Delhi Court July 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.
Jawahar Singh Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
M.L. Chauhan, Member (J). 1. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the applicant has filed OA No.1631/2012, whereby praying that the respondents may be directed to declare the result of Inspector of Posts examination and reserve one post of the Inspector of Post till disposal of the original OA. This Tribunal, while noticing the contention of the applicant that he had only qualified for the post of Postmaster Grade-I and not undergone induction training (para 4 D) and that there being several precedents where candidates joining Postmaster Grade-I had been allowed to join Inspector of Posts has also been made vide Ground I in the OA, directed the Director General (Posts) to pass a speaking and reasoned order, treating the OA as a supplementary representation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and inform the same to the applicant. Pursuant to the direction given by this Tribunal in the earlier OA respondents have passed the impugned...
D.S. Sharma Vs. the Lt. Governor (Delhi),through Chairman, Delhi and O ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
ORDER (ORAL) Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A): 1. Shri D.S. Sharma, a Junior Engineer under the DDA, is aggrieved at imposition of penalty of reduction of pay to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect. This is in pursuance of a disciplinary proceeding initiated under Regulation 25 vide the charge sheet dated 07.06.2007 alleging certain financial irregularities in execution of a specified work during the years 2004-05 and 2005-06. After the inquiry, in course of which the allegations were held as proved, the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 22.1.2010 imposed the aforesaid penalty. The appeal against the said order was rejected by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 09.02.2011. The applicant submitted a revision petition dated 12.5.2011 to the Vice Chairman, DDA against the order of the Appellate Authority. It is submitted in the OA that the respondents did not take any decision on his revision ...
Sanjay Vs. the Commissioner Kvs, Shahid Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Order (Oral): 1. The applicant who is a PGT (Hindi) Teacher is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents on the request made by the applicant for his transfer from Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV), Delhi Cantontment No.1 to KV Hisar Cantonment. Though he has given various representations which have been enclosed to the OA, the applicant’s request has not yet been considered. On the contrary, the applicant has been transferred from his hard station to Delhi Cantonment whereas his request is to be posted to Hissar where his wife is presently posted. The reliefs sought for by the applicant are as follows:- (a) To direct the respondents to modify the transfer of the applicant from KV Delhi Cantt. No.1 o KV Hisar Cantt. (b) To modify the order dated 04.06.2012 by transferring the applicant to KV Delhi Cantt. (c) To declare the action of respondents in not accepting even mutual transfer request of the applicant as illegal and arbitrary and issued necessary directions for ac...
Commissioner of Central Excise Meerut Vs. M/S. Bazpur Co-operative Sug ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Oral Order No Per Archana Wadhwa: 1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has remanded the matter to Asstt. Commissioner with direction to await the order of Commissioner on respondent’s remission application. Revenue’s application is on the ground that Commissioner has no power to remand. 2. Without going into the above legal question, I find that Tribunal has admittedly the power to remand. The Asstt. Commissioner has confirmed the demand against respondents without awaiting the decision of the Commissioner on remission application. Confirmation of demand was directly linked with the remission application. As such, it was clearly on the part of the adjudicating authority to await the decision and matter needed to be remanded back. As such, I direct the Asstt. Commissioner to decide the issue after the outcome of remission application. 3. Revenue’s appeal disposed of in the ab...
Lok Nayak Hospital Paramedical and Technical Employees Union Near MaIn ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. This OA has been filed by a Union of Paramedical and Technical employees through its General Secretary, with one of the members of the Union joining as the representative second applicant.2. The applicants are aggrieved by the Employment Notification issued through the Employment News 26 December, 2009-01 January, 2010, through which the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB, in short) has notified vacancies for the posts of Senior Radiographers in Health and Family Welfare (HandFW, in short) Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD, in short) Post Code No. 85 of 2009 and Junior Radiographers, Post Code No.86 of 2009 through Advertisement No.004/2009, in which the essential qualifications and pay scales have been mentioned as follows:- Name of the Post: Sr. Radiographer in HandFW, GNCT Delhi Post Code: 85/09 Number of Vacancies : 34(UR-19, OBC-09, SC-04 and ST-02 including EXSM-03) Essential Qualifications: 1. Matriculation/H...
Suraj Verma Vs. Sangeeta Chhabra and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant impugns a judgment dated 04.09.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs.29,39,000/- was awarded in favour of Suraj Prakash Verma for having suffered injuries in an accident which occurred on 09.09.1996. 2. On 09.09.1996 at about 7:00 A.M., the Appellant was standing outside his house No.A-37, Chander Nagar, Janakpuri. Respondent No.3 Ved Ram while driving tempo No.HR-47-4342 in a rash and negligent manner hit an electric pole as a result of which the pole broke down and fell on the Appellant’s head. He suffered head injury, partial avulsion and compound fracture of both bones of his right leg. He lost consciousness. The Appellant was immediately removed to Madan Nursing Home. After giving him first aid, he was taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. For want of room, the Appellant was taken to Kolmet Hospital. After conducting MRI scan, the Appellant was referred to Apollo Hospital for further...
icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd and Others Vs. Kanti Devi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. In these Appeals (MAC.APP. 645/2012, CM (M) 651/2012, MAC.APP.655/2012, MAC.APP.594/2012, MAC.APP. 588/2012, and MAC.APP. 689/2012), a common question of law and fact arises for consideration; whether the Claims Tribunal could have awarded the Counsel’s fee or out of pocket expenses while deciding a Claim Petition filed under Section 166/163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act). 2. Since the Appellants do not dispute the award of compensation and challenge the judgment only on the question of award of counsel’s fee and out of pocket expenses, it is not necessary to deal with the manner of accident and the quantum of compensation awarded. I would advert to the circumstances of awarding costs in each case a little later and would first deal with the general principles governing award of costs. 3. The common case set up by the Appellant Insurance Companies in these Appeals/Petition is that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a Code in itself which govern...
Ex.Hc/Dvr. Mahipal Singh Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. During arguments on July 19, 2012, learned counsel for the petitioner had conceded that a most inartistically drafted writ petition has been filed, without any application of mind. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner did not urge most of the points projected in the writ petition. The absurdity in the pleadings and the non-application of mind by the counsel who filed the writ petition is evident from the fact that the counsel concerned, who appears to be having good contacts with jawans in Central Para Military Forces had been filing writ petitions which were a verbatim copy of each other, and in the instant case one instance of absurdity of the highest kind could be illustrated with respect to the fact that the writ petitioner is Ex.HC/DRV Mahipal Singh and not L/Nk.R.L.Meena. In the writ petition challenge is made to the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on September 10, 1998, which pertains to L/Nk.R.L.Meena and not the petitioner. 2. However, a...
Ram Kishore Singh Vs. Uoi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. We note the admitted facts. The petitioner and the respondents are not at variance that with effect from June 04, 1996, the petitioner proceeded on 30 days earned leave up to July 03, 1996 and thus had to re-join the 19th Bn. with which he was attached, on July 04, 1996, but while on leave he submitted on application for leave to be extended by 20 days which request was accepted and petitioner was sanctioned leave up to July 23, 1996; requiring him to join the battalion on July 24, 1996. He submitted another application seeking leave to be extended which request was denied as per letter dated July 23, 1996 addressed to the petitioner. 2. It is also not in dispute between the parties that the respondents issued an apprehension roll requiring the Superintendent of Police, Bhind; the place where the petitioner permanently resided, to apprehend and produce the petitioner. Petitioner was apprehended and handed over to the BSF Academy Tekanpur on August 09, 1997, whe...
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Asha Kalra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
G.P.MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited is aggrieved by an order dated 04.05.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) directing personal presence of the Nodal Officer and issuing Show Cause Notice to him for not complying with the direction of the Claims Tribunal. 2. Asha Kalra (Smt.) suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 15.10.2011 resulting into registration of a criminal case being FIR No.162/2011 under Section 279/337 IPC, Police Station K.N. Katju Marg, New Delhi. The Investigating Officer (IO) filed Accident Information Report (AIR) No.28898 under Rule 150 (1) and (2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule. In addition to the AIR now a Detailed Accident Report (DAR) is being filed by the IO in pursuance of the Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure laid down by a learned Single Judge of this Court and agreed to be followed by the Delhi Police and the Insurance Companies initially for a period of six months ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »