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.
M/S. BraIn Bridge Advertising and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Ambica R ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
MANMOHAN, J. (Oral) 1. Present winding up petition has been filed under Section 433(e) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 stating that respondent company is unable to pay its debts allegedly amounting to Rs.1,18,12,836/-. 2. It is stated in the petition that respondent company placed various orders for release of advertisements in various newspapers all over India on the petitioner company, who in turn raised its bills on the respondent. Ms. Sujata Kashyap, learned counsel for petitioner states that till 2007, the aforesaid amount was due and payable by the respondent to petitioner. 3. To prove that the aforesaid debt is an admitted one, Ms. Sujata Kashyap, relied upon page 456 of the paper book to show that respondent company itself on 28th July, 2007 had admitted that an amount of Rs.1,07,17,568/- was due and payable to the petitioner by the respondent. The aforesaid letter written by the respondent to the petitioner is reproduced hereinbelow:- “28.07.07 ...
Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Another Vs. the Govt. of Delhi, Through Chief S ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. This case has a chequered history. Earlier the applicants have filed Writ Petition No.193/2009 before the High Court of Delhi against their non-selection to the posts of Staff Nurse in MCD and Health andFamily Welfare Department, pursuant to the advertisement against post code 071/07. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 1.10.2010 holding that the action of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioners in OBC category cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or unjustified, as the applications submitted by the petitioners were not accompanied by the OBC certificates issued by the competent authority of the Government of NCT of Delhi and they have not even applied for the same before the cut off date for submission of the applications. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in LPA No.902/2010 and the Division Bench vide order dated...
Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi Through Chief Secretary ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. On the issue of applicant’s claim for promotion on adhoc basis to the next higher post, this is his one more round of litigation. Earlier, in the OA No.3851/2010, he approached this Tribunal with the prayers to consider him for promotion to the post of Joint Director (Technical) on ad hoc basis and the OA was decided on 5.4.2011 in following terms :- “2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been pleaded that the case of the applicant for promotion on ad hoc basis to the post of Jt. Director (Technical) has been referred to the Services Department to consider as to whether he can be given ad hoc promotion. 3. At this stage, we only direct the respondents to expedite consideration of the applicant for ad hoc promotion on the post of Jt. Director (Technical). They will deal with the matter expeditiously and preferably within eight weeks from today. The OA is disposed of. No costs.” 2. Pursuant to the above dir...
Ashok Kumar Vashisht Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda: 1. Shri Ashok Kumar Vashisht, the applicant in the OA, joined as Junior Assistant on 05.02.2009 with andhra Pradesh Police and was promoted there as Senior Assistant on 27.05.2004 and he was posted in the 13th Battalion of APPSP, Mancherial. In response to the advertisement of National Investigating Agency (NIA in short) issued in April 2010 to fill up posts of Sections Officer (S.O.), he applied for the said post. The said advertisement/Circular inter alia indicated that the applications should be routed through proper channel accompanying the copy of documents like Bio-data, Annual Confidential Reports for five years, Disciplinary/Vigilance Clearance/Integrity Certificate and details of major and minor penalties imposed during the last ten years. It is the case of the applicant that Inspector General of Police (PCA) in his letter dated 25.08.2010 (page 18) addressed to the Director General of Police, andhra Pradesh informed that as the applicant was willing ...
Vijay Dhankar and Others Vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nct of Delhi 9t ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
S.C. Sharma: 1. All the above OAs involved the same controversy, have been instituted in order to challenge the validity of Rule 6(2) of Delhi Health Service Rules, 2009. OA No. 1453/2010 and OA No. 1048/2010 have been instituted in order to challenge the provisions of Rule 6(2) regarding inclusion of ad hoc/contractual appointed doctors in different government hospitals because it has been mentioned in Rule 6(2) that the doctors, who were appointed on or before 18.12.2006, will form the constitution of the cadre and these applicants-doctors were appointed in the Central Health Services cadre after conducting due process of selection by the UPSC; whereas ad hoc/contract doctors were appointed by Government of NCT of Delhi without following the normal procedure through UPSC. OA No. 1259/2011, OA No. 1209/2011 and OA No. 3936/2011 have been instituted by ad hoc/contract doctors appointed after 18.12.2006 and prior to 23.12.2009. Hence with the consent of the parties, and in order to avoi...
M/S Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vesus Cce, Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
Per. Justice Ajit Bharihoke: 1. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of lead and zinc concentrate classifiable under Chapter 26 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants awarded contract to job contractors i.e. M/s Aravali Construction Co. Ltd. and M/s Technomin Construction Ltd. for underground of mine development purpose. As per the contract, the appellant supplied inputs including capital goods such as explosives, detonators, lubricants, pipes, rods and steel plates etc. to the job contractor regarding which, the appellant availed cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 52,37,757/-. The department was of the view that those inputs were supplied by the appellant on chargeable basis as such it amounted to transfer of the inputs to the job contractors without the issue of invoice, for which, the appellant should have reversed the cenvat credit availed by them. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the...
Generation Engineers and Supervisors Association Thr. Its General Secr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
Suresh Kait, J. Oral: 1. Vide instant application, the applicant/respondent has sought the modification of the order dated 01.11.2011 passed by this Court and also sought clarifications - as referred in para No.6 thereto. 2. The order passed by this Court on 01.11.2011 is as under:- “In view of the above Respondents shall comply with the letter dated 5th August, 2010 of the Respondent/IPGCL to the Principal Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi subject to the petitioner withdrawing the present Writ Petition. The Respondents are directed to do so within a period of eight weeks from today. In view of above Counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn in the above terms. All pending applications also stand disposed. Copy of this order be given dasti to Counsel for parties.” 3. In the instant application, it is submitted that in another connected writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.797/2009, this Court had granted ad-i...
M/S. Gupta Tea Traders Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral) 1. The three Criminal Misc. Petitions bearing Crl.M.C.Nos. 530/2011, 1682/2010 and 1683/2010 have been filed by M/s Gupta Tea Traders; Naresh Gupta; and Om Prakash Gupta and Dinesh Kumar Gupta. 2. The case of the petitioners is that M/s Gupta Tea Traders (petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.530/2011) was a partnership concern with Mr.Naresh Gupta (petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.1682/2010), Om Prakash Gupta and Dinesh Kumar Gupta (petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.1683/2010) as partners. The partnership was dissolved vide dissolution deed dated 01.04.1993 and thereafter Naresh Gupta became proprietor of M/s Gupta Tea Traders and it became a proprietorship concern. The other two partners namely Om Prakash Gupta and Diniesh Gupta ceased to have any concern with the proprietorship concern of Naresh Gupta. 3. On 26.04.2004 at about 7.00 pm the Food Inspector purchased a sample of ‘Tea’, a food article from the petitioner Naresh Gupta which consisted of 750 grams (3 X 250 gram...
National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Parmeshwar Pra ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. This intra court appeal impugns the judgment dated 30th May, 2009 of the learned Single Judge allowing WP(C) No.162/1996 preferred by the respondent and setting aside the orders dated 8th June, 1995 and 13th/16th October, 1995 of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority respectively of the appellant, of removal of the respondent from the service of the appellant and consequently directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits and continuity of service. Notice of the appeal was issued and order of the learned Single Judge stayed. We have heard the counsel for the parties, respondent in person also and also perused the written arguments filed by the parties. 2. The respondent while working as the Senior Engineer/Deputy Manager (Contracts) in the corporate office of the appellant at New Delhi, was on 20th December, 1990 charged with having:- (i) during the year 1987-88 entered into an arrangement, for monetary consid...
Gaddal and Another Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
1. By the present petition, the Petitioners seeks setting aside of the order dated 24th February, 2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge upholding the order of conviction of the Petitioners passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the Petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 323/354/341 IPC read with Section 506/34 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 27th September, 2008 had sentenced the Petitioners to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months each for offence under Sections 323/354 IPC and Imprisonment for two months under Section 506 IPC. The petitioners were further directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,000/- each under provisions of 357 Cr. PC. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 2nd May, 2003 at about 10:30 p.m. near DDA Gate, Janta Flat the petitioners along with the co-accused Praveen with common intention voluntarily caused hurt to Prosecutrix and assaulted her with intent to outrage her modesty. All th...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »