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.
Budhiraja Mining and Constructions Ltd. Vs. Ircon International Ltd. a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (ORAL) 1. The respondent awarded the contract to the appellant for carrying out earth work for railway formation in construction of minor bridges in pursuance to agreement dated 06.12.1990. The contract contained an arbitration clause and in view of disputes arising inter se the parties, the appellant invoked the arbitration clause vide letter dated 01.04.1990. On account of failure on the part of the respondent to appoint an arbitrator proceedings were filed in court which culminated in the appointment of Justice P.K. Bahri (Retd.) as the sole arbitrator vide order dated 17.01.2001. The arbitrator made and published an award dated 23.05.2002 awarding a sum of Rs 6,04,807/- in favour of the appellant to be paid within two months from the date of the award failing which it was to carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Parties were directed to bear their own costs. 2. It is the case of the appellant that the award contained clerical mistakes which were requ...
Ashok Kumar and Another Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray, J. 1. Both the applicants are Demonstrators in the Army Cadet College, the Indian Military Academy under the Ministry of Defence. In pursuance of judicial directions they were extended benefits of the UGC pay scales (higher than the scale granted to the counterparts under the Central Government) at par with the teaching staff of the IMA. Admittedly, the applicants have been granted the UGC pay scales as below: Rs. 500-900 w.e.f. 1.1.1983 Rs.1740-3000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 (4th CPC) Rs.5500-9000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 (5th CPC) The subsisting grievance of the applicants is that at the time of pay fixation in the scale of Rs.1740-3000/-, it has mistakenly been done at the minimum of the replacement scale. 2. The present OA is fourth in the series. It challenges the respondent’s order dated 29.12.2006 passed in pursuance of the directions vide the Tribunal’s order dated 24.7.2006 delivered in the OA 1232/2005. On re-examination, the respondents have reiterated about the...
Shri Radhey Mohan S/O Sh. Kanahya Lal Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2012
ORDER: Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) : 1. The present TA is being considered afresh in view of the order of Honble High Court of Delhi in remanding the case to this Tribunal by quashing the earlier order passed by the Tribunal on 27th July 2009. It is relevant to take the extract of the judgment of Honble High Court passed on 11th August 2011 in WP(C ) No. 1309/2010 which reads thus: “1. Post levy of penalty of dismissal from service issue of payment of gratuity and leave encashment in respect of earned leave lying to the credit of the respondent became a subject matter of dispute. 2. Vide impugned order dated 27.7.2009 the Tribunal has held that leave lying to the credit as also gratuity has to be paid. 3. Rule 9(1) of the CCS Leave Rules 1972 reads as under:- “9. Effect of dismissal, removal of resignation on leave at credit Except as provided in Rule 39 and this rule, any claim to leave to the credit of a Government servan...
Subhash Chandra Vashishth Vs. the Institute of Chartered Accountants o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2012
1. This petition filed in public interest has been listed and is taken up for hearing on urgent mentioning. The petitioner, an Advocate, invites attention of this Court to the difficulties likely to be faced by the Differently Abled candidates in the examinations being held w.e.f. today by the respondent, The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). 2. It is pleaded that the Guidelines prescribing the procedure to be followed regarding granting of ‘Writer’and extra time to the Differently Abled Candidates taking the examination, are arbitrary and impractical and interfere with the right of the said candidates to take the examination. 3. Some of the conditions imposed for allowing the Writer are as under:- “(1). The Writer should have academic qualification lower than that of the candidate. (2). Physically handicapped candidates who are entitled to engage Writer will be required to engage Writer as per qualification specified below: ExaminationQualification ...
Ravi Bagai Vs. Clintus Network Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2012
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 dated 4.9.2010 granting conditional leave to defend to the appellant and to the consequential order dated 21.10.2010 decreeing the suit on account of failure to comply with the condition of payment of Rs.2,50,000/-. 2. The present appeal lies in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Wada Arun Asbestos (P) Ltd. vs. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, AIR 2009 SC 1027, which holds that once an application for leave to defend is dismissed, and a consequential decree is passed, appeal will have to be filed against the final judgment. In the present case, final judgment has been passed, and which is a consequential judgment decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff on 21.10.2010 and hence the present appeal. 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the present sui...
National Project Construction Corpn. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Jyoti Sarup Mittal ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2012
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04.12.2006 whereby, the objections of the appellant raised in OMP No. 248/2002 have been rejected. The impugned judgment thus, in effect, has sustained the award dated 23.03.2002, as corrected by order dated 19.04.2002, passed by the learned arbitrator, under Section 33(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act). The appellant had awarded to the respondent vide letter no. 7147605/122 dated 22.05.1990, work of construction of 37 dwelling units of different categories and a training hostel comprising of 120 rooms (hereinafter referred to as the contract). 2. The date of commencement as stipulated in the contract was 22.05.1990, with a time frame of 18 months indicated therein. Thus, the respondent was required to complete the execution of work assigned under the contract by 21.11.1991. There was, however, in fact a delay of approximat...
Dimension Next Infocom (P) Ltd. Vs. Samsung India Electronics Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the present application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of dues amounting to Rs.29,21,796/- with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% p.a. 2. The plaintiff submits that in paragraph 13 of the written statement, the defendants have admitted the email dated 30.09.2004 wherein the contents of the letter were - “Hi Sanjay, Rent would be stopped from October onwards. I suggest let me take a clarity and get back to you. Please do not continue with rent till then.” Thus, the plaintiff states that it was admitted itself by the defendants that rent was payable till October 2004. 3. The plaintiff further states that in paragraph 7 in the written statement the defendants, have admitted the arrangement of payment and also admits that bills were raised by the plaintiff on the defendants. The relevant extract from...
M/S. Hotel Waman and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2012
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 1. In respect of the captioned matters, we have before us two points of view expressed by two single judges of this court. The six (6) LPAs being LPA Nos. 952/2011, 33/2012, 34/2012, 35/2012, 36/2012 and 74/2012, are directed against order dated 02.06.2011 passed by Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar, while WP(C) No. 7150/2011 has been referred to us for adjudication vide order dated 27.09.2011 by virtue of an order passed by Mr Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw. 2. In so far as Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar is concerned, he allowed the writ petitions from which the present six (6) LPAs arise vide his order dated 02.06.2011, while Mr Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw having differed with the view of Dr Justice S. Muralidhar, as indicated above, after recording short reasons referred the said writ petition to the division bench for a final view in the matter. 3. The facts pertaining to the formation and the evaluation of the scheme promulgated by the Government of India (in short GOI), Departme...
Hc/Gd Omkar Singh Vs. Director General, Crpf and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has sought directions to the respondents to decide the statutory petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules. 2. The petitioner has disclosed that he was enlisted in the Central Reserve Police Force as a Constable on 17th May, 1991 and that he had been posted to different Battalions at different places. The petitioner was, thereafter, promoted as Head Constable on 3rd August, 2010. The petitioner has also disclosed that he went to the Group Centre, Rampur for depositing ammunition/collection of smoke tender to be handed over to GC Imphal which was a party of six personnel headed by Sub Inspector GM Pradhan. The petitioner further stated that after returning he had gone to a nearby place for taking out money from the ATM, from where he had withdrawn Rs.5000/-. On his way back he had a cup of tea from a shop and felt giddy and, thereafter, the petitioner found himself in a hospital. 3. The petitioner alleged that although no offence ...
Jagson International Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2012
ORDER 1. Jagson International Limited prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari and quashing of the notice dated 20.2.1997 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short). The said notice pertains to the assessment year 1989-90. 2. At the outset, we record that we are not required to resort to the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in DCIT v. G.K.N Driveshafts India Limited; (2003) 259 ITR 19(SC) because in the present case the Assessing Officer has passed the re-assessment order, impugning which the petitioner has succeeded before the tribunal and the addition made in the re-assessment order has been deleted on merits. The revenue has filed ITA No.753/2011 against the said decision of the tribunal. 3. The question and issue raised in the present writ petition pertains to whether or not jurisdictional pre-conditions mentioned in Section 147 of the Act are satisfied in the present case. 4. The reasons to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer on 20.2.19...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »