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.
National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Chander Prabha and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs.8,35,000/- awarded for the death of Suchir Kumar Chaudhary (a bachelor of 21 years), who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 30.09.2002. 2. The finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal is not challenged by the Appellant, the driver or the owner. Thus, the same has become final between the parties. 3. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) it was claimed that the deceased was in employment with M/s. Ashima Traders (Pvt.) Ltd., 2481/9, Second Floor, Tulsi Bhawan, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and was getting a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal relied on the salary certificate and took the deceased’s income to be Rs.6,000/-; added 50% towards the future prospects; deducted 50% towards the personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of ‘15’ as per the age of the deceased’s mother to compute the loss of depend...
Lt Col Rahul JaIn Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
S.S. Dhillon, Member 1. The petitioner vide this petition seeks quashing of the results of the various selection boards held in his case which declared him unfit for promotion. He also seeks quashing of the order by which his statutory and non statutory complaints were rejected by the respondents. He further seeks removing of the impugned technically invalid confidential report for the period June 2008 to May 2009, and an opportunity to earn a fresh command criteria report, after which his promotion board should be held. 2. Petitioner was commissioned in the Infantry i.e. Garhwal Rifles after having successfully completed his training at the National Defence Academy and Indian Military Academy. The petitioner urged that he is a heavily built officer and from the time of his intake in the Army, he has been more than the desired weight, which was due to the fact that he was a Boxer of national fame. At the time of his intake into National Defence Academy, he was weighing 80 kg against a...
Jitender Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary Do ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1. As can be derived from the Original Application, late Shri Rajendra Singh was appointed as Helper in Doordarshan Maintenance Centre (DMC) Radhika Vihar, Krishna Nagar, Mathura w.e.f. 27.01.1992. While still in service, he expired on 17.10.2002 leaving behind applicants and other family members. In view of sudden death of applicant in harness, respondent No.4, i.e. Station Engineer (Kendra Abhiyanta) Prasar Bharati enabled applicant No.2 to put forth the claim of dependent of late Shri OA 4340/2011 Rajendra Singh for employment on compassionate ground. Applicant No.2 processed and espoused the candidature of applicant for such appointment on the post of Helper or any other post in Group D category in Broadcasting Corporation of India (DMC). Vide his letter No. DMC/MTR/14(4)/2003-S/229 dated 23.04.2003, respondent No. 4 forwarded such claim of applicant to respondent No. 2 for suitable action. With reference to DG, DD, ND OM No.3/27/2004-SII (A)/501 dated 11.04.2005, the DMC, Mathura ...
Ramesh Sagar, New Delhi Vs. Chief Secretary Govt of Nct of Delhi, Delh ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. The applicant of this OA was an Assistant Superintendent in the Jail Department, and retired on 31.03.2004. At the fag end of his career, on the date of his retirement from Tihar Jail, a charge sheet was issued to him instituting disciplinary enquiry against him, because of which even 8 years after his retirement, his gratuity has not been paid, and only provisional pension is being paid to him. The applicant has, therefore, approached this Tribunal seeking orders for quashing the charge sheet and payment of amount of gratuity along with interest for the delayed payment. He had also prayed for Interim Relief to direct the respondents to release the amount of gratuity along with interest for the period of delay, but the whole case itself came to be finally heard before a decision on the Interim Relief could be pressed. 2. The Articles of Charges leveled against the applicant were as under:- Article-I That the said Shri Ramesh Sa...
Dr. Virendra Jain, Medical Officer, Cghs (Retd.), New Delhi Vs. the Se ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
ORDER (ORAL) M.L. Chauhan, Member (J). This OA has been filed by the applicant, thereby praying for the following reliefs: “In view of the humble submissions made and fact and circumstances explained in the foregoing paras, the applicant most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to:- (i) Set aside the impugned orders dated 5.9.2008 Annexure A-I and dated 14.9.2008 Annexure A-2 and direct the respondents to refund to the applicant Rs.46,570/- with interest thereon @12% per annum upto the date of payment; (ii) Set aside order dated 11.2.2009 Annexure A-2A and direct the respondents to release final pay of CGEGIS with interest thereon 12% per annum till the date of payment. (iii) Direct the respondents to make payment of interest @12% per annum on P.F. due from July, 2006 to Feb. 2009 when payment was made and on other dues which were belatedly paid. (iv)Grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and cir...
Sheela Vs. Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarter, I.P. Estate, Ne ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1. Applicant is second widow of deceased Anil Kumar, who was working as a Constable with the respondents and committed suicide on 02.12.2005 due to some family problem with the applicant. Accordingly a case bearing FIR No.873/2005 dated 02.12.2005 under Section 306/34 IPC was registered in PS Mangol Puri against the applicant. It may be stated that the first wife of the deceased had already expired in the year 2001 due to illness, leaving behind minor daughter Kum. Khsuboo. The grievance of the applicant in this case is regarding payment of pensionary benefits to the applicant on account of death of her husband. As pensionary benefits were not paid to the applicant, she filed Writ Petition (C) No.3947/2008 before the High Court, which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and registered as TA No.15/2012. 2. Respondents have filed their reply. The facts, as stated above, have not been disputed. Respondents in the reply-affidavit have categoric...
Ahmed Oomerbhoy and Another Vs. Gautam Tank and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. This Regular First Appeal arises from the judgment of the original side, dated 24th December, 2010 whereby the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed. 2. The brief facts are that the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) instituted the suit being CS(OS) No.806/2005 for permanent injunction against infringement of trade mark and passing off and the consequential relief of damages, rendition of accounts etc. against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendants”) who, allegedly, infringed the plaintiffs’ trademark “Postman‟by using of the mark “Super Postman‟in relation to edible groundnut oil. 3. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being I.A. No.4575/2005 and on 30th May, 2005, an ex parte ad-interim injunction was granted. 4. Upon service, immediately the defendants filed the ap...
Arun Kumar, New Delhi Vs. the Chairman, Delhi Metro Rail Co-operation, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 5235/2008 with a prayer to issue a writ or order to give appointment to him as a Plumber from the date of appointment of similarly situated persons with all consequential benefits including pay and allowances and seniority. 2. The said Writ Petition was transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.325/2009. TA was allowed on 16.3.2010 on the ground that when the vacancies were available and all the other 14 persons were appointed, petitioner could not have been isolated and panel ought to have been exhausted. Thus respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Plumber. 3. RA was filed by the respondents on the ground that they had not stated at any stage that 14 vacancies were filled. On the contrary, panel had lapsed. The RA 298/2010 was allowed on 12.4.2012 by observing as follows:- “On request of counsel for the origin...
Dr. O.P. Maurya, Former Joint Director of Employment Exchanges, Direct ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1. The applicant, a former Joint Director of Employment Exchanges, Directorate General of Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour, seeks benefit of the revised scale of pay of Rs.12000-16500 w.e.f.1.9.1998, the date when he had been appointed on ad hoc basis against the said post, till his retirement on 31.1.2003. The OA also seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 24.8.2007 passed by the respondents in pursuance of the Tribunals directions vide its order dated 10.5.2007 in OA No.2187/2006. Directions for grant of revised retiral benefits and any other benefits accruable have also been sought. 2. The OA had been allowed vide Tribunal the Tribunal’s order dated 25.3.2009. However, on a challenge by the Respondents, the Delhi High Court vide its order dated 22.12.2010 gave the following operational directions:- 26. In view of above discussion, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 25.03.2009 passed by the Tribunal insofar it has held that the department ...
Mahender Singh, New Delhi Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through Chief ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. The applicant of this OA is before this Tribunal, aggrieved by the rejection of his representation through the impugned Annexure A-1 dated 23.04.2011, through which he has been informed as follows:- Office Memorandum “In reference to their application for grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme 2008, Shri Mahender Singh, ECG Tech. and Sh. Rameshwar Gope, Radiographer are hereby informed that casual employees, including those granted temporary status and employees appointed in the Government only on ad hoc or contract basis shall not qualify for benefits under the aforesaid Scheme. Hence, their application has been rejected. 2. The applicant is aggrieved that his re-employment category has been wrongly stated, in spite of this Tribunal having allowed his earlier OA No.2183/2005 on 05.12.2006, by which the respondents had been directed to pay to him the increased salary of Rs.4300/-, which was being earlier paid to him aft...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »