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.
Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Another Vs. Am Bilas Mehto ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL) CAV 516/2012 inWP(C) 2975/2012 The learned counsel for the caveators/ respondents is present. The caveat stands discharged. WP(C) 2975/2012 and CM 6422/2012 and WP(C) 3030/2012 and CM 6542/2012 1. These writ petitions are directed against the common order dated 04.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA Nos. 4094/2010 and 4096/2010. As a result, we are disposing of the said writ petitions by a common order and / or judgment. 2. The respondents in both the petitions had initially been appointed as T-1/ Fieldman in Category – I with the petitioners. Subsequently they were promoted to the Grades of T-2 and T-1-3, all within Category – I. They were in the Grade of T-1-3 with effect from 01.01.1994. At that point of time, they were governed by the Technical Service Rules which were existing and which we shall now designate as the Old Technical Service Rules. In the year 2000, to be precise, on 03.02.20...
Champa Gulati Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2012
(Oral) 1. Vide instant petition, the petitioner impugned the order dated 28.11.2008 (A-1) passed by respondent No.2. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is 65 years old widow lady and her late husband was working as Stenographer, who died in harness on 04.05.1989. Petitioner is a family pensioner beneficiary and is entitled for medical facilities from the respondents under CSMA Rules. 3. On 26.05.2008, petitioner was residing in Adarsh Nagar, Delhi,became seriously ill, thereafter admitted in emergency in the nearest hospital i.e. Max Health Care, Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. She was diagnosis for diabetes, mellitus, septicaemia, shock, cholelithiasis and thereafter, discharged on 09.06.2008. The concerned hospital issued the emergency certificate as well as minimum facilities provided certificate. The total expenditure was `1,63,986/- and the said amount was paid by the petitioner at the time of her discharge as per hospital ...
Tushar Goel and Another Vs. Mukesh Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. These two Appeals are for enhancement of compensation awarded in favour of Appellant Tushar Goel (MAC. APP. No.46/2009) and Appellant Shefali Goel (MAC. APP. No.65/2009) of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively for having suffered injuries in an accident which occurred on 01.06.2002. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) by an impugned judgment found that there was contributory negligence on the part of Rakesh Goel, driver of the Car No.DL7C-A-2877 and the Respondent No.1 driver of Car No.HR 02-H-9912 in the ratio of 50:50. Hence, while awarding a compensation of Rs.7,000/- in favour of the Appellant Tushar Goel and Rs.50,000/- in favour of the Appellant Shefali Goel, the Respondents were held liable to pay only 50% of the compensation. 3. In MAC. APP. No.64/2009 titled Rakesh Goel v. Mukesh Kumar and Ors. decided by a separate order today, I have already held that the judgment of the Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra dated 26.04.2005 on ...
Mange Ram Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2012
ORDER 1. Eviction of the petitioner from land within Purana Qila, a centrally protected monument at Mathura Road in New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as subject land) is under challenge in this writ petition. In proceedings under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the petitioner’s eviction by the Estate Officer has been upheld in appeal vide order of 8th February, 1989 (Annexure F), which is impugned herein. 2. Petitioner claims to be a Mahant of Sri Kunti Devi Mandir inside Purana Qila at Mathura Road, New Delhi and asserts that by virtue of order of 28th August, 1986 of the Civil Court, respondent- Union of India has been injuncted from dispossessing the petitioner from the subject land/mandir. In appeal, the stand taken by the petitioner was that the Mandir on the subject land is 5500 years old and is being maintained since the year 1880 by the great grandfather of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is that he is performing Puja in th...
Dr. Mahipal Singh Vs. Cbi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2012
1. By W.P.(CRL) Nos. 1555/2011 and 1556/2011 the Petitioner challenges the order dated 18th October, 2011 granting prior approval by the DIG CBI for invoking the provisions of Section 3 of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 ( in short the MCOCA) against the Petitioner in RC/219/2011/E0007 and RC/219/2011/E0008 as illegal. Vide W.P.(CRL) Nos. 242/2012 and 243/2012 the Petitioner challenges the order dated 30th November, 2011 passed by the Learned Designated Court remanding the Petitioner to judicial custody under MCOCA under Section 23(1)(a) in the abovementioned RC Numbers. Vide W.P.(CRL) Nos. 244/2012 and 245/2012 the Petitioner challenges the order dated 14th January, 2012 passed by the DIG CBI according prior approval for invoking the provisions of Section 3 MCOCA under Section 23(1)(a) in RC/219/2011/E009 and RC/219/2011/E0010 respectively. 2. The two principal contentions of learned counsel for the Petitioner are that for the same set of charge-sheet MCOCA has been i...
Rakesh Goel Vs. Mukesh Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs0.1,07,610/- granted in favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries in an accident which occurred on 01.06.2002. 2. There is twin challenge to the impugned judgment. Firstly, it is urged that the Claims Tribunal erred in holding the Appellant guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% and, secondly, that the compensation awarded was wholly inadequate. 3. As far as the first contention is concerned, I need not labour much. Admittedly, there was a head-on collision between a Tata Indica Car No.HR02-H-9912 driven by the First Respondent herein and another car Tata Indica No.DL7C-A-2877 driven by the Appellant. A Claim Petition was filed by an occupant of the Car No.HR 02-H-9912 against the Appellant as also the driver of the other car which came to be decided on 26.04.2005. The Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra presided over by Sh. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon returned a finding that there was neglig...
Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others Vs. Mukesh Vats and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL) Caveat No. 525/2010 in WP(C) No. 3038/2012 The learned counsel for the Caveators/Respondents is present. The Caveat stands discharged. WP(C) No. 3038/2012 and CM No. 6556/2012 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.01.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Original Application No. 1618/2011. 2. The respondents had filed the said Original Application as they had sought age relaxation on the ground that they were sportsmen. They had based their claim on two Office Memoranda (OMs) being OM dated 4.8.1980 and OM dated 12.11.1987, which, according to them, if read in conjunction with each other would entitle them to the age relaxation that they were seeking for the Group “B”Post of Teacher (Physical Education) bearing post code No. 18/10 advertised by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)...
Ms. Preeti Dass and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
ORAL: G. George Paracken, Member (J) 1. All the applicants in this Original Application have been serving in Dispensaries under Respondent No.3, namely, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi on contractual basis. In this OA they are seeking a direction to the respondents to release their salary at par with the regular staff working in similar post in the dispensaries and within the hospitals under Respondent No.1, namely, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. 2. Admittedly, their cases are covered by the order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 06.07.2011 in OA No.3419/2010 and connected cases. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:- “2. The issue is, in the particular facts and circumstances, whether the applicants, who are contractual employees, are entitled for ‘equal pay and allowances’ as granted to the regular employees performing the same duties. Earlier, the Full Bench of this Tribunal had considered t...
V.K. Wahal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secretary, Govt. of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
Sudhir Kumar: 1. The applicant of this OA is before us seeking extension of the benefit of Notification dated 29.01.2007 (Annexure A-7), which read with the order dated 23.2.2007 (Annexure A-8) has restricted the benefit of automatic re-employment to all retiring teachers to PGT level for a period of two years. He is aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2011 (Annexure A-1), which is not an order as such, but is information supplied to him under RTI Act, 2005, and the applicant has been allowed to file an appeal with the First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, 2005. Instead of filing the appeal under the RTI Act in respect of the information supplied to him through A-1, the applicant has rushed to this Tribunal with the prayer for being accorded the following reliefs:- “8 (i) quash and set aside the decision not to consider the case of the re-employment as conveyed under RTI Act through letter dated 29.12.2011; (ii) direct the respondents to extend the benefit of notification d...
Rohan Mehta and Another Vs. Shri V.K. Sharma and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
MANMOHAN,J. (ORAL): At the outset, Mr. N.K. Bhola states that a typographical error has crept in the order dated 30th April, 2012 inasmuch as the direction for attachment of personal bank account of Mr. Satinder Dutta, brother-in-law of Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, should be to the extent of 4 lakhs instead of Rs. 3.40 lacs. Accordingly, para 39 of order dated 30th April, 2012 stands corrected as under:- “39.Since the SFIO in its report has stated that Flat No.38, second floor, Jeevan Anand Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Pitam Pura, New Delhi was purchased out of the funds of JVG Finance Limited and the said property had been fraudulently sold by Mr. Satinder Dutta, brother-in-law of Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and the sale proceeds had not been deposited with the JVG Finance Limited, the personal bank account of Mr. Satinder Dutta is attached to the extent of Rs. 4 lakhs with compound interest @ 12% per annum.” CCP(Co.)17/2007 and CA 884/2012 CA 888/2011 in CP 265/1998 1. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »