Delhi Court May 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
K.N. Sharma Vs. R.K. Singh Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. In the order of this Tribunal dated 14.11.2011 in OA No. 1887.2010 the impugned order dated 29.06.2009, wherein the applicant was inflicted with the penalty of 10% cut in monthly pension for a period of two years, was quashed and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order within a period of three moths in the light of the Tribunal’s observation. The pertinent part of the order is extracted below:- “7. Disciplinary authority in an ultimate analysis has held that the applicant has failed to discharge his duties properly and diligently and also failed to ensure that his subordinates completed all due processes before signing the certificate. Disciplinary authority has also held that the misconduct indulged in by the applicant would constitute grave misconduct. Even though in the findings given by the UPSC and the disciplinary authority, there is no reason as to why, despite the applicant may have be...
inspector (Exe.) Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India Through Secretary (Home ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. Inspector (Executive) Anil Kumar, the applicant herein, has instituted the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with following prayers:- “(i) Quash and set aside the impugned orders issued by Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide U.O. No.37102-104/CB-VII/PHQ dated 22.6.2011 as at Annexure A-1. Direct the respondents to consider the applicant for promotion to the next higher rank of ACP by ignoring the below bench mark grading in the ACRs for the period from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005, 1.4.2005 to 7.3.2006 and 3.9.2007 to 25.2.2008 as the same were not communicated to the applicant when D.P.C. was held in 2008 for promotion in MHA. Award the costs of the proceedings; and Pass any other or further order/direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case whi...
Dr. Md. Asrarul Haque (Scientist F (Retd) and Others Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. Six Applicants have jointly filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and prayed for the following relief(s) :- “(a) Allow the present OA and direct the respondents to consider for granting the antedate in situ promotions under FCS to the next grade to the applicants on their due date of respective eligibility, considering their residency period of services rendered by the applicants on respective posts. Further those applicants who were/are denied promotion/s and have already superannuated may kindly be considered for the deemed promotion on their respective due date of promotion and their pensionary benefits may be revised accordingly. (b) Direct the respondents to consider the cases of the applicant and extend the same relief as granted by this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA No. 2296/2009 (Annexure A-10) and granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Union of India and Anr vs. S.K. M...
T.M. Sampath Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Wat ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. Shri T.M. Sampath working as Administrative Officer in National Water Development Agency (NWDA), the applicant herein, has instituted the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Direct the respondents to disregard the ACR of the applicant for the period from 01.04.2003 to 29.09.2003 completely as if it had not been written for the reason that the Reporting Officer was prohibited from writing ACR of the applicant after 30.11.2004 OR direct the respondents to upgrade the grading to that of bench-mark level of ‘Good’ and consequently direct the respondents to re-review the review made on 22.01.2010 reviewing the original selection made on 19.02.2008 for selection to the post of Deputy Director (Admn.) in which the impugned ACR was considered; Allow the OA with exemplary cost. Pass any further orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may de...
Kumagai Skanska Hcc Itochu Group Vs. the Commissioner of Value Added T ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 02.02.2010 pertaining to the assessment year 2003-2004 primarily on the ground that the said show cause notice is barred by time. By virtue of the said show cause notice dated 02.02.2010, the petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why the assessment order dated 24.02.2005 in respect of the year 2003-04 be not revised under Section 16 of the Delhi Sales Tax on Works Contract Act, 1999 read with Section 46 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. 2. Before we deal with the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner on the point of limitation, it would be necessary to notice certain facts. 3. Earlier, as mentioned above, in respect of the year 2003-04, the Sales Tax Officer had passed an assessment order on 24.02.2005. As a result of the said assessment order, refund became due to the petitioner. Shortly thereafter, on 02.03.2005, the petitioner filed a refund cl...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Delhi Jal Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2012
P.K.BHASIN, J. 1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner-workman, who was employed as a Beldar with the respondent- Delhi Jal Board (erstwhile Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking), had challenged the award dated 12-11-09 in ID Case No. 118/2008 whereby the termination of services of the petitioner-workman was held to be legal and justified and therefore no relief was given to him by the Industrial Tribunal and also for the reason that he had raised the dispute after more than six years of the termination of his services. The petitioner-workman felt that he was entitled to be re-instated in service with continuity of service and full back wages and so he knocked the doors of this Court for getting that relief. 2. The petitioner–workman, as per his case, was employed as a beldar with the respondent-management on 01.06.1998 till his illegal termination w.e.f. 01.04.2000. He had approached the labour authorities for his re-instatement in service in the year 2006 b...
Kavita Meena and Others Vs. Government of National Capital Territory o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the common order dated 16.02.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OAs No. 3693/2010, 1200/2011 and 2468/2011 have filed these writ petitions. Some of the petitioners are those who have been selected for the post of Senior Lecturer with the State Council of Education Research and Training (SCERT)/District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), pursuant to the selection by the Committee, appointed under the relevant Recruitment Rules of SCERT. In some petitions, the petitioners are the Government of NCT of Delhi as also the SCERT. It is also understood that DIET is a part of SCERT. Consequently, indirectly DIET is also a petitioner in these writ petitions. Some of the respondents are those who were not selected and who had filed the said OAs. 2. The sole question which was there before the Tribunal was with regard to the composition of the Selection Committee which co...
National Insurance Company Ltd and Another Vs. Sanjeev Sherawat and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM APP.23369/2011 (delay) in MAC APP1162/2011 1. This is Cross Appeal to MAC APP.915/2011. There is a delay of 122 days in filing the Appeal. For the reasons as stated in the Application, the delay of 122 days in filing the Appeal is condoned. The Application is allowed. MAC APP.915/2011 and MAC APP1162/2011 2. These two Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 25.06.2011 passed in Suit No.80/10/07 whereby a compensation of Rs.11,66,718/- was awarded in favour of Sanjeev Sherawat (First Respondent in MAC APP.915/2011 and the Appellant in MAC APP.1162/2011) for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 26.06.2007. 3. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant in MAC APP.915/2011 shall be referred to as the Insurer and the Appellant in MAC APP.1162/2011 shall be referred to as the Claimant. 4. The Claimant who was a student of 10th standard on the date of the accident was proceeding on his two wheeler No. HPK-7200 from Delhi University...
Major Mahesh Bisht Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2012
1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner before the Honble Delhi High Court and it was transferred to this Tribunal after its formation. 2. Petitioner vide this petition has prayed that impugned Notification No. 16-27/2001-N1.1 dated 28.03.2002 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, be declared as null and void, inoperative and without force of law and same be quashed and set aside. He has also prayed that impugned Invalidating Medical Board proceedings dated 15.10.2000, the impugned show cause notice dated 15.10.2000 and order dated 11.02.2002 approving and accepting the medical board proceedings be also declared as null and void and same be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages and benefits of the rank held by the petitioner before acquiring the disability w.e.f. 24.03.2000. 3. The brief facts which have given rise to this petition are that peti...
Vir Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through the Chief Secretary New S ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2012
ORAL: G. George Paracken, Member (J) 1. The applicant is one of the Trained Graduate Teachers selected by Respondent No.2, i.e. the Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and included in the panel for the year 1984. Subsequently, after appointment of some of the candidates included in the said panel, the respondents have cancelled it and denied appointment to a number of them. Applicant was one among those candidates who have been denied such appointment. All those candidates have approached this Tribunal, Hon’ble High Court and finally the Apex Court vide judgment in Civil Appeal No.1900/1987 - Union of India and ors Vs. Ishwar Singh Khatri and Ors. The Apex Court held that all the selected candidates have a right to get appointment. 2. Thereafter, the applicant joined duty as Trained Graduate Teacher on 15.09.1989. He was later on promoted as a PGT Post Graduate Teacher and finally retired from service w.e.f. 31.01.2012. However, when his pension papers along with the ser...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »