Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Narinder Singh Ahuja, New Delhi and Others Vs. Union of India and Othe ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Ashok Kumar, Member (A): 1. MA No.792/2013 has been filed for joining together. The same is allowed. 2. The applicants in this OA are aggrieved by the non-extension of their contract appointment despite the decision of the respondents that all contractual staff will be appointed for one year at a time and annual renewal every year to be done till the project exists. However, the contractual appointment could be discontinued for non- performance/under performance/abolition of the post/show-cause notice and satisfactory response not received during the previous contract period. The applicants made representations for continuation of their contract but no decision has been assigned on their representations. Their contracts expired on 31st March, 2013. They have urged that there has been violation of the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointments letters and ignoring the cases of the applicants, respondents took a decision to conduct a meeting on 21.03.2013 for selection of contrac...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Gupta, Delhi Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Its ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. This is the third round of litigation by the applicant before this Tribunal. He had earlier filed an OA No.2766/2011, in which orders came to be passed on 02.08.2011, and had thereafter filed a Contempt Petition No.916/2011, which also came to be disposed of on 01.09.2012. 2. The applicant was appointed in Shahdara Zone of the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD, in short), presently known as Shahdara (South Zone), Delhi, in the year 1988. In 1993 he became the beneficiary of regularization of his services. On 21.05.2001, the Anti Corruption Branch of CBI caught the applicant red handed while accepting a bribe, and the applicant remained in custody for a period of more than 48 hours, as a result of which he was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 21.05.2001, as per orders dated 22.06.2001. 3. In due course, on a representation submitted by the applicant, by revoking the order of his suspension, his services were reinstated vide order dated 26.12...
Tag this Judgment!Brilliant Classes Vs. Saroj Rawat
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Oral Judgment:?????????S.C. JAIN: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order? dated 23.2.2012 of District Forum III, Janakpuri, New Delhi passed in Complaint Case No. 39/09. 2. The brief facts leading to the complaint are that the complainants daughter Ms. Shilpa Rawat joined two years coaching course with the appellant/OP in the year 2008 in its Janakpuri Branch. She attended the classes from May, 2008 to November, 2008 and thereafter she stopped attending the classes as she was not satisfied? with the standard of coaching? of the appellant/OP institute.? The respondent/complainant requested the appellant/OP to refund the fees, but, on not receiving any response from the appellant/OP, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum and the District Forum after hearing the matter ordered the appellant/OP to refund? of 50% of Rs. 42,000/- i.e. Rs. 21,000/-, which was the advance fee taken by the appellant/OP for second year of coaching for ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar, Delhi Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. The grievance of the Applicant in this Original Application is that being a candidate belonging to SC category, the Respondents have not considered him for promotion to the post of Head Clerk (œHC? for short) against the slot earmarked for SC category candidates but counted those SC candidates who have been promoted against the unreserved post/general quota against the SC posts. He has, therefore, sought a declaration in this OA to the effect that the action of the Respondents in adjusting the SC candidates who have been promoted on the basis of seniority against the SC points is illegal and arbitrary. He has also sought a direction to the Respondents to consider him for promotion to the post of HC against the point reserved for SC with effect from the due date, i.e., 18.05.2008 with all consequential benefits including refixation of his pay with arrears of difference in pay and allowances. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the Applicant ...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Devi Delhi and Others Vs. the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nct of De ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): 1. Since in all the aforesaid OAs common questions of fact and law are involved, they are being disposed of by this common order, as agreed by the respective counsel. 2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts of OA No.500/2012. 3. The respondents vide Advertisement No.08/2007 dated 16.10.2007 called for applications for filling up of the posts of Teacher (Primary), Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the essential qualifications required for the same are as follows: Educational and other qualifications:- Senior Secondary (10+2) or intermediate or its equivalent with 50% marks from a recognized Board. Two years Diploma/Certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.EI.Ed. from a recognized institution. Must have passed Hindi as a subject at secondary level. Desirable: (iv) Computer Knowledge.? 4. The applicant belongs to OBC category. Though she is possessing the qualifications but not possessing the required 50% marks in her Senior Secondary level exam...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Fine Forex Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
CCE, Chandigarh Versus M/s. Fine Forex Pvt. Ltd. For the Appellant: Amresh Jain, Authorized Representative (DR). For the Respondent: None. Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The respondent are a sub-agent of M/s Sita World Travels (a division of M/s Kuoni Travel (I) Pvt. Ltd.), and M/s Reliance Money, who, in turn, are agents of Western Union (WU). Their job was to make payment in Indian rupees through cheques to the persons carrying money transfer code number allotted by the W.U. The amount paid was subsequently reimbursed to them alongwith their commission by M/s Sita World Travel/Reliance Money who, in turn, received the reimbursement in convertible foreign exchange from Western Union. M/s WU, a company registered abroad not having any branch or business establishment in India, provides money transfer service all over the world including India. Any person abroad, wanting to transfer money to his relatives or friends in India has to approach any office of the W.U. abroad and pay the money to be tra...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Impex Steel and Bearing Co. Vs. Cc, Delhi-iv
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. As per facts on record the appellant filed a Bill of Entry dated 22.01.2013 for clearance of 11225 dozens of Chinese PU Belts with buckles imported by them from M/s Pingyang Wensen Leather Co. Ltd., China against invoice dated 07.12.2012. The value of the said goods was declared by the appellant as US$ 1.5 per dozen which came out at Rs.7.053 per piece. The Commissioner entertained a doubt about correctness of the said value declared by the appellant and accordingly undertook 100% examination on first check basis on 29.01.2013. It was found that the belts were PU belts with buckles having a trade mark Tuff Line. The relevant information was downloaded from internet on various websites like www.cheapestinindia.com and other such websites and it was found that the costs of the belt ranged from Rs. 99/- to Rs. 148/-. Accordingly, Revenue entertained a belief that the value declared by the appellant was liable to be rejected in terms of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Jagbir Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :2. d DECEMBER, 2013 DECIDED ON :9. h JANUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 346/2000 JAGBIR SINGH & ORS. ....Appellants Through : Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr.Advocate with Mr.M.L.Yadav & Mr.Laksh, Advocates. versus STATE Through : .Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Jagbir Singh (A-1), Daryao Singh (A-2), Raj Singh (A-3), Ramesh Chand (A-4), Sardar Singh (A-5), Inder Singh (A-6), Ajit (A-7), Baljeet (A-8), Daljeet (A-9), Jasmer (A-10), Gulab (A-11), Kartar Singh (A-12), Suraj Mal (A-13) and Jasvir (A-14) were arrested by the police of PS Punjabi Bagh in case FIR No.717/85 and sent for trial on the allegations that on 29.10.1985 in the morning time at village Pitampura, they formed an unlawful assembly, the object of which was to give beatings to Raghubir Singh, Ram Narain, Ranbir Singh, Sukhbir Singh and Vijender Singh. They all along with their associate Girdhari (since PO) pursuant to the common object o...
Tag this Judgment!Shahajad and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.476/2013 9th January , 2014 % SHAHAJAD AND ORS. Through: ......Appellants Mr. S.K. Vashisth, Advocate. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Through: ...... Respondent Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 4.9.2013 by which the claim petition filed by the appellants/applicants was dismissed.2. Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the deceased late Smt. Firdous was not a bonafide passenger and in fact she died on account of her own criminal negligence and self-inflicted injuries. The relevant findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal contained in5. The applicants claim that on 14.07.2011, their 56 year old mother, who was a vendor of utensils, buying materials regularly at Sadar Bazar,...
Tag this Judgment!Sher Singh @ Sheru Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A.323/1998 SHER SINGH @ SHERU Through : .....Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Amicus Curiae. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. Pronounced on :9. h January, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J1 The Appellant Sher Singh has preferred this appeal impugning the judgment and order on sentence dated 19.10.1996 vide which he has been convicted under Sections 302/307/449 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, also to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.250/- for committing the offence punishable under Section 307 and further to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.250/for committing the offence punishable under Section 449 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. In brief, the prosecutions case is that the Appellant was residing i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- Next ›
- Last »