Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 61 of about 723 results (0.025 seconds)Balmukuand, Faridabad and Others Vs. Union of India Through the Genera ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken,M (J). 1. The Applicants have been working as Shunters (Loco Pilot Shunters) in the grade of Rs.4000-6000. Their grievance is that they have not been considered for non-functional promotion to the higher grade of Shunters in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 w.e.f. 23.01.2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Ministry of Railways have undertaken review of cadres of certain Group œC? and œD? staff in consultation with the staff side with a view to strengthen and to rationalise the staffing pattern on Railways. It was done on the basis of functional, operational and administrative requirements. Accordingly, the Railway Board issued instructions vide their letter No.PC-III/91/FP-2 dated 08.10.2002 to carry out Annual Reviews for gradewise percentage distribution of posts from 1.4.2003 taking into account the cadre strength as on that date and the next annual review to be undertaken w.e.f. 01.04.2005 taking into consideration of the cadre strength as on th...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Fairyland Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd Vs. Cce, Indore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. The entire confirmed demand of Rs.72,306/- already stands deposited by the appellant alongwith interest. Accordingly, we waive the condition of pre-deposit of penalty and proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as the appellant is not contesting the confirmation of demand and interest and is only praying for setting aside the penalty. 2. It is better to reproduce the relevant para of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals): œ5.3. I observe that vide notification No. 23/2007 ST dated 22.5.2007, levy of service tax was introduced on renting of property service by virtue of clause 65(105)(zzzz) read with section 65 (90a) defining taxable service w.e.f. 1.6.2007. In the Finance Bill, 2010 by virtue of para 76, validation law was introduced whereby the verdict of any court, pronouncement was declared to be redundant and the levy was held to be constitutionally valid with retrospective effect w.e.f. 1.6.2007. The provisions of Finance Bill were enacted o...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Pal Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:02. 01.2014 Date of Decision:06. 01.2014 % + CRL. A. No.645 of 2010 MAHESH PAL SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Mr. Chand Kiran, Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka & Mr. Tej Singh Varun, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K.JAIN, J.On 24th April, 2007, the complainant Mr. Shiv Kumar, whose son Ashwin at that time was studying in the 8th Standard in Ludlow Castle No.2 School and was placed in compartment in Mathematics, came to the office of the Anti Corruption Branch and gave a written complaint, exhibit PW48, alleging therein that on the appellant, Mr. M.P. Singh, who was an English Teacher, asking him, through his son, to meet him, he (the complainant) went to the School along with his son and met the appellant, who offered to pass his son on payment of Rs.3,000.00 as bribe. He further alleged that the appellant had called him by ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Dtc and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on December 06, 2013 Judgment Delivered on January 06, 2014 + W.P.(C) 1956/2013 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. .....Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Zubeda Begum, Advocate with Ms.Sana Ansari, Advocate versus SUKHBIR SINGH Represented by: ...Respondent Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate W.P.(C) 7577/2012 AJAY KUMAR BHARDWAJ .....Petitioner Represented by: Dr.L.S.Chaudhary, Advocate with Mr.Ajay Chaudhary and Mr.Bhupinder Singh, Advocates versus DTC & ORS. Represented by: ...Respondents Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate with Mr.Uday Singh Ahlawat and Mr.Nilish Singh, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. Rule 11 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 reads as under:Rule 11.Punishment on judicial conviction.(1) When a report is received from an official source, e.g. a court or the prosecution agency, that a subordinate rank ...
Tag this Judgment!NaIn Singh Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: December 09, 2013 Judgment Delivered on: January 06, 2014 + W.P.(C) 1215/2011 NAIN SINGH Represented by: .....Petitioner Ms.Nisha Priya Bhatia, Advocate with Mr.Sher Afgon, Advocate versus UOI & ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Dr.Kumar Jwala, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The factual backdrop necessary to be noted for disposal of above captioned petition is that in the year 2007 the petitioner who was working on the post of AFO (CRF) was posted at the Headquarters of Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India.2. On July 23, 2007, Mr.Davinder Kumar, an official working in Counter-Intelligence Service (hereinafter referred to as the CIS), prepared a report pertaining to an incident of the same day i.e. July 23, 2007, recording pilferage/sale of items of CSD Canteen of Government of India. The report reads as under:On 23.7.2007, at about ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Chinatrust Commercial Bank Vs. M/S Liliput Kidswear Limited
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:06. 01.2014 CO.PET.66/2012 & CA No.2333/2013 M/S CHINATRUST COMMERCIAL BANK versus ..... Petitioner M/S LILIPUT KIDSWEAR LIMITED ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Sumit Bansal, Mr Ateev Mathur, Mr Amol Sharma, Ms Sumi Anand & Ms Richa Oberoi. For the Respondent : Mr Tanmaya Mehta & Ms Misha Rohatgi. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner bank under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, praying for winding up of the respondent company as the respondent has failed and neglected to pay the amounts due and payable to the petitioner bank. The petitioner has also filed an application (CA No.2333/2013) praying for winding up the respondent company.2. Briefly stated, the respondent had approached the petitioner bank for financial assistance by way of a Working Capital Demand facility of a sum of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Police and ors Vs. Sukhbir Singh
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on December 06, 2013 Judgment Delivered on January 06, 2014 + W.P.(C) 1956/2013 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. .....Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Zubeda Begum, Advocate with Ms.Sana Ansari, Advocate versus SUKHBIR SINGH Represented by: ...Respondent Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate W.P.(C) 7577/2012 AJAY KUMAR BHARDWAJ .....Petitioner Represented by: Dr.L.S.Chaudhary, Advocate with Mr.Ajay Chaudhary and Mr.Bhupinder Singh, Advocates versus DTC & ORS. Represented by: ...Respondents Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate with Mr.Uday Singh Ahlawat and Mr.Nilish Singh, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. Rule 11 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 reads as under:Rule 11.Punishment on judicial conviction.(1) When a report is received from an official source, e.g. a court or the prosecution agency, that a subordinate rank ...
Tag this Judgment!Cellular Operators Asociation of India and ors. Vs. Department of Tele ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: January 06, 2014 WP(C) No.3673/2010 ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA & ORS. .... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Lakshmeesh Kamath and Mr.Umang Gupta, Advocates versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Advocate with Ms.Vanessa Singh and Ms.Neha Singh, Advocates for DOT Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for CAG Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari and Ms.Ravjyot Singh, Advocates for UOI Ms.Sangeeta Singh, Advocate with Mr.Kumar Rajan Mishra, Advocate for TRAI WP(C) No.3679/2010 CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Abhishek Manu Singhavi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gopal Jain, Advocate versus DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Advocate with Ms.Vanessa Singh and M...
Tag this Judgment!Ponty Singh Vs. Anu Singh Bhatia
Court: Delhi
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 820/2012 & I.A.Nos.5783/2012 & 6736/2012 + Date of Decision:6. h January, 2014 # ! PONTY SINGH .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sahay versus $ * ANU SINGH BHATIA ....Defendant Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Banerjee, Ms. Harleen Kaur and Ms. Princy Ponnan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN ORDER P.K. BHASIN, J.The plaintiff and the defendant in this suit for anti-suit injunction were married on 20th December, 1999 at New Delhi as per the Sikh rites and rituals. They left India and acquired British citizenship sometime in the year 2005. From the wedlock two daughters were born and they also acquired British citizenship. After staying in the United Kingdom for some years the entire family moved to Hong Kong and after a brief stay there they came to Singapore sometime in the year 2008 and thereafter they have been staying in Singapore only.2. The plaintiff-husba...
Tag this Judgment!Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers O Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: January 06, 2014 WP(C) No.3673/2010 ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA & ORS. .... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Lakshmeesh Kamath and Mr.Umang Gupta, Advocates versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Advocate with Ms.Vanessa Singh and Ms.Neha Singh, Advocates for DOT Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for CAG Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari and Ms.Ravjyot Singh, Advocates for UOI Ms.Sangeeta Singh, Advocate with Mr.Kumar Rajan Mishra, Advocate for TRAI WP(C) No.3679/2010 CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Abhishek Manu Singhavi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gopal Jain, Advocate versus DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Advocate with Ms.Vanessa Singh and M...
Tag this Judgment!