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.
N.M. Sehrawat Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Person ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
Sudhir Kumar: 1. The applicant, of this OA, is before us seeking the quashing of Office Order No.6333 dated 11.8.2011/12.8.2011 issued by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry proceedings against him. Through the impugned order, it was stated by the Enquiry Officer as follows:- “No. 6333 Deptt. Enquiry/10/EO-III/7315/ND dated 11/12.08.2011 Proceedings dated 11.08.2011 against N.M. Sherawat, Inspector (U/S), CBI/EOU-IV/N.Delhi. I. Whereas the Departmental Proceedings against N.M. Sherawat has been fixed on this day i.e. 11.08.2011 for further enabling the C.O. to submit the list of defence documents and defence witnesses if any but he did not attend the enquiry on this date also. Earlier this opportunity was given to him on 3.08.2011 and 5.08.2011 but again he did not attend the enquiry. The charged officer N.M. Sherawat, was also informed vide proceedings dated 5.08.2011 that after the proceedings dated 11.08.2011, regular enquiry will commence on day today basis. II. A...
Delhi Nurses Union (Regd.), Hq. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New De ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
JusticeS.C.Sharma, Acting Chairman: Instant Original Application has been instituted for the following reliefs: “(a) Summon the relevant records pertaining to grant of as well as revocation of the 3rd Financial upgradation under MACPS to Nursing personnel (ANS/DNS cadre) in various Central Government Hospitals in Delhi. (b) Quash and set aside the Office Memorandum No. A.11015/01/2011-N dated 9.12.2011 issued by the Respondent No.1. (c) Quash and set aside order No.3-2/2011-Admn.(III)N/SS1/2011 dated 20.12.2011 issued by Safdarjung Hospital (Respondent No.5) and order no. F.No.-23-2/NS (Admn.)/11/6858 dated 30.12.2011 issued by the Dy. Director Admn, DGHS, Lady Hardinge College and Smt. S. K. Hospital (Respondent No.6). (d) Issue appropriate orders directing the Respondents not to issue any further order(s) revoking the 3rd Financial upgradation in Grade Pay Rs.6600/- under the MACPS from the ANS/DNS cadre in PB-3 Rs.15600-39100 in Hospitals under the Central Go...
Krishna Kumari Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Its Chief Secretary, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
Sudhir Kumar: 1. The applicant of this OA was appointed against the post of a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT, in short) (Science-B) against the posts notified for the year 1983-84 by a Staff Selection Boarded headed by Respondent No.2. In that process of selection, 1492 candidates were selected for appointments on the posts of TGTs in various subjects, including Science-B, and it was specifically mentioned that the panel of selected candidates will remain valid till all the selected candidates were offered appointment. An offer of appointment was issued to the applicant in respect of this panel only four years later, through Annexure R-3 dated 29.1.88, and once she accepted the offer, she was offered the post of TGT Science-B through Annexure A-4 dated 08.02.1988. The applicant accepted this appointment through her letter of acceptance dated 11.2.1988 (Annexure A-5). 2. In the meanwhile, another process of selection had been undertaken by the respondents in the year 1986 in which also t...
Raghubir Singh Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology a ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. The review applicant has instituted the instant Review Application under Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 with prayer to review the order passed by this Tribunal on 29.11.2011 in OA No.1105/2010. 2. We heard Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the review applicant. 3. We are passing the order in the Review Application at the admission stage without issuing any notice to the review respondents, being fully aware that no prejudice would be caused to them. 4. Before we examine the contentions advanced by the learned counsel, we note that the RA attracts delay and latches. As per the CAT (Procedure) Rules, the RA must be filed within 30 days from the date of the order, which, in the present RA, means the RA should have been filed on or before 29.12.2011 but the RA has been filed in the Tribunal on 20.03.2012 after a delay of more than 75 days. However, the applicant moved th...
ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
PradeepNandrajog, J. Oral: 1. We remind ourselves of the opinion rendered by a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court reported as 1990 (Suppl) SCC 727 Wander Ltd. and Anr. v. Anton India Pvt. Ltd. : ‘While deciding intra court appeals against the exercise of discretion by a Single Judge, the Appellate Court would not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court of First Instance and substitute its own discretion, except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised either arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the Court has ignored settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. Appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle.’ 2. The appellant, in the business of running ‘Spas’ i.e. leisure hotels has two luxurious Spas; one in Mauritius and the other in India. The appellant is the registered proprietor of the service mark ‘ANANDA’ as also is the regist...
Deputy C.S.T.E. (Const.) Vs. Kshetrapal Singh Kushwaha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
P.K.BHASIN, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 27th April,2004 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court(‘CGIT’ in short) in I.D.No.12/92 whereby it has held the termination of services of the respondent-workman by his employer, the petitioner herein, to be unjustified and it has been directed to re-instate him. 2. The case of the respondent-workman was that he had worked with the petitioner from 12.12.1975 till 18.06.1976 and his services were terminated illegally by the petitioner-management w.e.f. 19.06.1976. The respondent had claimed that though he had been employed by the petitioner-management as a casual labour but on completion of 120 days of continuous service he had acquired the status of a temporary employee as per the Government instructions applicable to the petitioner-management and, therefore, his services could not be terminated without notice and assigning any reasons. It was the...
Maj Yash Pal Malik Vs. Rama Arora and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. Oral: I.A. No.8277/2012 (u/o XXXIX, R.1 and 2 CPC, by plaintiff) and I.A. No.8705/2012 (u/o XXXIX, R.4 CPC, by D-1 to 3) 1. The plaintiff has filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration/ cancellation of documents, with consequential relief of mandatory and perpetual injunction. The suit along with the interim application was listed before Court on 02.05.2012. The following interim order was passed:- “……Till the next date of hearing, the defendants are restrained from transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest or parting with possession of the suit property, i.e. bearing No.A-1/74, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. The defendants are also restrained from raising construction or changing the nature of the suit property till then…” 2. The case set-up by the plaintiff in the suit is that he along with his wife entered into an agreement to sell dated 04.06.2010 with defendant No.4, for the sale of the property in question f...
Narender Pal Singh and Others Vs. Govt. of India, Through Director Gen ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioners have sought the quashing of order dated 2nd February, 2007 passed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 correcting the seniority of respondent No.5, Sh. Bhanwar Singh, from serial No.1102 to serial No.1. The petitioners have also sought the restoration of the seniority of Head Constables (Dog Squad) to status quo ante. The petitioners have further sought directions to the respondents to convene a DPC meeting for promotion of the Head Constables (Dog Squad) to the post of ASI (Dog Squad). 2. By order dated 2nd February, 2007, the Director General, Railway Protection Force had revised the seniority of Sh. Bhanwar Singh, respondent No.5, Head Constable, RPF/BCTC from serial No.2847 to 583/A and had placed him between Sh. Ranjit Singh, s/o Sh. Charan Singh serial No.583 and Sh. Rajpal Singh, s/o Sh. Mohar Singh serial No.584. The present seniority of respondent No.5, as on 20th December, 2006, was revised from serial No.1102 to serial No.1. 3. The petitioners in the p...
Rajyashree Bhartia and Others Vs. Ashok Kumar Mehra and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 06.11.2007 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff Rajyashree Bhartia under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) seeking a clarification/correction in the judgment dated 21.04.1982 was declined. 2. Record reveals that the two suits were pending disposal before the trial Court which have subsequently been ordered to be consolidated. 3. The first suit being civil Suit No. 214/04/82 was filed by Madan Lal Mehra seeking a cancellation of a document i.e. an agreement to sell dated 28.05.1980 wherein his brother Ashok Kumar Mehra had been impleaded as defendant No. 4. The second suit was civil suit No. 78/05/03 which was a suit for specific performance filed by Rajyashree Bhartia against Ashok Kumar Mehra; it was qua the same agreement to sell dated 28.05.1980. In these proceedings, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code...
Vicky and Another Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. Oral: 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 80/08 registered under Section 323/324/341/307 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act at P.S. Vikas Puri. 2. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Anil who was the cousin of respondent no.2 and has passed away during the pendency of the case. It was stated in the FIR that on 22.03.2008 the complainant and respondent no.2 along with their maternal uncle were assaulted with a knife by petitioner no. 1 and 2. It was also submitted that gunshots were also fired by petitioner no. 2 at the complainant and respondent no.2. In the alleged attack, the petitioner no.2 also received bullet injury. The petitioners were arrested by the police and are in judicial custody since March 2008. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the trial Court and 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined. The case is now fixed for defense evidence. 3. It has been submitted by the...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »