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.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Mass Global Investment Co and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The requirement of law, while deciding an appeal, is to lay the appellate track parallel to the track on which the learned Trial Judge has undertaken the journey, and if the destination reached is a place other than the one reached by the learned Trial Judge, to highlight the junction from where the direction in the track was made; for only then can a reader of the appellate opinion understand with clarity, with least time spent, on what account the two decisions are at variance. 2. But, we regret our inability to adhere to the aforesaid principle of law on account of the reason, as conceded to by learned counsel for the parties during arguments in the appeal, the learned Single Judge has not noted many facts which were relied upon by the parties and has therefore not dealt with the submissions which were advanced, requiring us to have a virtual original hearing on the subject of : Whether the appellant was entitled to injunct respondent No.2 bank to pay any mo...
In the Matter Of: Ex. Rfn. Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India and Other ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order dated 24.03.2011, whereby the case was returned for certificate from the State Government of Haryana, that further appeal is not contemplated in the instant case, and that the individual has been honourably acquitted. Other relief prayed is, for direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of pay and allowances for the period 08.02.1994 to 31.03.2005 and with interest, and service pension w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Costs have also been prayed. 2. The facts alleged are, that the petitioner was enrolled on 09.03.1988, and while at his home on sanctioned annual leave, he came to be implicated in a murder case on 04.01.1994, and was ultimately convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide judgment dated 23.10.1996 for the offences under Section 302 IPC and awarded life term, along with fine of Rs.5,000/-. However, in appeal the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted the petitioner vid...
In the Matter Of: Ex. Sepoy (Barber) Suraj Bhan Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Honble High Court of Delhi on 26.07.2000, which has come to be transferred to this Tribunal on its establishment, and is taken up for hearing. 2. The prayer made in the petition is to challenge the final orders of the respondents, being dated 03.11.1997, 14.03.1998, 07.09.1997 and 03.05.1987. The other prayer made is to treat the petitioner in service till the date of passing of the order of dismissal, and for grant of service pension. 3. So far as the letters of 1997 and 1998 are concerned they are letters declining the grant of pension, and pension has been declined on the ground of his having been dismissed. Therefore, in substance the order under challenge is the order of dismissal, dated 03.05.1987. 4. Just to complete the sequence of facts, we may recapitulate, that according to the petitioner, he was dismissed by the Brigade Commander vide order dated 03.05.1987, without notice, treating him as deserter, while he appe...
Smt. Anju Nangia Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, a Govt. of Ind ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: The instant TA has arisen by transfer of the WP (C) No.3493/2008 by the Delhi High Court’s order dated January 19, 2009. This order is being passed after hearing the counsels of all the parties and perusing the material on record. 2. The applicant is a Stenographer under the MTNL. Through this TA she seeks setting aside the Gradation List of Stenographers dated 25.11.2003, whereby her settled seniority has been lowered much below her juniors i.e. Private Respondents No.4 and 5. Further due to this lowering of seniority, certain anomalies in the pay scale are stated to have been crept in. By way of relief, the TA seeks quashing the impugned Gradation List of 2003. Besides, directions for recasting the seniority/gradation list of Stenographers on the basis of merit determined at the time of appointment in 1998, as well as removal of anomaly in the pay of the applicant vis--vis her juniors have been sought. 3. Further, by MA No.1004/2010 filed on 9.4.2010, an ame...
M/S. Ali Mohammed Baba and Sons Vs. National Hydro-electric Power Corp ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
1. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited (‘NHPC’) has filed I.A. No. 776 of 2004 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘Act’) raising objections to an Award dated 30th April 2003 passed by the sole Arbitrator adjudicating the disputes between NHPC and the Plaintiff M/s Ali Mohammed Baba and Sons arising out of an agreement dated 14th September 1989. Relevant clauses of the Contract 2. The above agreement was for the supply of materials, erection including associated civil works, testing and commissioning of a 33 KV transmission line for the URI hydro-electric project situated in the Baramulla district of Jammu and Kashmir (‘JandK’). The line was required for supplying construction power to URI Civil AG as per contractual obligations of the NHPC with a Swedish consortium which was then engaged in the construction of the URI Project. In terms of the Letter of Award (‘LoA’) dated 13th July 1989 the entire work, i...
Nachiketa Kapoor Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
ORDER P.K. Bhasin, J. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail since he apprehends his arrest in a criminal case registered against him by the Economic Wing of Delhi Police on 30.07.2012 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he had got a job in the Organising Committee of the Commonwealth Games held in the country in 2010 by producing a forged graduation degree of Delhi University. On 30.08.2012 this Court had after hearing submissions from both sides and noticing the background of the case passed an order of which the relevant part is being re-produced below:- “Here is a gentleman who has been the most wanted person in many important Ministries/Departments of the Government of India and has been the blue-eyed child of many at the helm of affairs in those Ministries/Departments which included even the National Security Council. They all have been wanting to associate him with their Ministries and Departments. He has been the Officer ...
Capt. Kulwant Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
S.S. Dhillon, Member 1. T.A. 174 of 2010 has been filed by the Petitioner wherein he seeks quashing of the findings and sentence of the GCM of 31st August 2001, whereby the Petitioner was sentenced to two yearsrigorous imprisonment and cashiering. The Petitioner also seeks to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. T.A. No. 137 of 2010 has been filed with a view to seek protection from being placed in any kind of custody, as the sentence awarded to the Petitioner had already run out and any further custody after 22nd November 2003 would be illegal. Both these petitions were filed in the Honble Delhi High Court and have been transferred to this Tribunal. Both these petitions have been clubbed together and are being dealt with by a common order. 2. The Petitioner was a Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army and over a short span of ten years of service he had an excellent and outstanding record of service. During his posting in Jammu and Kashmir sector, because of the...
Capt Vivek Ranjan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
ORDER 1. The petitioner vide this petition has prayed that the order dated 21.12.2011 may be quashed whereby he was denied permanent commission/extension of service, and respondents may be directed to consider the applicant for grant of permanent commission/ extension based on the available inputs and ignoring any adverse input including non recommendation, if any, which has not been communicated to the applicant. 2. The petitioner, after completing his B.Sc. in Botany in 2004, applied for grant of Short Service Commission in response to the advertisement published by the Respondents in the Employment News and qualified for the same after successfully clearing written and Services Selection Board interview and he was inducted in the Army on 17.03.2009. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner, in May/June 2005 while climbing the vertical rope as part of the training, sustained ankle injury and he remained hospitalised from June 2005 to September 2005. He was placed in low medical cat...
Ex Sepoy Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
ORDER 1. This OA No.532/2011 was filed on 28.11.2011. Vide this petition, the applicant has prayed for quashing/cancelling the discharge order dated 17.10.2008 w.e.f. 01.12.2008. The applicant has also prayed for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The applicant was enrolled in the Army on 30.09.2001. He was posted to 5 RAJPUT. He applied for premature discharge on 24.04.2006 (Annexure A-1). He again applied for premature discharge on 07.01.2008 which was sanctioned by the Commanding Officer on 17.01.2008. 3. Subsequently, due to change of the compelling domestic requirements, it is alleged that the applicant decided to cancel his premature discharge and therefore, he applied vide his letter dated 06.10.2008 and again on 14.11.2008 wherein he sought cancellation of his request for discharge (Annexure A-2 and A-3). It has also been alleged that his Commanding officer had assured him that he will not be sent on premature discharge. 4. It has also been alleged th...
Rohit Choudhury Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of E ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
Honble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action Vs. Union of India and others [1993(3) SCALE 579] has observed tolerating infringement of law is worse than not enacting law at all. The case in hand is a clear example of infringement of law to the optimum. 2. Every Indian is proud of Kaziranga National Park, which is not only declared as a National Park, Tiger Reserve under the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, but also is declared as a World Heritage Site by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). The Applicant is a resident of village Bokakhat, and is concerned about the ecology of the area and future of the Indian Rhino, Elephant and wide species of flora and fauna available in the Kaziranga National Park. He has approached this Tribunal invoking jurisdiction under Section 14(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, inter-alia, praying for appropriate directions to the Authorities to safe guard Kazira...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »