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.
Bsnl Vs. Cce, Meerut-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. At this stage, it is deemed fit to make reference to the stay order. In this appeal filed by the appellant, there are three issues at dispute. (i) The credit of service tax on the services provided by a security agency to the appellant (ii) service tax on invoice value that has not been realized (iii) interest on delayed payment of service tax on the above two counts. 2. In respect of Item No.(i), the submission of the appellant is that as per the contract between them and the service provider for providing the impugned service, the service provider should have paid the service tax. They presume that service tax has been paid and they are asking for credit. The invoices produced from the service provider shows that the applicable service tax has been paid. It does not show the amount of service tax actually paid. 3. The learned DR submits that initially the service provider was not registered. Amount of serviced tax is not in...
Ms. Seema and Others Vs. Surender Kumar and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. Late Shri Chinga Ram, grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, was the owner/allottee of property No.21, comprised in Khasra No.125, Jangpura, New Delhi measuring about 133 sq. yds. He was also in possession of property No.154/1, back portion, Masjid Lane, Jangpura, Bhogal admeasuring 85 sq. yds. belonging to DDA. Defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. Shri Chinga Ram died on May, 9, 1970 leaving behind two sons, namely, Khem Chand and Dal Chand and one daughter Smt.Lakmiri. The daughter of Shri Chinga Ram relinquished her share in his properties in favour of her brothers. Accordingly, Dal Chand and Khem Chand became owner of each of the aforesaid properties which, they mutually decided between them. In his life time, Late Shri Dal Chand had executed a registered Will in respect of the aforesaid properties bequeathing them to his wife Smt.Kalawati. After the death of Dal Chand and Kalawati, their estate devoid upon the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in ...
Raj Rani Chachra and Others Vs. the National Capital Territory of Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. 1. The present writ petition assails the order dated 16.09.2009 in O.A. No.851/2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal directed the respondents to pay the arrears of salary and allowances to the Staff Nurses, the petitioners herein, from the date of filing of the said O.A., i.e., 26.03.2009. 2. The writ petition challenges the impugned order to the limited extent that, the Tribunal ought to have granted the petitioners benefit of regular salary and allowances, not from 26.03.2009 but w.e.f. 06.05.2004, i.e., the date from which the petitioners purportedly claimed benefit of regular payscale for the first time in a writ petition filed by them in the High Court. 3. The petitioners are Grade ‘A’ Staff Nurses appointed on short term contract basis since 09.05.1998 and had been working in various hospitals under the administration of the Governmen...
Commissioner of Police, Delhi Vs. Manjeet
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. 1. The instant writ petition assails the order dated 07.03.2012 in O.A. No.1903/2011 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) whereby the Tribunal quashed the order dated 11.05.2011 whereby candidature of the respondent for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police was cancelled. 2. The facts, germane for the adjudication of the present writ petition, are summarised below:- (i) The respondent had applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male pursuant to an advertisement published by the Delhi Police in the year 2009. (ii) Consequent upon his application respondent’s name was provisionally selected for the said post subject to verification of his antecedents and medical fitness etc. (iii) It is an admitted position that the respondent herein had disclosed both in the application and the attestation form about his alleged involvement in a criminal...
Ravinder Prakash Punj Vs. Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2010 passed in Execution Petition No.186/2009 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the said execution petition has been dismissed on the ground that the same is not maintainable. 2. The execution petition had been preferred to seek to execute the decree passed by the Court while making the award dated 15.11.1989, passed by the learned sole arbitrator, “rule”of the court with slight modification vis--vis, the direction contained in para-9 of the award. The said direction required the parties to go back to the arbitrator for implementation and interpretation of the award in case any dispute arose between them in that regard. The arbitrator also sought to retain jurisdiction to issue subsequent clarification. This aspect was also set aside by the Court while, otherwise, affirming the award and passing a decree in terms thereof vide judgment dated 30.05.1997, passed in Suit No.327A/1990 titled S.C. Mathur ...
Naib Subedar Radhey Shyam Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
BY CHAIRPERSON: 1. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that the order dated 11.05.2012 through the Signal No.Q 5517 as well as letter dated 11.05.2012 issued by Respondent No.4 may be quashed by which he was discharged from service w.e.f.31.05.2010 and respondent be directed to allow the applicant to complete his extended tenure of service w.e.f. 31.05.2010. He has also prayed to quash the policy instructions issued by the Respondents by its letter dated- 20.09.1998. 2. Petitioner was enrolled in the Army Service Corps of Indian Army on 20.03.1984 as Clerk (Staff Duties) trade. It is alleged that petitioner during his tenure from 1984 2009 served in Army on various positions and he was promoted from time to time upto the rank of Nb.Sub. After completion of 24 years of service he has been posted in the Integrated Hqrs of MoD (Army) in the Directorate General of Military Intelligence on 09.06.2009. The case of the petitioner was considered in 2009 for grant of extension of service f...
Shri Bhagirath Sharma and Others Vs. Delhi Development Authority Throu ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(By circulation) Shri M.L. Chauhan: The applicants have filed this review application for reviewing Tribunal’s order dated 17.7.2012 whereby this Tribunal while formulating the question for consideration in paragraph 2 of the order has given a categorical finding that the applicants, who were Group ‘D’ employees, were appointed on the basis of limited departmental competitive examination in terms of the recruitment rules against 15% promotion quota from Group ‘D’ employees on the basis of the departmental examination. Thus, such appointment to the post of LDC has to be counted for the purpose of ACP after noticing provisions of promotion rule to the post of LDC whereby one of the modes for promotion to the post of LDC was from Group ‘D’ employees and after noticing item No.8 of the clarificatory office memorandum dated 10.2.2000 issued by the DOPT regarding grant of ACP. 2. By way of this review application, the applicants want to re-hear the m...
Girish Chand Sharma Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary and Other ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): Applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: “1. To quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 29-9-2010 and 29-01-2010 (Annexures A-1 and A-2); 2. To direct the respondents regularize the promotion of the applicant as Postman from the date he has been officiating vide order dated 01.-2.2010 or from the date his immediate junior stood promoted as Postman; 3. To grant all consequential benefits on the basis of the reliefs prayed in para (Sl.2) above; 4. To grant such other or further relief as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice; and 5. To award the costs of this application as the applicant has suffered grave injustice.” 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as an Extra Departmental Agent/Gramin Dak Sewak w.e.f. 16.02.1979 under Ghaziabad Postal Division. The grievance of the applicant in this case is regarding promotion to the post of Postman based on...
Shri Virendra Kumar Garg Tax Assistant (Hapur)commissionerate-ii Vs. C ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
By circulation) Shri M.L. Chauhan: This review application has been filed by the applicant for reviewing the order of this Tribunal dated 18.4.2012 whereby this Tribunal, while upholding that the charges leveled against the applicant stand proved, remitted the matter to the appellate authority to pass fresh speaking and reasoned order in conformity with the clause (c) of Rule 27 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal, the respondents have passed the order dated 23.7.2012 and upheld the order passed by the disciplinary authority by passing a reasoned and speaking order. It is only thereafter the applicant has filed this review application on 16.8.2012 for reviewing Tribunal’s order dated 18.4.2012. 2. Along with this review application, the applicant has also moved an application, being MA-2279/2012, for condonation of delay. The reason given for condonation of ...
Dr. Pankaj Kapoor Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry o ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(ORAL) Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): Applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: “i) DIRECT the respondents to include the name of the applicant in the said List No. E(O)-III-2011/PM/27 dated 15.6.2011 with immediate effect with all benefits attached thereto; ii) AWARD the costs of these proceedings in favour of the applicant and against the respondents; iii) and further issue any other appropriate orders or directions as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice;” 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant, who belongs to Indian Railway Medical Service (IRMS), joined as such on 01.10.1977 on the basis of the examination held by the UPSC in 1976, thus belongs to 1977 examination batch. He was promoted to SA grade with effect from 20.03.2006. Applicant has retired on superannuation on 30.11.2010. The grievance of the applicant in this case is regarding non-consideration of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »