Delhi Court June 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.
S.i. Rajinder Singh Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
ORDER Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): Pursuant to the dismissal of the applicant’s OA in limine on 07.04.2010 by this Tribunal, Shri Rajinder Singh, the applicant herein, moved the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi challenging the said order in WP(C) No. 5502/2010 which was decided on 18.08.2010 remitting the case to this Tribunal for fresh consideration and determination of issues raised in the OA. It would be just and proper to reproduce below the relevant part of the said judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, which reads thus: 5.The petitioner made a representation on 24.05.2007 praying that he be permitted to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement which request was rejected vide order dated 18.07.2007. Request of the petitioner to reinstate him by relaxing Rule 88 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 was not accepted as per the rejection order W.P.(C)5502/2010 Page 1 of 4 dated 08.12.2009 and this compelled the petitioner to move the Central Administrativ...
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Department ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
ORDER Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): The applicant, Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, a 1985 Batch of Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) Officer having put in 14 years of service was placed under suspension in 1999 subsequent to registration of two criminal cases against him and consequently getting arrested on two occasions once on 23.12.1999 and second time on 19.10.2000. However, the suspension order of the officer was quashed by this Tribunal in OA No. 783/2000 on 17.01.2003 granting opportunity to the respondents to pass fresh order as appropriate based on facts of the case and the second suspension order was issued almost back to back in the sense that the revocation of suspension was passed on 25.04.2003 and on the same day a fresh suspension order was issued. Since then the applicant has been continuing under suspension. It is the applicant’s case that against the said order he filed OA No. 1105/2003 which was dismissed. Against the Tribunal’s order he moved the Ho...
Mega Exim P.Ltd Vs. Cc, Amritsar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to redemption fine of Rs.2.50 lakhs and penalty of Rs.1.50 lakhs imposed upon the appellant. 2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant imported a consignment of heavy melting scrap and accordingly filed the bill of entry. The said bill of entry was assessed and duty of Rs.5,02,546/- was paid. 3. It is seen that the bill of entry was filed on 13.05.10. The appellant addressed a letter on 15.05.10 to the Revenue indicating that the imported consignment of heavy melting scrap may contain rerollable material to the extent of 80 MT as per information received by them from supplier. Accordingly they made a request to re-assessment and the differential duty works out to the tune of Rs.6,46,734/- was paid by them on 01.06.10. 4. The said consignment was examined and as per the report of the Chartered Engineer (CE), based upon eye estimation, the rerollable scrap was found to be around 172 MT.&n...
R. Vasudevan Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 25.02.2012, of the learned Special Judge, CBI whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 219 and 220 CrPC for a joint trial of FIR no. RC No. 1(A)/ 2010/ ACU-IX under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the “PC Act”) and FIR no. RC No. CBI/ ACU IX/ N.D. 3(A)/ 2009 under Section 7, 8, 12, r/w 13(2) PC Act and 13(1)(d) of PC Act r/w Section 120-B IPC registered with Police Station CBI/ ACU-IX/ N.D, New Delhi, was dismissed for the reason that both the offences are distinct and cannot be tried jointly. 2. The FIR no. RC No. CBI/ ACU IX/ N.D. 3(A)/ 2009 under Section 7, 8, 12, r/w 13(2) PC Act and 13(1)(d) of PC Act r/w Section 120-B IPC was registered on the allegation that the petitioner had demanded and agreed to accept illegal gratification of Rs. 7 lacs, while functioning in the capacity of Member, Company Law Board. On the basis o...
Hindalco Industries Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
1. Hindalco Industries (‘Hindalco’) [Unit of Birla Copper, a part of the Indo-Gulf Fertilizers and Chemicals Corporation Ltd. (‘IGCL’)] has filed this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenging the majority Award dated 12th July 2004 of the Arbitral Tribunal which adjudicated the disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. (‘IFFCO’) arising out of a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) dated 19th January 1999 for long term supply of phosphoric acid. 2. The MoU was for a period of three years commencing 1st January 1999 and ending on 31st December 2001. It was stated that if the extension of agreement was not agreed upon mutually by buyer or seller on or before 30th June 2001, the agreement would expire on 31st December 2001. The specifications of the Phosphoric acid were set out in Article 2.1.0. It was indicated therein that the ana...
Mohd Shamim Vs. Shahnawaz Khan and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
1. Vide orders dated 21.5.12 show cause notice was issued to the decree-holder Mohd.Shamim as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. Instead of filing any reply to the show cause notice the DH has filed his affidavit. In his affidavit he has tendered unconditional apology for inadvertently hurting the dignity of this court. Decree-holder in his affidavit has for the first time unequivocally admitted that compromise was entered into between him and the Judgment debtor and an amount of Rs. 1 lac was paid to him. The decree-holder has further deposed that the statement made by him in the mosque in the presence of independent public witnesses was the true and correct statement and the statements made by him in court before and after the statement made by him in the mosque are incorrect. The said affidavit filed by the DH is a clear admission of guilt on his part of giving a false statement on oath not once but twice in the court. Under what circumstances this court direc...
Clearwater Capital Partners India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Punjab National Bank an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
Facts in CS(OS) No.709/2012 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration seeking declaration that Pari Passu Deed dated 29.11.2011 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 is valid and subsisting and also seeking consequential relief of injunction. 2. The prayers made in the suit reads as under: “a. declare the Pari Passu Deed dated November, 29, 2011 executed by and between the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 as valid, subsisting and binding on both defendants herein; b. pass an order and preliminary decree directing defendant No.1 to disclose on affidavit the Lender B Debt (as defined under the Pari Passu Deed dated November 29, 2011) i.e. monies accruing in favour of defendant No.1 under the Lender B Finance Documents entered into by and between defendant Nos.1 and 2 from time to time for the facilities set out in Schedule 2 of the Pari Passu Deed dated November, 29, 2011 on February 7, 2012 being the Calculation Dat...
Atul Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. the Honand#8217;ble High Court of Del ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. This order proposes to deal with applications filed in the wake of an earlier ruling of this Bench in WP(C) No.4077-84/2004. The judgment had disposed of a long standing grievance of employees of the Junior Translators cadre which had led to their approaching the Court earlier in 1989 challenging the amendments to the Rules so far as it blocked their promotions to the cadre of Senior Judicial Assistant. Two writ petitioners in WP(C) No.1218/1989 (M/s Atul Kumar and .M. Beg) claimed that the amendments were arbitrary because Junior Translators were excluded from the feeder category for competing to the post of Senior Junior Assistant (SJA) and confined their promotional avenues to the cadre of Senior Judicial Translators, which contained only nine posts. The Division Bench in its earlier judgment dated 16.10.1998 (hereafter referred as `Atul Kumar- I’) held that the amendments impugned were void as offensive to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Di...
M/S. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACJ. 1. All these petitions, 52 in numbers, are filed by the same petitioner namely M/s Larsen and Toubro. The entire batch relates to the assessment year 2008-09 wherein the orders passed under Delhi Value Added Tax, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the DVAT Act) read with Delhi Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (in short ‘the DVAT Rules’) are questioned. The composition of these 52 writ petitions is as follows:- (a) The 3rd respondent i.e. VAT Officer, (Ward 202) has passed separate orders of assessment demanding tax and interest under section 32 of the Act and penalty under Section 33 of the said Act for each month commencing from April 2008 to March, 2009. This resulted in 12 assessment orders dated 02.02.2012 and 12 penalty orders dated 02.02.2012 challenged by way of 24 writ petitions. (b) The petitioners moved an application for rectification under Section 74B of the DVAT Act against both orders of assessment and penalty proceedings. The 3rd respondent, passed ...
Sanjay Gambhir Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. The petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No. 43/2011, under Sections 409/420/120B IPC, registered with Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime Branch, New Delhi. 2. The allegations against the petitioner are that he being the Director of M/s. D.D. Infrastructure, New Delhi along with the co-accused persons had launched certain projects of development of townships in Faridabad, Sonepat, Zirakpur and Mohali in the year 2005/2006 and had started receiving the booking amounts from general public for those proposed townships of the accused company and other group companies. It is alleged that the amounts running into crores of rupees from the general public was collected fraudulently and dishonestly since none of the proposed projects was licensed or approved from the concerned authorities. The public at large was lured to part with their hard earned money based on the false and fraudulent misrepresentations, concealment of material facts and on false assurances by way of advert...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »