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.
Delhi Transport Corporation Through Its Chairman-cum-managing Director ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(By circulation) Shri M.L. Chauhan: The original respondents in OA have filed this review application for reviewing the order dated 23.3.2012 and deleting the observations made in paragraph 6 of the said order. However, the original respondents have no objection so far as the disposal of the case on merits is concerned. This review application has been filed beyond the period of 76 days and for that purpose, the original respondents have also moved an application, being MA-2444/2012, for condonation of delay. At this stage, it would be relevant to quote paragraph 6 of Tribunal’s order, which thus reads:- “6. However, before parting with the matter we wish to observe that in the impugned order dated 12.05.2011 respondents while reinstating the applicant with immediate effect inter alia have also recorded that ‘his services is not to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits for the intervening period’ whereas in the reply-affidavit respondents have also s...
Ajit Kumar Singh Vs. Uday Kumar Verma, Secretary, Ministry of Informat ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): Applicant has filed this Contempt Petition for the alleged violation of the order dated 30.01.2012, whereby this Tribunal in the operative portion passed the following order: “Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that they should expeditiously finalize and notify the Recruitment Rules so that the claim of the applicant and other similarly placed persons is met. In our considered opinion, the period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order would be sufficient enough for the respondents to finalize the amendment proposed in the Recruitment Rules. Thereafter, the applicant’s request shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken under intimation to him.” 2. Since the order of this Tribunal was not complied with within the stipulated period and also within the extended time, as granted by this Tribunal, applicant has filed this Contempt Petition (for short, CP). 3. Notice of this CP...
Vijay Kumar Goel Vs. Delhi Jal Board and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
JUDGMENT 1. The challenge in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) is to an Award dated 7th May 2004 passed by the sole Arbitrator (Respondent No.2 herein) in the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 Delhi Jal Board (‘DJB’) arising out of an award by the DJB in favour of the Petitioner of the work of providing and laying new sewer line in place of existing sewer line in Sectors IX and XIII, Rohini Blocks - D, E, F, G and H by a letter dated 12th February 1998. 2. The scheduled date of the commencement of the work was 15th March 1998. It was to be completed within a period of 10 months ending on 14th January 1999. According to the Petitioner, the contract period expired on 14th January 1999 without the Petitioner even being allowed to commence the work as the DJB failed to make available the required site, drawings and designs and even the stipulated material. It is stated that on 8th January 1999, the ...
Sep/Gd Rajveer Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
ORDER 1. The petitioner vide this petition has prayed that respondents be directed to absorb the applicant in the category of Soldier/GD in Group Y by condoning the condition as required under the existing policy for condonation of age limit or may be re-mustered as Clerk/GD for which age limit for enrolment in the Army is more than soldier/GD and also direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.44,727/- deducted from the pay of applicant with 12% interest. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 08.07.1999 as a Soldier/washerman and was sent for training for 36 weeks at Mahar Regiment Centre at Saugor and passed the same successfully. Thereafter, he joined 5 Mahar Regiment on 13.05.2000. He continued to serve there and participated in all operations wherever the Mahar Regiment was sent as a soldier/GD. He further passed the Class II and I trade test of Y Group in 2002 and 2003. He was also detailed for a driving trade and was granted driving licence on 14.01.2004. But unf...
Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey and Another Vs. Director All India Institute ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(ORAL) Shri M.L. Chauhan: The grievance of the applicant in this case is regarding his regularization. The case projected by the applicant is that he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on daily wage basis on humanitarian grounds in the year 1998 but the respondent-AIIMS has not regularized his services despite the fact that services of other persons have been regularized. For that purpose, the applicant has made a representation dated 10.8.2011 (Annexure A-1) to the Director, AIIMS, New Delhi, which has not been decided so far. 2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that he will be satisfied at this stage if a direction is given to the respondent to decide the aforesaid representation of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 3. In view of what has been stated above, the present OA is disposed of at this stage with a direction to respondent-AIIMS to decide the aforesaid representation of the applicant dated 10.8.2011 (Annexure A-1) in the light of the revised poli...
Saru Concast Alloys P.Ltd Vs. Cce, Meerut-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of copper wire falling under Chapter 74 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Their factory was visited by the officers on 17.10.06 who conducted various checks and verification. As a result 41.51 kg. of scrap (PB, 200 kg of brass scrap and 694.03 kg of PB wire) was found in excess to the recorded balance. On a reasonable believe that the same was meant for clandestine removal, officers seized the same u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Apart from excess, officers also detected shortages of 499 kg. of copper and 405 kg. of zinc and 145 kg. of phosphorus then the recorded balance in the statutory records involving duty of Rs.3,50,915/-. 2. On the above basis, Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued to the appellant proposing confiscation of the excess found material, confirmation of demand on the short found inputs as also for imposition of penalty. The said order culmi...
Pradeep Aggarwal Vs. Dharmesh Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
P.K. BHASIN 1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondent, who is a judicial officer in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, on account of his having passed an order on 26.02.2010 of sending the petitioner to jail, allegedly, by flouting the order dated 11th December, 2009 passed by this Court whereby the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in a case of murder in which he was one of the accused. 2. Facts and circumstances in the background of which this contempt petition came to be filed may briefly be noticed at the outset. A criminal case under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code was registered at Timarpur police station vide FIR no. 421/04 on 26th September, 2004 and a charge-sheet was filed against one person initially and the petitioner herein and one more person were kept in column no. 2 of the charge-sheet. With the death of the injured, who had sustained injuries in the incident ...
Sh. Shasi Bhanu Vs. Delhi Development Authority, Through the Vice Chai ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
G. George Paracken: The applicant in this Original Application has challenged the Annexure A-1 Memorandum dated 12.01.2007 issued by the respondent/DDA proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Regulation 25 of the DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999. Vide an Annexure to the said Memorandum, the Respondent has also enclosed the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the statement of articles of charge which reads as under: “Article I That the said Sh. Shashi Bhanu, JE (C), while functioning as Junior Engineer-in-charge during the period from 1/86 to 10/92 in SWD-2 on the aforesaid work had committed the irregularities by recording the continuous hindrance of non-fixing of Conduits by the Department. The agency filed the Arbitration Claim by revoking the Agreement Clause-25 in Arbitration Case No. ARA/SN/21. Ld. Arbitrator made the award against this claim vide Claim No.10 a...
R.K. Nafria Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Shri G. George Paracken: The grievance of the applicant in this Original Application is that his reporting and reviewing officers have spoiled his Annual Performance Assessment Reports (`APAR’ for short) for the periods from 01.06.2004 to 31.03.2005 and 25.04.2005 to 31.03.2006 without any justification but to achieve their own personal goal thus depriving him of his due promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) and allowing his juniors to supersede him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined as Junior Engineer with Respondent No. 2 in the year 1976 and got his promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1983 and to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) in March, 1996. He became eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) on completion of 5 years as Executive Engineer and accordingly he was required to be included in the list of eligible candidates for consideration of the Departmental Promotion Committe...
Jagdish Prasad and Another Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, M ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Shri G. George Paracken: The applicant in this Original Application is seeking the following reliefs: call for the records of the case; pass an order quashing and setting aside impugned orders dated 19.06.2010 passed by respondents in respect of applicant No. 1 and orders dated 18.04.2011 and 11.06.2011 passed in respect of Applicant No.2; pass an order directing the respondents to grant the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000 to the applicants w.e.f. 09.08.1999 in the grade of Skilled Operatives, the date from which the persons in the feeder grades were granted the said scale of pay, and place them in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 on grant of first ACP w.e.f. the due date on completion of 12/11 years of service in the grade of Skilled Operatives, with all the consequential benefits including arrears of pay and corresponding pay fixation.” 2. The brief background of this case is that Applicant No. 1 was initially appointed as Skilled Operative in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.950-1500...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »