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.
Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
R.V. EASWAR, J. These are three appeals filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is hereinafter referred to as the Act. On 28th November, 2011, we framed the following common substantial question of law:- “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the appellant-assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the activities undertaken by the appellant do not fall within Clause(d) of the Explanation defining the term infrastructure facilities?” 2. The appeals involve a short question regarding the entitlement of the assessee to the deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act. We are concerned with the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06. The assessee is a public sector undertaking, registered as a company under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and is functioning under the direct administrative control of the Ministry of Railways. It is engaged in the business of h...
Smt. Veena Lamba and Others Vs. Chairman, Ndmc and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. Seven persons had filed W.P.(C) 1853/2003 claiming promotion to the post of TGT in Navyug School where they have been working. There were another similar petitions filed by some more such Teachers for the same relief which are registered as W.P.(C) 621-26/2006. All these petitions were taken up together and decided by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 9.1.2006. The learned Single Judge vide this judgment dismissed the petitions holding that the petitioners had no right to claim the relief prayed for by them. Present appeal is preferred by five out of seven of those persons who filed W.P.(C) 1853/2003 challenging the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge. 2. Before we advert to the basis on which these primary teachers lay their claim for promotion to the post of TGT and the reasons given by the learned Single Judge denying this claim, we would like to take note of the basic facts. These appellants were appointed as Primary Teachers by the Navyug Scho...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Shankar Mandal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. MAC APP.94/2005 and MAC APP.117/2005 arise out of a common judgment dated 24.08.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs.2,61,000/- was awarded to the Legal Representatives for the death of Ram Kishore (MAC APP.117/2005) and Rs.17,000/- in favour of the first Respondent Ram Shankar Mandal (in MAC APP.94/2005) for suffering injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 16.05.1997. 2. The factum of accident, negligence and quantum of compensation are not disputed by the Appellant Insurance Company. 3. The sole ground raised in the Appeals is that the deceased Ram Kishore and injured Ram Shankar Mandal were gratuitous passengers along with other passengers on tempo No.DL-ILA-0013, which was insured with the Appellant. The insurance policy did not cover the liability of any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle except the owner or representative of the owner of the goods carried in the goods vehicle. The Cl...
M/S. Radiant Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Insurance Regulatory and Developme ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 21.09.2010 of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.3911/2010 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition was filed impugning the order dated 30.04.2010 of the respondent No.1 Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDA); the appellant in the alternative sought a direction to the respondent No.1 IRDA to register the appellant under the relevant provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 as amended by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999. 2. The appellant pleads: (i) that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine vide Resolution dated 17.09.1997 made it obligatory for foreigners visiting Ukraine to have medical insurance; the said Resolution was passed with the object of rendering medical aid to foreign citizens temporarily in the territory of Ukraine; (ii) Ukrinmedstrakh, a Ukrainian company was granted exclusive licence by the Government of Ukraine for providing such obligatory medical...
Mcd Vs. Raj Kumar and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
A.K. SIKRI,J. 1. In both these appeals common issue is raised namely promotion from the post of Garden Chaudhary to Section Officer. As per the MCD, the workmen in both the cases do not fulfill the eligibility conditions and were given promotions. For convenience, we take note of facts in LPA 78 of 2012. 2. By this intra court appeal preferred by the appellant Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), filed under Clause 10 of Letter Patents Act, the MCD questions the validity of judgment dated 2.12.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (C) 11737/2009 which was preferred by the MCD challenging the Award dated 24.3.2009 rendered by the Industrial Tribunal-I in favour of the respondent workman herein. Vide the said Award, the Industrial Tribunal has held that the workman is entitled to be promoted from the post of Garden Chaudhary to that of Section Officer from the date when the juniors to him were promoted. He was granted consequential benefits including mon...
Indian Instt. of Public Opinion Pvt Ltd. and Others Vs. Life Insurance ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The intra court appeal subject matter of LPA 9/2012 impugns the order dated 23rd December, 2011 of the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) No. 8987/2011 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 12th December, 2011 of the District Judge exercising the powers as an Appellate Authority under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 2nd September, 2011 of the Estate Officer of the respondent LIC of eviction of the appellant from the premises admeasuring 3476 sq ft. on the ground floor of Jeevan Tara Building, 5 Parliament Street, New Delhi of the respondent LIC and of assessing damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 200/- per sq ft. per month for the period from 16th August, 2009 since when the appellant was found to be in unauthorized use and occupation of the said premises. The order of the learn...
icici Lombard General Insurace Co. Ltd Vs. Swatantrata Sharma and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs.14,19,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the injuries suffered by Swatantrata Sharma, the First Respondent in a motor accident which occurred on 04.02.2009. 2. The only ground of challenge is that out of an amount of Rs.11,50,000/- awarded towards medical treatment, special diet and conveyance, a sum of Rs.4,35,000/- was reimbursed to the First Respondent under the mediclaim policy. 3. It is urged that the said benefit having accrued to the First Respondent on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the same was liable to be deducted from the cost of treatment paid to the First Respondent. 4. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel for the First Respondent that an amount of Rs.4,35,000/- was paid by the Insurance Company on account of obtaining a mediclaim policy for which the First Respondent paid the premium. The Appellant being a tortfeaso...
Shri Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Mini ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicants had filed OA-2441/2009 before this Tribunal, whereby the applicants had made a grievance regarding ad hoc promotions made vide the impugned order dated 240.07.2009 against direct recruitment quota. The said OA along with OA No.2098/2009 was disposed of by this Tribunal on 2nd July, 2010 by a common judgment. At this stage, it will be useful to quote paras 5and6 of the said judgment, which thus read: 5. At this stage in the arguments, the learned counsel for the Respondent-NDMC has made the following statement at the Bar: (a) the promotion made in the impugned order dated 24.07.2009 are against the direct recruitment quota; (b) these promotions have been made in the exigency of the Commonwealth Games to be hosted in Delhi in October 2010; and (c) ad hoc promotees would not be regularized. She has further stated that after the Games are over, the matter regarding promotion would be taken up as per Ru...
Ram Kumar Gupta Vs. Mcd and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
(ORAL) Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): Applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: “(i) To declare the action of the respondents in not giving promotion to the applicant to the post of School Inspector (General), AEO and DEO at par with his Junior namely Sh. H.C. Narula as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to promote the applicant to the aforesaid post from the date of Sh. B.C. Narula and give other financial benefits including selection grade as well as arrears of pay on account of aforesaid promotions. ii) To allow the O.A. with costs. iii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant.” 2. As can be seen from the relief clause the grievance of the applicant is regarding grant of promotion to the post of School Inspector (General), AEO and DEO at par with his junior, namely Shri B.C. Narula and to grant him other financial benefits, including selection grade as well as ar...
R.N. Ravi Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affai ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
Justice S.C. Sharma, Acting Chairman: Instant Original Application has been instituted for the following reliefs: “i. Direct the Respondent to grant the applicant the apex pay scale of Rs.80,000/- w.e.f. 19.05.2011. ii.Passany other order that is deemed fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. Pleadings of the parties may be summarized as follows: It has been alleged by the applicant that he is an IPS officer of 1976 batch (Kerala cadre) and came on deputation to the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, as Deputy Inspector General in November, 1991. The applicant is due to retire on 30.04.2012 and holding the post of the rank of Director General of Police. Services of the applicant are governed by the guidelines dated 15.01.1999 issued by the respondent No.1 as regards promotion to senior scale, junior administrative grade, selection grade, super time scale and above super time scale. The said guidelines provide ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »