/or encumbering in any manner whatsoever with any of the immovable assets of the respondent company, as per and in accordance of MOU dated 7.12.2006 pending resolution of disputes or claims of the petitioner company in arbitration. So far as the petition u/S 11 is concerned, that is for appointment of an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in November 2006 the respondent company is alleged to have made a representatio...
Commissioner of Police and Another Vs. Vijay Kumar Malik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 7039/2012 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. WP(C) 3306/2012 and CM 7040/2012 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.02.2012 passed in OA 2481/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The respondent (Vijay Kumar Malik) had applied for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) Male in the Delhi Police. However, his candidature in respect of the said post was cancelled on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case pertaining to FIR No. 277 dated 20.08.2005 under Sections 302/148/149/120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station City Sonepat, Haryana. 2. It is an admitted position that the said Vijay Kumar Malik had disclosed his involvement in the said case in both the application form as also in the attestation form. In point of fact, the said Vijay Kumar Malik had already been acquitted on 17.10.2006 by the Juvenile Justice Board. Thus, there are two aspects to t...
Sh. Rakesh Kumar Vs. the Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. The petitioner is a member of Indian Foreign Service (IFS) and was on deputation with Indian Council of Cultural Relations (ICCR), as its Director General from 19.08.2003 to 12.09.2005. An FIR under Sections 420/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigations, on 27.02.2006. On completing investigation, the CBI filed a charge-sheet on 24.12.2007 against five persons, including the petitioner. A charge-sheet comprising the following charges was served upon the petitioner, vide memorandum dated 01.04.2008. “Article I: That the said Shri Rakesh Kumar, while working as Director General, Indian Council for Cultural Relation Relations (ICCR), facilitated empanelment of a bogus cultural group called “Mehak Punjab Di”. Article II: That the said Shri Rakesh Kumar, while working as Director General of Indian Council for Cultural Relations, illegally trafficked nine individ...
Dwarka Prasad and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Criminal law was set into motion on June 05, 1996, at about 10.00 P.M. when, as alleged by the prosecution, two boys who were taking Subhash (“deceased”) in a TSR stopped at a PCR van stationed at Maujpur Chowk and informed HC Naresh Pal PW-15, the in-charge of the van that Subhash had been shot and requesting he be taken to a hospital. Accepting the request and while on the way to GTB Hospital, HC Naresh Pal transmitted the aforesaid information to Police Control Room, which in turn informed PS Seelampur, where the duty officer recorded DD No.55B Ex.PW-19/A, to the effect that a person has been shot at premises bearing Municipal No.G-62, H Block, Street No.3, Seelampur situated near Mauni Baba temple. The aforesaid DD entry was marked to SI Ram Avtar PW-19, for investigation who was already at GTB Hospital. 2. On receiving a copy of the aforesaid DD entry, SI Ram Avtar made enquiries and learnt that the deceased has been declared dead at about 10.4...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »