Delhi Court January 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Tata Sky Ltd. Vs. Babneet Singh
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Salma Noor, J. Oral: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.7.09 passed by the District Consumer Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi-58, in Complaint Case No. 640/07 wherein the District Forum directed the Appellant/OP-1 to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs. 3,250/- after collecting their Dish and STB from the premises of the complainant. OP-1 and to further pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2000/- towards compensation and cost for the harassment caused to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on their part. The appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the complainant has taken a DTH connection of Tata Sky Ltd., on 11.3.07 for the purpose of better quality picture and sound on his TV against payment of Rs. 3,250/- vide invoice No.062 dated 11.3.2007. After some days, the service provider, TATA Sky Ltd., block the ETC Punjabi and some other channels due to which complainant and his family were dis...
Preetam Chhabra Vs. Vxl Relators Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
V.K. Gupta, Member (Judicial): 1. This is a complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.2. Brief facts are that in pursuance of alluring advertisement made by the OP in The Hindustan Times on 26.2.2006, the complainant booked a flat measuring 1330 Sq.ft. comprising 3 bedrooms, drawing and dining rooms in Easterned Hights at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad at the 4th Floor, but the OP, without any reason, allotted the complainant on the 7th Floor without his consent, thereby allotting flat No.704 in Block B on 7th Floor. The complainant has made the following payments:S.No.Cheque No.Amount17909632,20,000/-23860052,18,900/-33738192,19,450/-43207381,09,725/-51129891,09,275/-60158781,09,275/-Total 9,86,625/- 3. In this way, an amount of Rs.9,86,625/- has been paid to the OP, to the utter surprise, on 25.3.2008, the OP has cancelled the allotment on the pretext of the non payment of the installment due and payable along with PLC charges. Cancellation has been made solely on th...
R.K.M. Srivastava Vs. the Ministry of Telecommunication and I.T. and A ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. Shri R.K.M. Srivastava, the applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking (a) to set aside the letter dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure A-1), by which his representation dated 08.06.2011 requesting for releasing his arrears of pay w.e.f. 28.12.2007 to 09.12.2010 on account of his promotion to SAG of ITS Group A was rejected, and (b) to command the respondents to release the arrears of pay to the applicant with interest @ 8% per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case would reveal that the applicant being selected for Indian Telecom Service (ITS) joined in the service and got his due promotions from time to time. However, he was overlooked in the matter of promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) of ITS on the basis of his Annual Confidential Reports (ACR), which were below benchmark but the copies of such reports were not communicated to him. He, therefore, requested...
Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. M/S. R.H.L. Pro ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Archana Wadhwa : Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Ms. Shweta Bector learned AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Jatin Singhal, learned advocate. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of articles of MS bars and rods and were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs i.e. MS ingots used in the manufacture of their final products. 3. Based upon the Alert circular No. 1/2007 issued by Kolkata Commissionerate in respect of availment of Cenvat credit on the basis of fake invoices issued by M/s. Shree Hanuman Trading Co. located at Howrah, Kolkata, investigations were initiated against the respondents. The respondents authorized representative in his statement recorded by the officers deposed that they have availed the credit on the basis of three invoices all dated 1.10.2005 issued by M/s. Shree Hanuman Trading Company. He also produced the said invoices along with bilties ...
Nb Sub Roshan Lal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
N.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial) 1. This bunch of matters have come to this larger Bench pursuant to the order passed by the regular Bench on 06.09.2012 in OA No.279/2011 to the effect that learned counsel for the parties submitted that there is a conflict of decision on the issue involved in the present bunch of cases with regard to the policy dated 20.09.2010, in asmuch as the Principal Bench has taken one view of the matter and as against this, Allahabad Bench and Kochi Bench had taken a separate view. Therefore, it was felt necessary to refer the matter to the larger Bench. 2. Obviously all these matters involved the common question of law and are, therefore, being decided by this common order. 3. Hearing the learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, we were taken through the three judgments being those of the Principal Bench and the Lucknow and Kochi Benches of this Tribunal. The judgment of the Principal Bench is dated 04.04.2012 passed in OA 513/2011 Nb. Subedar Gulab Rao Vs....
Amar Veer Singh Vs. Union of India Through Secretary and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. This is the second round of litigation by the applicant. In the present OA he is assailing (i) the transfer order dated 04.09.2012 (Annexure A-1) transferring him from Faridabad to Chandigarh and (ii) the order dated 21.09.2012 (Annexure A-2) passed in compliance of Tribunals order dated 07.09.2012 (Annexure A-3) in OA No. 2956/2012 where the respondents were directed to consider his representation dated 05.09.2012 preferred against the aforesaid transfer order but the same has been rejected by the respondents in the aforesaid impugned order. Apart from the above, a direction is sought to be commanded to the respondents to produce the relevant records pertaining to the issuance of the impugned orders and to declare the applicant to be entitled to all consequential benefits. 2. When this matter came up for admission before the learned Single Member on 01.10.2012, following orders were passed:- In this Application, the applicant assails the legali...
Maj (Retd.) Umesh Chandra Naik Vs. National Technical Research Organiz ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. The applicant - retired Major Umesh Chandra Naik, who is presently working as Scientist D with the first respondent, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following relief(s):- (a) Call for the original file(s)/record(s) of the respondents dealing with the appointment/promotion of the applicant and other as Scientist D/Scientist E from the year 2005 to till date. (b) Declare the Memorandum No.V (B)Gp.A/19137-PC-1-13093 dated December, 2011 (Annexure impugned) to the extent the same has held the applicant entitled for promotion/upgradation to Scientist E, however, has not granted the benefit thereof in spite of the fact that the applicant fulfills all the requirements of benefits of FCS as illegal and arbitrary; (c) Declare the action of the respondent No.1 in not considering him for promotion to the post of Scientist - E; along with his batchmates viz., respondent No. 2 to ...
Union of India Through Commissioner Central Excise Vs. M/S. Ind Metal ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:6. h December, 2012 Date of Decision:2. d January, 2013 % + W.P. (C) 504/2010 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE DELHI-II ..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj and Mr. Jitender Choudhary, Advocates. versus M/S. IND METAL EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. C. Hari Shankar with Mr. S. Sunil, Mr. Pushkar Kumar Singh and Mr. Jagdish N., Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.The respondent, Ind Metal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. Since it goes to the root of the matter, it needs to be dealt with first.2. The matter arises under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent is a merchant-exporter and registered with the central excise authorities. It lodged rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of excise duty paid on goods p...
Xerox Modicorp Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:17. h December, 2012 Date of Decision:2. d January, 2013 % + + + W.P. (C) 8483/2010 W.P. (C) 8485/2010 W.P. (C) 8486/2010 XEROX MODICORP LTD. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.These are three writ petitions filed by the petitioner which is a company engaged in the export of software, manufacture of photocopiers and trading in fax, paper and toner. They are directed against reassessment proceedings initiated by issue of notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. W.P. (C) Nos.8483 & 8486/2010 relate to the proceedings for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively. They can be dealt with together and separate from W.P. (C) Nos.8485/2010 because for those years the reas...
K.C. Gupta Vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
$~R-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 02, 2013 + W.P.(C) 7006/2007 K.C. GUPTA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Sudhir Sharma, Advocate versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. We note at the outset that learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from his client gives up the prayer for payment of interest on delayed disbursement of the ad-hoc pension but clarifies that this would not be read to be understood to mean that the petitioner gives up prayer for interest on delayed payments, if the same would be found payable, in terms of the other relief sought in the writ petition.3. The core issue which needs adjudication finds succinctly penned down by a Division Bench of this Court in its order dated February 06, 200...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »