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.
Shub Lata Paul New Delh Vs. Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Rese ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. At the admission stage, we heard Shri Malaya Chand, learned counsel for the applicant. 2 The applicant, who has been working as Technical Officer since 01.01.2004 and has rendered about 36 years of service in Indian Agriculture Statistical Research Institute (IASRI for short) having been initially appointed on 24.12.1975, applied for grant of leave for going to USA to look after her daughter-in-law who was in the family way in USA. The leave she applied for was from 23.04.2010 to 31.08.2010. She was sanctioned 131 days leave vide order dated 13.04.2010. It is averred in the application that the applicants daughter-in-law and newly born grand daughter had certain problems for which she was compelled to stay there for which she submitted her request letter to extend her leave by 38 days more i.e. upto 08.10.2010. She reported for duty on 11.10.2010 as 9th and 10th were holidays and submitted her application for sancti...
M/S. Maa Mangla Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.and C.Ex., Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Order Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): 1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal No. 38/RPR-I/2012 dated 5.3.2012 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the plea of the appellant for condoning delay of 29 days for filing of appeal and dismissed the appeal. 2. Along with the appeal, the appellant has moved an application under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking waiver of condition of pre-deposit of duty demand , interest and penalty. 3. Matter was listed today for argument on stay application. Since a small issue of limitation is involved we are of the view that appeal itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the condition of pre-deposit is waived and we have heard the arguments on appeal. 4. Undisputedly, the instant appeal has been filed after expiry of the period of limitation of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order in original. Proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 confers power...
infosys Technologies Ltd. Vs. Data Infosys Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) IA No.6857/2012(for condonation of delay) Delay is condoned. IA stands disposed of. IA No.6856/2012 1. This is an application filed by the defendants under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) for stay of the proceedings initiated against them before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) by the plaintiff. The proceedings before IPAB seek rectification of the register qua the mark ‘Data Infosys’ of which registration was obtained by the defendants. 2. The present suit is a suit by the company-M/s. Infosys Technologies Ltd., an Indian multinational, claiming rights in the trade mark Infosys and seeking restraint etc against the defendants from infringing/using the same. During the pendency of the suit the defendants obtained registration of the trade mark ‘Data Infosys’. To incorporate this aspect in their written-statement, the defendants filed an amendment application. This applicatio...
K. Rajan, New Delhi and Another Vs. Union of India Through the Secreta ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
ORDER (ORAL) Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicants have filed this OA seeking direction to the respondents to treat the ad hoc promotion of the applicants to the post of Radiographer Supervisor on regular basis in the absence of RRs as one time exception as done in the case of Shri M.L. Bajaj or on the basis of model Recruitment Rules or direct the respondents to finalise the pending Recruitment Rules for the post of Radiographer (Supervisor) at an early date within the stipulated period. They have further sought direction to the respondents to grant due increments to the applicants to the post of Radiographer (Supervisor) with all the consequential benefits including fixation of pay with arrears. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicants are that they were initially appointed as Radiographer Group ‘C’. They were promoted as Senior Radiographer on regular basis with effect from 25.9.1996. 3. The next higher post in the cadre is that of R...
Raj Bala, Delhi Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Co-oper ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
ORDER (ORAL) G. George Paracken, Member (J) 1. The applicant has been working as Safaiwali in the Regional Office, Directorate, W-6, Phase-II, Okhla, Delhi. Her husband Shri Nagendra Singh was also working in the same office in the same capacity. Shri Nagendra Singh was transferred to Raipur vide order dated 14.10.2009. He challenged his transfer vide OA No. 3603/2009 before this Tribunal and requested for his transfer to Dehraun or Faridabad which are the two nearer places to Delhi where the offices under the respondents are situated. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal directed the respondents to consider his request for transfer to a nearby station such as Dehradun, Faridabad, Ghaziabad etc. Shri Nagendra Singh has also prayed to consider the transfer of his wife (the applicant in this OA) at the same station to which he will be posted. This Tribunal vide its order dated 09.08.2010, allowed the said request also.&nbs...
Sh. Jawahar Lal, New Delhi Vs. Commissioner of Police, Police Headquar ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
Order (Oral) 1. The applicant is aggrieved by the Annexure A-1 letter dated 03.11.2011 of the respondents wherein it has been stated that he retired on superannuated pension w.e.f. 30.09.2011 but since he has been facing a criminal case vide FIR No.967/2006 u/s 289/323/337/341/34 IPC, P.S. Najafgarh and facing departmental inquiry proceedings vide order No.11550-75/P.Cell Vig. (P-III) dated 19.09.2011, the pensionary benefits have not been given to him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that while working as an Inspector in Delhi Police the applicant had lodged a complaint against his neighbour for committing offence at his house. According to the applicant, his neighbour has also lodged false complaint against him and his family members and the same was registered as FIR No. FIR No.967/2006 u/s 289/323/337/341/34 IPC. The allegation against the applicant was regarding certain property dispute. Further, according to him, during the course of inquiry, even though the ...
Amit Tokas, New Delhi Vs. Union of India, Through Cabinet Secretary, N ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Alok Kumar Singh, J. 1. This OA has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) Quash the impugned order dt. 30.11.2011 and direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant with all the consequential benefits. (ii) stay the operation of the impugned order dt. 30.11.2011 till the pendency of the present OA or till the decision in the criminal case. (iii) Pass any other and further order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the applicant was appointed as LDC in the establishment of Cabinet Secretariat and joined service on 9.7.2010 at Jammu from where he was transferred and posted to Amritsar on 16.7.2010. Though an FIR under Crime No.369/2009 dated 10.11.2009 was registered against him and other family members under Sections 323/325/341 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, but he concealed this information while filling the attestation form because he was under an impression ...
Vidya Wati Arya, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Minis ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Alok Kumar Singh, Acting Chairman, J. 1. This Original Application has been filed seeking following reliefs: A. Call for the record specially. (As typed in the OA). B. The respondent be directed to specially Seniority List year wise be maintained by the respondent, Promotion orders of LDCs and details of direct recruitments etc. C. Quash and set aside the Promotion order dt. 31.3.2010. D. To grant Seniority and Promotion to the applicant as per her Seniority i.e. w.e.f. 2008 effect from the date his juniors have been so promoted, as per the rules with consequential benefits. E. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the applicant. F. Cost of the proceedings be awarded in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. 2. The case of the applicant in brief is that she lost her husband Constable Om Prakash in an accident on 12.05.1980. Thereafter, she was given appointment on ...
Kaushalya Devi, Delhi Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi, Through Its Chie ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
G. George Paracken, M (J). 1. This case was originally filed in the year 2005 as WP (C) No.19880/2005 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. During the pendency of the said WP(C), the Central Government has issued a notification No. SO(E) dated 01.12.2008 bestowing jurisdiction in the matter before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 17.04.2009 transferred this case to this Tribunal and it was listed as TA No. 1265/2009. 2. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of this case, are delineated hereunder. The second respondent, namely, the Delhi Subordinate Staff Selection Board (DSSSB for short) issued an advertisement in the year 2004 inviting applications for the post of Balwari Teachers(Female). The essential educational qualification prescribed for the said post was Matriculation or its equivalent with Nursery/Balwari Teachers Training Diploma from a recognized Institution. The DSSSB conducted a written te...
Brij Lal, Delhi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Through the Commis ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Order (Oral) Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant had filed OA No.1985/2010, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 08.09.2010, with a direction to the respondents to consider representation dated 25.05.2010, treating the OA as a supplementary representation and decide the same in the light of the judgment of this Tribunal in OA-3702/2009, in accordance with law. It was further ordered that should the applicant be found to be similarly situated the same benefits, which may have been extended in that OA be also extended to the applicant. Pursuant to the order passed by this Tribunal the respondents have passed a speaking order dated 15.04.2011 (Annexure A), whereby the claim of the applicant for re-employment was rejected. At this stage, it will be appropriate to quote the relevant portion of the order, which weighed with the authorities to reject the claim of the applicant and thus reads: 2. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »