Delhi Court September 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.
Abdul Ahad Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): The applicant is an Orthopedically Handicapped (OH, in short) person, who was appointed as a Peon in the Directorate General of Supply and Disposal (DGSandD, in short) in the Department of Supply, Government of India on 06.03.1969. In the course of time, he got promotion as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC, in short) on 15.06.1987, and was confirmed on 31.12.1989. Consequent upon decentralization of DGSandD, he was transferred to Ministry of Defence (MoD, in short) w.e.f. 01.05.1992, and taken on the strength of MOD Secretariat from that date. On 29.06.1994, the Department of Personnel and Training fixed the range for promotions to the grade of Upper Division Clerk (UDC, in short) against the Select List vacancies for the year 1993 under the Zoning Scheme, and the range for Physically Handicapped (PH, in short) category was fixed as LDCs with 8 years’ approved service as on 30.06.1994. As the applicant had just been taken on the rolls of MOD two years back, f...
Kailash Prasad Meena Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): The applicant is an employee of the Postal Department, working as Sorting Assistant at the New Delhi Railway Station, Transit Mail Office. The respondents had introduced a Scheme for conducting an All India Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE, in short) for Recruitment to the posts of Inspector of Posts (IPO, in short), and the examination for the year 2007 was conducted from 10th to 12th August, 2007. The result of that examination was declared on 26.02.2008 through Annexure R-1. Two of the candidates of Bihar Circle had challenged the result of that examination in OA Nos. 649/2008 and 146/2009 before Patna Bench of this Tribunal, challenging wrong preparation of the answer keys to certain questions, and the Patna Bench had directed the Department to consider their representations. Finding the objections raised to the answer keys to be correct, rechecking of all the answer sheets was done thereafter, and result of the rechecking was declared by...
N.K. Aggarwal and Others Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
1. In both these appeals, the concerned body is Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. („KRIBHCO‟for the sake of brevity). The question posed is as to whether it is discharging any public function and, thus, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 15.2.2002 passed in W.P.(C) No.189/1996 (out of which LPA No.291/2002 arises) by referring to the judgment dated 09.1.2002 in W.P.(C) No.3035/1999 and other connected matters titled R.K. Mishra and Others Vs. Krishak Bharti Co-operative Limited (Kribhco), which is a society registered under the Registration Act, is not to be treated as “another authority” or “instrumental or agency of the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the constitution of the society and its bye-laws, etc. inasmuch as none of the test laid down by the Supreme Court on this aspect are...
Union of India and Another Vs. Shanti Yadav and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
A.K. Sikri, (Acting Chief Justice). 1. Army Wives Welfare Association (‘AWWF’ for brevity) is a voluntary and Non-Government Organization (NGO) established with an intention to carry out charity. It started a school for handicapped children of Army Personnel known as “Asha school”. Some funding is provided to this school by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India (appellant herein). In this behalf, the appellants have issued guidelines in the year, 1999 which stated that DD Division of the Ministry has been administering four NGO Schemes, viz., “Scheme to Promote Voluntary Action Persons with Disabilities” (‘scheme’ in short) since 1992-93 and in order to broaden the objective of the Scheme and to make it in consonance with the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as „Disabilities Act’], all ...
Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs. Satpal Singh Bakshi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
1. This writ petition is filed by the HDFC Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the bank) questioning the validity of orders dated 9th March, 2011 passed in Appeal No.116/2011 by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (DRAT for short) which had confirmed the orders dated 8th October, 2010 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal – II (DRT-II for short) in OA 178/2009. The bank had filed OA before the DRT for recovery of the outstanding amount against the loan disbursed to the respondent and in this OA, the respondent herein had filed application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) on the ground that Clause 14.7 of the loan agreement provided for adjudication of disputes through arbitration by a sole arbitrator and, therefore, the respondent prayed for stay of the proceedings of the OA. This application was allowed by the Presiding Officer vide order dated 8th October, 2010 holding that once there was an arbitration ag...
In the Matter Of: Lt. Col. Anil Kumar R. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner before Honble Delhi High Court on 01.12.2008, which, on establishment of this Tribunal, has come to be transferred to this Tribunal and has been taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioner sought to challenge the proceedings of the non-empanelment of the petitioner by Selection Board No.3 as review case, held in September, 2005, and also non-empanelment by Selection Board No.3 as final review case in December, 2007, in respect of the petitioner, for the purpose of promotion to the rank of Acting Colonel. The other prayer made is for setting aside the decision of M.S. Branch dated 29.09.2005, 18.05.2006 and 30.05.2008 passed on the complaint of the petitioner. A direction has also been prayed to consider the petitioner by No.3Selection Board as a review case on the basis of his annual confidential reports, earned after his non-empanelment by Selection Board No.3 afresh and No.3 Special Merit Board as per the policy, if not empanelled by No....
Sineximco Pte. Ltd. Vs. Dinesh International Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. As per the plaint, claiming decree in sum of Rs.84,15,000/- equal to US$ 1,70,000.00 at and exchange rate of Rs.49.50 per US$, case of the appellant is that on April 29, 1997 a contract was concluded between the appellant and the respondent where under the respondent agreed to purchase Australian Tyson Chick Peas from the appellant at the rate agreed and pursuant whereto the appellant shipped 200 MT Chick Peas valued at US$ 185,729.25 to the respondent and raised an invoice dated July 23, 1997 followed by Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore, the banker of the appellant drawing up a Bill of Exchange dated July 27, 1997 upon the respondent through its banker, Bank of Punjab, New Delhi for the invoice amount, which Bill of Exchange envisaged payment within 90 days of its acceptance by the respondent. On July 29, 1997 the Bill of Exchange was accepted for payment by the respondent, but it wanted to pay the amount in installments and accordingly it made four payments...
Deepak Kumar and Others Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Delhi and Oth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. The Constitution makers fervently hoped to usher a society committed to equality, where barriers of race, gender, domicile, descent and the unforgiving marginalization of a large section of the society as a result of the ills of the caste system and the practise of untouchability, would eventually be eliminated. The commitment has remained largely an unrealized promise. The strategy of the State to bridge the social gulf through affirmative action has thrown up constant challenges which Courts are called upon to resolve. This is one such challenge, where the Court has to grapple with the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 read with Article 16, in the context of differing standards of what is the permissible reservation standard applicable on the one hand to residents of states who take up residence in one state, as opposed to residents of states who take up residence in Union territories. This judgment seeks to answer a reference made to the Full Bench, constit...
M/S. Raj Kishan and Company Vs. National thermal Power Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), is directed against the arbitral award dated 13.11.2009 and the order of modification dated 22.02.2010 – passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising Hon”ble Mr. Justice P.K. Bahri (Retd.). 2. The brief facts, leading to the present petition and relevant for the present purposes, are summarised as under: 2.1. Respondent herein awarded a contract for General Civil Work Package (4 x 210 MW) at its NCPS (Project) Dadri District, Gautum Budh Nagar, U.P. to the Petitioner herein. A formal contract was executed between the parties on 21.03.1989. 2.2. It appears that the petitioner raised certain claims on the respondent and demanded payments from the respondent vide letter dated 22.02.1999. On 09.08.1999 (vide R-46), the respondent disputed the said claims. It was alleged that the petitioner had stopped the work and did not res...
Anamol Bhandari (Minor) Through His Father/Natural Guardian Vs. Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
A.K. SIKRI (Acting Chief Justice) 1. Law mandates that that State provides reservation to the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes („SC/ST’for the sake of brevity) Category. Law also puts an obligation on the State to provide reservation to the differently abled persons, who fit into the definition of “disability” as defined in Section 2 (d) of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 [hereinafter referred to as „Disabilities Writ Petition (C) No.4853 of 2012 Page 2 of 16 Act’]. In tune with this legal obligation, the provisions are made for providing such reservations to SC/ST categories on the one hand and the disabled persons on the other hand, not only in the employment, but for admissions to educational institutions as well. In order to ensure that these categories are able to get the fruits of these reservations in reality, and that provision does not remain only on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »