Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Niraj Srivastava, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Cabinet Secreta ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A): 1. The short question that we are called upon to decide in the instant Original Application is that whether sealed cover procedure can be resorted to when no charge sheet has been approved and only initiation of departmental proceedings against a minor penalty charge has been sanctioned by the competent authority. 2. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he has been working as Additional Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat since 27.08.2011 and is due for retirement in February, 2014. On 09.08.2012, the applicant was called upon to submit explanation with respect to the alleged decision taken by him in April, 2004 while working as Joint Secretary in the same Department to which the applicant submitted his reply on 24.08.2012. However, as the matter was very old, the memory had faded and the applicant, therefore, submitted a more detailed reply on 26/28.03.2013. On 14.05.2013, the applicant submitted a comprehensive reply to the respondents after havin...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Saied, Through Its Chief Executive Vs. B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Ltd ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
S.A. Siddiqui(Oral Judgment): 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) against the judgment and order dated 18.11.09 passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Partap Bus Terminal, Mezzanine Floor, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 267/08. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute between the parties was settled by the Lok Adalat. In compliance thereof, the respondent raised a bill of Rs. 1,55,610/-, which was to be paid in five equal monthly installments of Rs. 31,122/- each. The respondents were directed by the Lok Adalat that the bill to be raised by will only consist of minimum charges without any LPSC or any other charges. Respondents issued pay-in-slip for four installments of the bill without details to show as to how the amount was arrived at. However, when they issued 5th and final pay-in-slip, it showed a sum of Rs. 31,122/-, which was inclusive of Rs. 19,135.31p as LPSC and Rs. 1,321.29p as ot...
Tag this Judgment!Engineers India Technical Services Vs. C.C.and C.Ex, Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
G. Raghuram, J. 1. Proceedings initiated by a show cause notice date 10.12.20108 culminated in the adjudication order dated 29.2.2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Raipur Division. The appeal preferred by the assessee/appellant herein was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), Raipur vide order dated 30.8.2013. Hence the present appeal. 2. At the stage of considering the stay application, since the issue falls within a narrow compass, I dispose of the substantive appeal itself after hearing the ld. Consultant for the appellant and the ld. Authorised Representative for the respondent-Revenue and after waiving the pre-deposit requirement. 3. The petitioner provided commercial or industrial construction services (CICS), a taxable service to M/s Mall Enterprises and M/s Mall Constructions, Nagpur during 2005-2006 to 2007-2008. The appellant was registered for providing the taxable CICS since February 2007. It however neither filed returns nor remitted the service tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Ramesh Dang and Others Vs. Director, Directorate of Income Tax (O ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. Applicants in this Original Application are Technical Assistants (œTAs? for short) in the Directorate of Organisation and Management (œDOMS? for short) under the Department of Revenue and Banking. Their grievance is that till 21.04.2004, they were at par with the Income Tax Inspectors under the Department of Revenue and up to 15.09.2006 with the Assistants of Central Secretariat Service (œCSS? for short). While upgrading the pay scales of Income Tax Inspectors of Department of Revenue and the Assistants of CSS, their pay scale has not been revised. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicants were appointed in terms of Directorate of Organisation and Management (Group œC? and Group œD?) Recruitment Rules, 1977. According to the said Rules, the pay scale of TAs was in the scale of Rs.550-25-75-750-EB-30-900 and the method of recruitment was by promotion failing which by transfer on deputation. In the case of prom...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar, Delhi Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, New Delhi
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Raj Vir Sharma, Judicial Member: 1. In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following relief: œIn view of the above facts and submissions, the applicant above named most respectfully prays that the communication dated 20.06.2012 may kindly be quashed/declared null and void qua the applicant at Sl.No.42 (in List No.I) and the respondents be directed to allocate the applicants candidature for the preferred post of Assistant in MEA in accordance with the Rules and Law. Such other or further orders may also be passed as this Honble Tribunal deems fit in the interest of justice.? 2. Brief facts of the applicants case are that he was a candidate of Combined Graduate Level Examination 2011 (in short, œCGLE 2011?) conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (respondent no.2). He appeared and was declared qualified in Tiers I and II examinations of CGLE 2011. Thereafter, he exercised option for different posts as detailed in the prescribed format (Annexure A-2...
Tag this Judgment!Avinash Mishra, New Delhi and Another Vs. Union of India Through Secre ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A): 1. The lone issue that compels consideration from us in the instant Original Application is as follows:- Whether the enquiry conducted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is vitiated by the mere fact that conduct of the enquiry by the Complaints Committee on Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace has not been sanctioned by the disciplinary authority. 2. The case in very brief is that the applicant is posted as Joint Advisor (Water Resources) in the Planning Commission. The next higher post in the hierarchy of Planning Commission, being that of Advisor (Water Resources), was due to fall vacant on 16.03.2013. The applicant having an outstanding service record in the Planning Commission was an obvious aspirant to this post and had also been recommended by the Selection Committee/DPC which met on 11.04.2013 following the scrutiny of the service records and interview. Being a Group-A service, t...
Tag this Judgment!Navendra Kumar, Delhi and Others Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
G. George Paracken, M (J). The Applicants in this Original Application have sought the following reliefs:- (i) The Respondents be directed to re-fix the pay of the Applicants drawn by them in CDA pay scale as on 01.10.2000 in the corresponding IDA pay scale at an appropriate stage by granting same number of annual increments as they had already drawn in the CDA pay scale. OR The Applicants be treated as regularly appointed Divisional Engineers on the date of their permanent absorption with Respondent No.2, i.e. 01.10.2000 and all the consequential benefits be also allowed to them. (ii) One annual increment may be allowed to the applicants on 01.10.2000 to remove their pay anomaly. (iii) Cost of the proceedings may be allowed. (iv)Any other order(s) as deemed fit and proper to secure the ends of justice may be passed?. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No.2, namely, Ministry of Communications and IT constituted the Respondent No.1, namely, the MTNL with effect from ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Chawla, Delhi Vs. Delhi Development Authority (Dda), Through Its ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Raj Vir Sharma, Judicial Member: 1. In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following relief: i) Quash the order dated 02.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner Personnel DDA (Annexure-1) hereto; Issue an appropriate direction to the respondents to restore his pay and consequential benefits. Pass such other and further orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper. 2. Brief facts of the applicants case are that he was appointed as Junior Engineer in Delhi Development Authority on 6.3.1985. He was sent on deputation to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi where he worked as Junior Engineer from 20.4.2002 to 4.7.2004. He was posted as Junior Engineer (Building) to Rohini Zone during the period from 26.4.2002 to 10.9.2003. He was repatriated to the Delhi Development Authority on 6.8.2004. 2.1. The Commissioner (Personnel), Delhi Development Authority (respondent no.2) issued a memo dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure P-7) to the applicant whereunder it was proposed to hol...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
R-3B * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment:13.01.2014 + CRL.A5812000 SURESH Through: Appellant Mr.Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate. Versus STATE Through: Respondent Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1 The present appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 17.8.2000 and 19.8.2000 whereby the appellant had been convicted under Sections 307 and 354 of the IPC as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 27 of the Arms Act; for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC he had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and for the offence under Section 354 IPC ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhartiya Engineering and General Mazdoor Union Vs. the Management of M ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on January 13, 2014 + W.P.(C) 6411/2013 BHARTIYA ENGINEERING AND GENERAL MAZDOOR UNION ..........Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Prabhakar, Advocate. versus THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. BHAGWAN MAHAVIR HOSPITAL AND ORS. ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel for GNCTD/Mahavir Hospital (R-1). Mr. P.K.Mittal, Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Anil Sehgal, Advocate for R-2. Ms.Kalpana Thakur, Advocate for R-3. + W.P.(C) 6656/2013 BHARTIYA ENGINEERING AND GENERAL MAZDOOR UNION ..........Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Prabhakar, Advocate. THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. BHAGWAN MAHAVIR HOSPITAL AND ANR. ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel for GNCTD/Mahavir Hospital (R-1). Mr. P.K.Mittal, Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Anil Sehgal, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral ) 1. Since both the writ petitions involve common issue, with the consent of the parties, a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »