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.
Dev Dutt Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Its Commiss ...
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 applicant had filed Writ Petition No.579/2005 against the order of dismissal dated 15.10.1999. The said Writ Petition was transferred to this Tribunal, which was registered as TA No.1223/2009. This Tribunal vide order dated 15.12.2009 directed the Commissioner, MCD to treat the said TA as supplementary revision of applicant and dispose of the same by a reasoned order to be passed within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant to the direction given by this Tribunal the respondents have again passed the order dated 07.06.2010, thereby enclosing a detailed speaking order, upholding the order of the disciplinary authority dated 15.10.1999, inflicting the penalty of dismissal from service with a modification to the extent that penalty of dismissal from service shall not be a disqualification for future employment. It is this order, which is under challenge in this OA and t...
Shri Mohan Lal Vs. the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has sought the following relief:- “(b)Pass an order directing the respondents to fix applicant’s seniority position in the grade of clerk, senior clerk and head clerk by giving him the benefit of the two judgments dated 5.3.1987 and 31.10.90 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in T.A. No.136 of 1986 and O.A. 531 of 1989, by treating him a regular clerk in the year 1981 and assign him seniority in those grades at least above Shri Mahabir Singh whose date of appointment in the grade of clerk is 6.3.1982; Quash order dated 17.4.96 issued by respondent No.2 and direct the respondents to re-evaluate his answer-sheets and call him for interview, if he is found successful on re-evaluation; In the alternative direct the respondents to declare the result of written test in respect of the applicant after adding Notional Seniority marks at par with his juniors Shri Mahabir Singh and Shri Veer Pal Singh and then call him for interview for the...
Mahavir Singh Vs. Chairman, Delhi Transport Corporation, Delhi I.P. Es ...
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 call for records and quash the orders dated 21.01.2003, 17.02.2003 and 24.08.2011, which have been made not only on erroneous ground but are in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (ii) To quash the departmental proceedings initiated against the Applicant as the same has been conducted in violation of rules of the land and in violation of principles of natural justice.”2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant while working as driver at DTC Depot-II, Hari Nagar was proceeded departmentally and ultimately vide impugned order dated 21.01.2003 (Annexure A-1), respondent No.3 imposed the punishment of stoppage of next due two increments with cumulative effect. The order passed by the disciplinary authority (DA) was challenged by filing an appeal and the respondent No...
Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S Agarwal Marbles and Industries Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
Ajit Bharihoke, J. 1. This is departmental appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 302(M.P.M.) CE/JPR-I/2004 dated 13.09.2004 whereby he accepted the appeal of the assessee and set aside the impugned order in original. 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that M/s Agarwal Marbles and Industries, Jaipur, the respondent herein are engaged in manufacture of marble slabs, marble tiles and polished marble tiles falling under heading 2504 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. In the evening of 27.08.2001, the team of excise officer paid a surprise visit to the unit of the assessee and conducted physical verification of the stock of finished goods and documents relating to production and clearance of goods. This exercise continued till the evening of 28.08.2001. On scrutiny of daily stock account and other documents, it was found that stock available at the premises was in excess to the extent of total 1152.613 sq. mtr. ...
Mahender Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. An interesting question as to the interpretation of Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises in this case as while awarding a compensation of Rs.1,83,000/- in favour of the Second Respondent, recovery rights were granted against the Appellant owner of the TSR No.DL-1W-0025. It is alleged that the TSR was involved in the accident which occurred on 25.03.2006 resulting in the death of Naushad, a bachelor aged 24 years. 2. A Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was preferred by the Second Respondent claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of her son. The Respondent No.2 examined ASI Krishan Kumar, P.S. Sultanpuri, IO of the case in FIR No.444/2006 registered in respect of the accident. His testimony regarding involvement of the vehicle (DL-1W-0025) was not challenged in the cross-examination by the Appellant. The Claims Tribunal returned a finding that the accident was caused on account of use of veh...
P.K. Bajaj and Another Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
1. Vide this common order, Crl.M.C. No.646/2012 and 647/2012 are being disposed of as identical pleas have been raised in both the petitions in respect of different dishonoured cheques i.e. cheques No.356793 and 356794 (subject matter of Crl.M.C. No.646/2012) and cheque No.356795 (subject matter of Crl.M.C. No.647/2012). 2. The present petitions under Section 482 CrPC have been filed impugning the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.37/2011 and 38/2011 vide which prayer of petitioners to quash the complaint and summoning order was declined. 3. Vide impugned order, learned Addl. Session Judge dealt with all the contentions raised in the revision petition challenging the summoning order and after rejecting the same, it was further held that some of the contentions like complainant is a professional money lender or the transaction is barred under Punjab Money Lender Act were subject matter of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the summoning ord...
M/S. Media Asia Private Limited Vs. Prasar Bharti and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (ORAL) 1. The respondent filed an application under section 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the original side of this court which was registered as AA No.203/2000. The said application makes a reference to an agreement dated 13.01.1995 entered inter se the parties giving the appellant a status of accredited advertising agent w.e.f. 01.02.1995. It is also the say in the application that from January, 1995 to October, 1997, the appellants’ programme “Ek Se Bad Kar Ek’ was telecast on the National network of DD-1. The appellant failed to pay the bills raised by the respondent form time to time. As against the total billing amount of Rs.12,37,15,132/-, the appellant paid only a sum of Rs.11,14,73,075/- leaving an outstanding balance of amount of Rs.1,22,42,057/-, which has not been paid despite repeated request, including a legal notice. There was no response to the legal notice. 2. Disputes having arisen between the part...
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sh. Darshan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 7.4.2004 by which the trial court decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.12,87,500/- with interest @ 15% per annum against the appellant/defendant-bank on account of alleged illegal debit entries in the saving bank account no.6702 maintained by the respondent/plaintiff with the appellant/defendant-bank. 2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff were that he was maintaining a saving bank account no.6702 with the appellant-bank. It was pleaded that various withdrawals and debits were illegally made by the appellant/bank in this account over a period of time. The respondent/plaintiff claims that when appellant-bank wrote to him a letter dated 12.2.2002 it transpired that there were a total of four illegal debit entries in his account i.e. for ...
Sandeep Rana Vs. Surender Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 24.4.2004 decreeing the suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent/plaintiff for Rs.4,25,499.25/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum simple. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for recovery of monies against the appellant/defendant on the ground that the appellant/defendant after receiving goods had issued a cheque for payment of the amount of Rs. 4,25,499.25/-, but the same was dishonoured when presented. Accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff got issued a legal notice through his counsel, which having failed to yield desired results, the subject suit came to be filed. 3. The suit of the plaintiff was originally filed under Order 37 CPC and in which after grant of leave to defend the appellant/defendant filed his written state...
Suresh Chand and Another Vs. Ram Pal Yadav and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appellants who are the parents of deceased Manoj Kumar, a minor child of 13 years and a student of 6th standard, seek enhancement of compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for his death in a motor accident which occurred on 17.12.1994. 2. The Claims Tribunal after relying on judgment of various High Courts opined that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- is just and reasonable compensation for death of a child. The Claims Tribunal added Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses to grant an overall compensation of Rs.52,000/-. 3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the Appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment in R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal, 2009 (8) Scale 451. 4. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company that this accident took place in the year 1994. The compensation of Rs.52,000/- w...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »