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.
Kishan Kumar, Presently in Delhi Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Throug ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 25.11.2011 whereby his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police during recruitment year 2009 Phase-II (Additional List) has been cancelled on the ground that he is not covered under the category of Ex-Serviceman as per Standing Order No.212/2009 and advertisement in the Employment News dated 7.11.2009 (page 9). He has further sought a direction to the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police with all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant are that he was discharged from Territorial Army on account of medical ground and was given status of Ex-Serviceman on 21.11.2009. Immediately thereafter, he applied for the post of Constable (Executive) under the category of Ex-Serviceman in OBC category. Applicant appeared in all the examinations and was provisionally selected for the post o...
Rohtash Kumar, New Delhi Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Through Its ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
ORDER (ORAL) Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the applicant has filed OA-1450/2012 for the same relief. However, this Tribunal vide order dated 04.05.2012 disposed of the OA, without expressing any view on the merits of the case and without prejudice to the respondents, by directing the respondents to look into the pending representation/legal notice of the applicant and take a considered decision thereon expeditiously in accordance with rules. Liberty was given to the applicant to challenge the fresh order so passed, if so advised. Pursuant to the direction given by this Tribunal respondents have passed the impugned order dated 08.06.2012 (Annexure A-1), whereby the respondents have upheld their action for retiring the applicant from the service of the Corporation. It is this order, which is under challenge in this OA and the applicant has prayed that the respondents may be directed to forthwith assign duty...
Jawahar Lal, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Nirma ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. The applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: (i) To declare the action of respondents in not promoting the applicant to the post of Record Sorter from due date as illegal and arbitrary. (ii) To direct the respondents to promote the applicant as record sorter from 2006 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay. (iii) To quash and set aside the impugned circular dated 16.11.2011 and declare the action of respondents in promoting Peon as Record Sorter as illegal and arbitrary. (iv)To pass any other further orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. To allow the OA with cost. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as peon on 17.03.1989 by way of direct recruitment in the pay scale of Rs.750-940 with the Respondent No.2 Institute. He was further promoted to the post of Daftary w.e.f. 5.2.1997 in the pay scal...
M/S. Shree Bhawani Paper Mills Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Oral Order No. Per Archana Wadhwa: 1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper falling under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. There head office is located at Allahabad and registered as input service distributor. The factory is located at Raibareli who is also registered with the Service Tax department for payment of Service Tax. The appellant was availing the credit on various input services used in the manufacture of paper as also on the basis of credit distribution document and utilising the same for payment of Central Excise duty on clearance of their final product. 2. The appellants availed the credit of Rs.5,70,423/- on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd., which was distributed by their head office. The said Cenvat credit was availed in respect of Service Tax paid by M/s. Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd., under the category of consultancy engineering services. Such services were used for modernisation of their p...
J.S. Pundhir Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
1. Petitioner vide this petition has prayed that petitioner should be given pension for the rank of Hony Captain from the date of his retirement with all other benefits. He also prayed for refund of Rs.58,153/- which has wrongly been deducted from his gratuity. 2. Petitioner was commissioned as Naib Subedar in the Territorial Army on 20.01.1986. He became Subedar on 15.07.1989 and Subedar Major on 01.02.2001. He was granted the rank of Hony Lt w.e.f. 15.08.2004 and Hony Capt w.e.f. 26.01.2005. He retired as Hony Captain on 31.01.2005. His grievance is that despite the fact that he was granted Hony ranks of Lt and Capt before his retirement, he is still in receipt of pension of a Sub Maj. He has, therefore, filed the present petition seeking aforesaid relief. 3. A reply has been filed by the respondents and they have taken the position that petitioner has not completed mandatory service to get pension of commissioned rank as per provision laid down vide Para 136 of Pension Regulations f...
Sh. Vishnu Kumar Gupta Karauli Vs. Union of India Through Secretary (R ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
ORDER(ORAL) G. George Paracken, Member J. 1. This OA has been filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicant has challenged the alleged arbitrary and discriminatory action of the respondents in not allocating him the zone of his choice on the basis of his merit in the select list and in terms of OM No. 36012/72/2009-Estt. Dated 04.06.2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was declared successful in the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2006 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. He belonged to the general category and his rank in the merit list was 105. Thereafter, he had submitted his option for allotment of zones. He gave ‘Mumbai Zone’ as his first preference. According to him, if the respondents have followed the relevant rules in his case and considered him on the principle of ‘Merit-Cum-Preference’, he would have got the zone of his first preference. However, the respon...
Komal Singh Yadav Tte, Najibabad Vs. the General Manager, Northern Rai ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. MA 1152/2012 has been filed by the applicant seeking restoration of the OA 3455/2010 as it was dismissed for default on 24.01.2012. For the reasons stated in the MA, this MA is allowed. Order dated 24.01.2012 is recalled. OA is restored to its original number. 2. Applicant has challenged order dated 24.08.2005 (page 23) whereby penalty of reduction to lower grade was imposed on the applicant until found fit by the competent authority. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that applicant had filed a detailed appeal to the Appellate Authority which was rejected on 08.12.2005 (page 32) by absolutely a non-speaking order. Being aggrieved, he had filed review application to the Revisional Authority who has reduced the period of punishment from two years to one year vide order dated 07.04.2006 (page 36) that too without considering the contentions raised by the applicant. He has thus submitted that the orders passed by the Appellate Authority ...
Sperry Plast Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Noida
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Order Per Mr. Justice Ajit Bharihoke (oral): 1. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Thermoplast Rubber Compound Polyamides, HIPS etc. which are subject to excise duty. The appellant has three manufacturing units located at 1121, M.I.E. , Bahadurgarh, Haryana; Lane No.5, EPIP Kartholi, SIDCO Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmana Industrial Complex, J and K and D-29, 30, 31-SIPCOT Footwear Components Park, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur. The appellant availed cenvat credit on duty paid inputs, capital goods as well as input services. On scrutiny of records of the appellant unit it was found that the appellant unit had availed cenvat credit of input service amounting to Rs.23,47,826/- during the period July 2006 to February 2008 on the basis of invoices issued in the name of Head Office of the appellant located at Delhi. The Department was of the view that since the invoices were issued in favour of the Head Office of the company the appellant was not entitled to avail cenvat credit in...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harvinder Singh
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
V.K. Gupta, Member: 1. This appeal by the OP is directed against the order dated 5.3.2010 of the CDRF Central, Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi whereby the complaint of the respondent was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 6,33,221 with interest @ 9% p.a. and also Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as litigation charges. 2. Brief facts are that the complainant/respondent is the owner of the vehicle No. DL-1P-C-7676 a TATA bus which was used by the complainant for playing the tourist roots for the purpose of his living. The said vehicle was insured with the OP/Appellant for a sum of Rs. 10,94,721 for the period from 20.11.2006 to 19.1.2007 and it was covered against the comprehensive risk including the risk of the accident. Unfortunately, on 20.6.2007 the vehicle was carrying tourists around Dharamshala in Himachal Pradesh and it fell into a khud file endorsing of difficult turn near Dharamshala. In consequence thereof, several persons died/sustain...
SachIn Varshney, Division Ghaziabad (U.P.) and Another Vs. Through Sec ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicants have sought direction to the respondents to re-check their answer sheets for LGO Examination 2010 and also for staying the result declared on 17.1.2011 as well as staying the appointment/recruitment of the other candidates on the post of LGO up to re-checking the answer sheets of the applicants and declaration of the result of the re-checking of the answer sheet of the applicants concerned with the LGO Examination 2010 and to pass such other orders that may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. It is submitted by the applicants that applicant No.1 appeared in LGO Examination (Group ‘D’) bearing Roll No. UPBL 141 and applicant No.2 also appeared in the same examination bearing Roll No.UPBL 175-P and both the applicants had given examination with their full preparation. The result of the examination was declared on 17.1.2011 in which both the applicants were declared as fail. They were shocked to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »