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.
Attar Singh Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: 1. The applicant, an ex-Assistant under the Ministry of Defence has challenged the penalty of compulsory retirement on the charge of attempting to bribe an Officer for selection of certain aspiring candidates. The OA seeks the following reliefs:- “8.1 allow the OA and quash the impugned Memorandum of Charge dated 20.01.1999 (Ann. A-1), Penalty Order dated 31.08.2010 (Ann. A-2) and Appellate Order dated 14.03.2011 (Ann. A-3) with full back wages and all consequential benefits; and consequently 8.2 direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and release all the benefits including promotional benefits at par with junior counter parts as if no penalty was imposed upon the petitioner.” 2. The applicant and the respondents would be represented respectively by the learned counsels, Shri H.P. Chakravorti and Shri S.M. Arif. 3. A major penalty disciplinary proceeding under the CCS (CCA) Rule 14 was initiated against the applicant vide the Memorandum dated ...
Satish Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary and Other ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A): 1. The applicant, an ex-Assistant Teacher under the GNCTD has challenged the orders dated 18.05.2011 and 13.09.2011, respectively extending his period of probation for another year and terminating the services under sub-rule (1) of Rule-5 of the CCS (Temporary Service )Rules, 1965 after one month’s notice. By way of relief, the OA has sought quashing the aforesaid impugned orders along with declarations regarding the action of the respondents in this regard as illegal and a declaration for the applicant to be treated as a confirmed teacher. 2. The learned counsels Shri M.K. Bhardwaj and Shri B.N.P. Pathak would appear respectively for the applicant and the respondents. 3. The brief facts are that the applicant on being selected as Assistant Teacher (Primary) under the GNCTD had been issued the offer of appointment dated 31.12.2008. This was on temporary basis for two years, though likely to be made regular. It had also been stipulated that the appl...
Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Another Vs. the Govt. of Delhi, Through Chief S ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2012
M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 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 28...
V.K. Sayal Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Suit filed by the appellant praying that the order dated July 06, 2001 dismissing the appellant from service and the order dated September 18, 2001 dismissing the departmental appeal filed by the appellant be declared illegal as also the related enquiry proceedings and as a consequence order dated August 28, 2000 rejecting appellant’s application seeking voluntary retirement be declared illegal. 2. Relevant would it be to state that only declaratory reliefs have been prayed without any monetary benefits i.e. consequential reliefs, but no issue pertaining to the maintainability of the suit on said count was urged either before the learned Single Judge or before us in appeal. 3. Vide impugned order dated March 04, 2008, allowing I.A. No.1167/2007 filed by the respondents, invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on two grounds, the plaint has been held to be not maintainable. Firstly, that the suit was barred by limitation. Secondly, with res...
Som Dutt Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of order dated 5th February, 2008 dismissing him from service and order dated 31st March, 2008 passed by the Commandant, BSF 122 Bn dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of his dismissal. 2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the petitioner was enrolled as a Constable (GD) on 19.01.1988. The petitioner was posted in 122 Bn BSF. Later on he was placed under the Low Medical Category, CEE (T) for a period of six months w.e.f. 14th September, 1999. In order to facilitate the petitioner’s continued treatment, he was attached with the 25 Bn BSF, Chhawla Camp, New Delhi w.e.f. 6th December, 2001 to 17th November, 2004. 3. A complaint was made against the petitioner by Sh. Bhola Prasad Yadav, a civilian. Consequently, the petitioner was attached with the BSF Air Wing by order dated 23rd June, 2005 on disciplinary grounds. The complainant had stated that the petitioner had accepted money for providin...
Kashi Ram Pujari Vs. State of (Nct) and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2012
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. This is a complainant’s Appeal under the proviso to Section-372, Cr.P.C., preferred by the deceased’s father, who also deposed during the trial as PW-1. The Appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 31.03.2011 in SC No.183/2008 in which the respondents (hereafter referred to as “the accused”) were acquitted of the charges for having committed the office under Sections-498A/406/304B read with Section-34, IPC. 2. The prosecution’s case before the Trial Court was that the first respondent Aashish (hereafter referred to as “the husband”) married Deepa Tiwari on 02.03.2006. It was alleged that the marriage was a stormy one, in the course of which, Deepa was repeatedly harassed and treated with cruelty even to the extent of being denied food on account of demands made for dowry. The prosecution alleged that in 2006 on two different occasions, Rs.1,00,000/- was paid and that it was...
Shikha Sharma and Others Vs. Daljit Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2012
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. 1. Present appeal assails judgment and decree dated 31st August, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in a suit for partition, rendition of accounts and permanent perpetual injunction. 2. The facts as are necessary for the determination of the present appeal are as adumbrated below:- (i) The dispute revolves around a property belonging to late Shri Prem Singh Bedi, the father of the litigating parties. That his relations with his wife were not cordial is a fact not in dispute between the parties and that some children resided with their mother and the other with late Shri Prem Singh is also not in dispute. (ii) It is the case of the appellants that on the death of the father of late Shri Prem Singh Bedi in the year 1916, he became the Karta of a joint Hindu family having property bearing No.524, Mohalla Lotian, Bazar Ganj Gali Kotla, Peshwar City, Pakistan, which belonged to his father and devolved upon late Shri Prem Singh Bedi. (iii) It is the admitted case o...
Ram Saroop Gupta Vs. Major S.P. Marwah
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. The impugned judgment is dated 17.02.2011; the eviction petition filed by the landlord Major S.P.Marwah seeking eviction of his tenant Ram Swarup Gupta from the suit premises i.e. shop bearing No. 56-B, Khan Market, New Delhi had been decreed. The application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend had been declined. 2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). Premises had been tenanted out to the tenant; relationship of landlord and tenant has not been disputed. Grounds of eviction are contained in para 18 (a) wherein it has specifically been contended that the petitioner is the owner of the suit shop; premises had been leased out to the tenant; wife of the petitioner namely Smt. Afsana Marwah is a jewellery designer; the petitioner and his wife started a jewellery business at 297, Forest Land, Neb Sarai, New Delhi ...
Canon India P. Limited and Another Vs. Value Added Tax Officer and Oth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2012
SANJIV KHANNA, J. 1. The present writ petitions have been filed by Canon India Private Limited and Infres Methodex Limited. In the case of Canon India Private Limited, they have challenged the notice of default assessment of tax and interest issued under Section 32 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (Act, for short). 2. By an interim order dated 6th July, 2009 in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd., it was directed that there shall be stay of the impugned demand. The said interim order has continued. In fact, the writ petition filed by Canon India Private Limited was entertained as at that stage reference was made to the decision of the advance ruling authority i.e. Commissioner, Trade and Taxes, Delhi in the case of Ricoh India Limited. The said decision of advance ruling authority was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter was challenged in this Court in STA 6/2010. In STA 6/2010, we have examined the question whether or not multi functional printers are input or output...
Satram Dass and Another Vs. Charanjit Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2012
1. The appellants have challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby their claim petition has been dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. 2. On 17th November, 1997 at about 05:30 A.M., the deceased, Prem Kumar is alleged to have left his house for bringing milk on his two wheeler scooter bearing No.DL-8SG-0145. When the deceased reached JP Market T-Junction at Pitampura, he has alleged to have been hit by bus No.DEP-5399. A PCR van reached the spot and took the deceased to Hindu Rao Hospital but he succumbed to the injuries on the way and was declared dead by the doctor on duty in the hospital. The deceased was survived by his parents who filed the claim petition against the driver, owner and insurance company of the bus bearing No.DEP-5933. 3. The father of the deceased appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that the deceased was aged 20 years at the time of the accident. He proved the Senior Secondary certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW1/1. He further deposed that the dece...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »