Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 43 of about 723 results (0.022 seconds)U. Das S/O Late Sh. U.C. Das, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Sec ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Dr. B. K. Sinha, Member (A): 1. The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the Charge Memo dated 28.01.2011 issued by the respondent organization against the applicant directing him to show cause in relation to the imputation of charges enclosed. By virtue of this OA, the applicant has sought the following relief(s):- Quash and set aside the charge memo dated 28.01.2011 (A-1) and issue direction for grant of upgradation under MACP Scheme with all arrears of pay. Direct the respondents to release all the retirement dues of the applicant along with 24% interest. To allow the OA with cost Pass any further orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the applicant in brief is that he was serving as Director (Collection and Administration), National Museum, New Delhi when he was issued the Memo dated 10.11.2006 for having favoured ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Gsp Electronics and Another Vs. C.C.E., Noida
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Both the appeals are disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri Ravinder Singh, Consultant appearing for the appellant and Shri BB Sharma, Ld. Departmental Representative, appearing for Revenue. 2. As per facts on record, M/s. GSP Electronics are engaged in manufacture of transformers, coils and degaussing coils falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were sending their raw-material, i.e., copper rods to their job workers M/s. S.H. Haryana Wires Ltd. for drawing and enamelling of the same in terms of Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001/2002 under the cover of challans and the job worker was returning the goods after completion of the job work to the appellant. As the job worker has used paint for enamelling of the goods, and charged the job charges including the cost of the enamel, they were paying duty on the said goods and the appellant was a...
Tag this Judgment!U. Das, New Delhi and Others Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Dr. B. K. Sinha, Member (A): 1. All the three Original Applications bearing OA Nos.3312/2011, OA No.54/2012 and OA No.3843/2011 have been heard together as they involve common question of law and facts arising from the same transaction and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts of the case, briefly put, are that the applicants, while working in the National Museum on different posts and dealing with the Exhibition entitled œEternal India? proposed to have been held in Brazil, were issued show cause notice dated 26.07.2006 in so far as one U.Das (applicant in OA No.3312/2011) and John Emmanuel Dawson (applicant in OA No.54/2012) are concerned and show cause dated 03.08.2006 to K.K. Deori (applicant in OA No.3843/2011) alleging that during the year 2002-2005 they, in collusion with each other, had committed gross misconduct, dereliction of duties and irregularities thereby caused financial loss to the Government by passing fake bills amounting to ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Vaswani Industries Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central E ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Both the appeals, one filed by the assessee and the other by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 2. After hearing both sides, duly represented by Shri H V Ghrinikar, learned Consultant for the Appellants and Ms. Suchitra Sharma, learned DR for the Revenue, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has disallowed the credit in respect of TMT bars CTD bars and cement used in construction activities or as supporting structurals by following the Tribunals Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global. However, he has restricted the demand within the normal period of limitation and by extending the benefit of limitation to the assessee. On the same ground, he has set aside the penalty imposed upon them. The said part of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is appealed against by the Revenue. 3. The appellants contention is that such TMT bars and cement etc. were used for c...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. (Mrs.) Vasudha Gupta, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Secreta ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Dr. B. K. Sinha, Member (A): 1. The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 assailing the draft Civil/Seniority list of officers in Junior Administrative Grade(JAG) of IIS Group œA? issued on the basis of review DPC held on 16.05.2012 wherein respondent no.2 belonging to 1990 Batch of IIS Group œA? has been declared senior to the applicant, who belongs to 1989 Batch of the same Service. The applicant apprehends that the DPC proceedings under active consideration of respondent no.1 based on the said seniority list in so far as the applicant qua the respondent no.2 is concerned is likely to result in commission of grave injustice to her. 2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):- That the draft seniority list of Senior Grade of IIS Group A issued on 18.07.2012 (Annexure A-1) declaring respondent no.2 belonging to IIS 1990 batch, senior to the applicant, who belongs to IIS 1989 batch,...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Col. Chandan Vatsa Vs. National Highway Authority of India Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Oral Order: G. George Paracken, Member (J) O.A. 400/2012 1. The Applicant has filed this O.A. seeking the following reliefs: œi) To declare the appointment of the respondent No.3 as GM (Tech) vide letter dated 23.04.2010 by Respondent No.1 as illegal and quash and set aside the said appointment; and To quash and set aside the order dated 23.02.2011 appointing respondent No.3 as RO Bihar and direct the respondents to appoint the senior most GM (Tech) in the Bihar area to be appointed as RO Bihar, till the permanent incumbent is posted as RO Bihar; and To quash and set aside order dated 13.03.2011 posting the applicant as SLO Ranchi and direct the respondent No.1 to allow the applicant to complete his remaining tenure at Bihar to allow the applicant to fulfil his social obligation towards his 100% immobile and bed-ridden father; and To quash and set aside the order dated 31.01.2012 passed by R-1 relieving the Applicant with effect from 01.02.2012 from compassionate posting, while a...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Bala and ors Vs. Rampal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.252/2013 % 15th January, 2014 SURESH BALA & ORS ......Appellants Through: Mr. B.S.Mann, Advocate. VERSUS RAMPAL ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This regular second appeal impugns the judgment of the appellate court dated 20.7.2013 by which the appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit as being not maintainable in the civil court in view of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The case of the appellants before this court, and who were the defendants in the suit, is that Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act is a complete bar to the maintainability of the suit. Reliance is placed on behalf of the appellants upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. LPA No.81/2012 decided on 11.9.2012.2. At the outset, it m...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Pal Goel and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.312/2011 15th January, 2014 % RAJ PAL GOEL AND ANR. Through: ......Appellants Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Sandip Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The challenge under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is to the impugned judgment dated 29.4.2011 by which the claim petition was dismissed.2. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the facts in the present case do not show any untoward incident as per Section 123(c) and Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 because the deceased was travelling on the roof of the train. Travelling on roof of the train therefore in effect amounts to criminal negligence and selfinflicted injuries whereby Railways are not liable.3. The relevant observations made by the Railway Claims Tribunal in this regard ar...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Kumar Modi and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: December 18, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: January 15, 2014 (i) + CRL.M.C. 1089/2012 SATISH KUMAR MODI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nisha Rohtagi, Mr. Mohit Mathur, Mr. Rishi Aggarwala, Ms. Nisha Rohtagi , Mr. Vinod Gupta & Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocates versus STATE Through: (ii) + .....Respondent Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State CRL.M.C. 1090/2012 SATISH KUMAR MODI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Chaitali Jain, Ms Gousia Shah & Mr. Mohd. Adnan, Advocates versus STATE Through: (iii) + .....Respondent Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State with SI Rajneesh CRL.M.C. 1132/2012 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 3978 & 80/2012 ROYAL AIRWAYS LTD & ORS. Crl. M.C. No.1089/2012 Crl. M.C. No.1090/2012 Crl. M.C. No.1132/2012 Crl. M.C. No.1760/2012 Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Sethi, Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Mr....
Tag this Judgment!M/S Deccan Mechanical and Chemical Industries Pvt. Vs. Ntpc Ltd. and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 93/2014 & CM APPL. 162/2014 M/S DECCAN MECHANICAL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Arvind K. Nigam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury and Mr. Vaibhav Tomar, Advocates. versus NTPC LTD. & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bharat Singhal, Ms. Kanika Tandon and Ms. Saumya Aggarwal, Advocates. Reserved on :8. h January, 2014 Date of Decision :15. h January, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J:1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the debarring order dated 27th November, 2013 issued by the respondents banning all business dealings with the petitioner-company for all projects of respondentCorporation for a period of three years w.e.f. 27th November, 2013.2. The relevant facts of the present case are that petitioner No.1 claims to b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next ›
- Last »