Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Ram Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. On 26.12.2006 a Tata India car belonging to the complainant, which was insured for an amount of Rs.3,06,927/- with the OP Insurance Company w.e.f. 9.11.2006 to 8.11.2007, was stolen from the residence of the complainant at D-340, Nawada Housing Complex, Kakrolla More, Delhi. The complainant informed the police. A copy of the Daily Diary Annexure A-2 is available on the file. The Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi did not register the FIR. The complainant then filed an application u/s 156(3) CRPC and the Magistrate directed the police to register a case and the Police vide FIR No.404 of 2007 registered the case of theft. 2. After around 5 months of the theft the complainant informed the OP Insurance Co. by sending a letter about the theft, claiming the reimbursement of the insured sum. On 25.4.2007, the OP Insurance Co., by sending a letter, asked the complainant to explain reasons for the delay caused in informing the OP, and thereafter, on 25.11....
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Kamal Chauhan, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Min ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Dr. B. K. Sinha, Member (A): 1. The instant Original Application is not directed against any particular order. It rather seeks directives to the Union Public Service Commission, the respondent no.3 herein, to issue interview letter to the applicant for the post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II (Biology) [hereinafter referred to œSSO-II?] scheduled to be held on 7th June, 2012 and keep one post reserved for him till the final outcome of the OA. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the applicant had applied for the post of SSO-II (Biology) on 26.09.2011 in response to the Advertisement No.17/2011 issued by the respondent no.3 for filling up a number of posts of SSO-II in various disciplines in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory [hereinafter referred to as œCFSL?], Central Bureau of Investigation, Ministry of Home Affairs, which figures as respondent no.1 in this OA, the applicant, against Item No.4 of the advertisement. It is the case of the applicant ...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Ravi Dass, Delhi Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation Through Its ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant who is working as Municipal Engineer cum Engineer-in-Chief filed the OA No.1491/2012 seeking a direction to the respondents to revise and grant his pay scale from Rs.18400-22400 to Rs.22400-24500 w.e.f. 01.12.2005 and to further revise it w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to the revised scale of Rs.67000-79000, with all consequential benefits. The said OA was allowed, as prayed for, except that the respondents are not liable to pay any interest on the arrears amount, however, subject to the result of the WP(C) No.2040/2012, by Order dated 04.10.2013. 2. The present RA is filed by the applicant under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 27 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, and Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to review the Order dated 04.10.2013 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.1491/2012. 3. The scope and power of this Tribunal under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Trib...
Tag this Judgment!Ritu Chaudhary, Gurgaon Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. The Applicant in this Original Application has challenged the Memorandum No.VIII (12) ACE/CIU/Newsprint/Ritu/109/2012, No.23/2012 dated 04.12.2012 on various grounds. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant, while working as an Inspector in Central Excise and Customs (œCEC? for short) from 01.05.2004 to 31.12.2004, was entrusted with the responsibility of examination of imported goods. Later, vide letter dated 20.10.2009, Assistant Commissioner (Vigilance) directed her to present herself before him to record her statement with regard to some of the Bills of Entry pertaining to the year 2004. In the statement recorded on 04.11.2009, she has stated that she had examined the goods covered by those Bills but she has also informed the officer concerned that she could confirm those bills only after seeking their handwritten copies. Thereafter, the Applicant sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Respondents, vide...
Tag this Judgment!Jagbir Singh Daiya, Delhi and Another Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Throu ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
V.N. Gaur, Member (A): 1. The applicant in this OA is one of the candidates in the panel list of 1492 candidates prepared on 27.01.1984, which was later the subject matter of CA No.1900/1987 in the case of Union of India and another v. Ishwar Singh Khatri and Ors. In compliance of the directions issued by the Honble Supreme Court in that case the applicant was appointed to the post of TGT (Science) on 17.09.1989. After further litigation in the matter by the similarly placed candidates of the aforesaid panel the applicant was also granted notional pay fixation and seniority w.e.f. 27.01.1984. The present OA has been filed with the prayer that for the purpose of granting ACP/MACP the approved service of the applicant should be counted from 27.01.1984 and not from 27.01.1989 as the respondents have done. The main ground taken by the applicant is that once it has been accepted that his appointment will count from 27.01.1984 for the purpose of granting seniority and notional pay fixation, ...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Nath Ex-d Men-11 Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 47/2014 Date of decision:6. h January, 2013 % PREM NATH EX-D MEN-11 Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Prakash Chandra, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.B.V.Niren, CGSC with Mr.M.P. Singh for R-1 and R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(oral) 1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17th April, 2013 whereby his O.A.No.847/2012 was rejected. The petitioner also challenges the order passed on 4 th September, 2013 rejecting his review petitioner being R.A.No.110/2013.2. It appears that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated agaist the petitioner on the following charges:Article I That the said Shri Prem Nath, while serving as DMan-II in the Dte of Fleet Maintenance, did remain unauthorisedly absent for 233 days in various spells between 13 Sep 206 to 01 Jun 2007. Shri Prem Nath, DMan-II, by his above...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Komal Nagpal and Others Vs. Mr. Kamal Nagpal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:24. 10.2013 % Judgment delivered on:03. 01.2014 + CCP No.143/2012 in CS(OS) No.2388/2006 SMT. KOMAL NAGPAL & OTHERS Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Suman Kapoor and Ms. Ishah Shah, Advocates versus MR. KAMAL NAGPAL & OTHERS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. R.S.Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit K. Agarwal and Ms. Urvika Suri for R1. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, for R-4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. The petitioners had instituted CS(OS) 2388/06 against three defendants, defendant no.1 being respondent no.1 herein, seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from disposing of the premises known as Carlton cafe,1282-1286, Bada Bazar, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi, without the consent, knowledge & participation of the petitioners. The said suit is still pending adjudication before this Court.2. The case of the petitioners is that premises known as Carlton cafe is a tenanted premise wherefrom the bu...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Mohan Vs. Ishwari Prasad Nigam
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order Pronounced on: January 03, 2014 + RC. Rev. No.80/2011 BRIJ MOHAN Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Vivek Sharma, Adv. versus ISHWARI PRASAD NIGAM ..... Respondent Through Mr.M.R.Shamshad, Adv. with Mr.Shashank Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) assails the eviction order dated 15th January 2011 passed by the court of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed an eviction petition against the petitioner alleging bonafide requirement for the purpose of residence for himself and his family members in respect of the tenanted shop i.e. shop no.2 measuring 810x7 in the property No.B-254, Gali No.11, Bhajanpura, Delhi-53 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). The petitioner was inducted a...
Tag this Judgment!Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Real Drinks Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) No.1812 of 2012 Reserved on: December 19, 2013 Decision on: January 3, 2014 DABUR INDIA LTD. Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Rani and Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates versus REAL DRINKS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. ..... Defendant No.1 through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Mr. Nikhil Singhvi, V.P. Rana and Ms. Hetal Vora, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT0301.2014 IA No.11394 of 2012 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the Plaintiff) and IA No.11656 of 2012 (Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC by Defendant No.1) 1. The background to these applications is that Dabur India Limited has filed the above suit to restrain Real Drinks Pvt. Ltd., Goa (Defendant No.1) and IndiaMART InterMESH Limited (Defendant No.2) from infringing the Plaintiffs registered trademark REAL and from using REAL or any other mark identical thereto or similar therewith as may be likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to passin...
Tag this Judgment!icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt Usha and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:3. d January, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 498/2009 ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant Represented By: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. Versus SMT USHA & ORS ..... Respondents Represented By: Mr. Bhupesh Narula and Mr. Ashikesh Gupta, Advs. for R1 to R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the award dated 10.07.2009, whereby, ld. Tribunal while granting the compensation amount of Rs.12,35,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum has given the recovery rights in favour of the appellant against respondent nos. 4 and 5.2. Vide the present appeal, appellant is seeking direction to exonerate as the cheque of premium amount was bounced and in that eventuality they are not liable to pay any compensation and entitled for exoneration.3. Admittedly, recovery rights have been granted in favour of the appellant.4. Appellant / insurance Company in its written statement ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- Next ›
- Last »