Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dr. Bangkim Chandra Khangembam, New Delhi Vs. All India Institute of M ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Ashok Kumar, Member (A): 1. The applicant is a qualified doctor possessing MBBS degree and has been working as Junior Resident (Post Graduate) in the Department of Nuclear Medicine of AIIMS since 09.07.2010. In consonance with the prospectus dated 22.05.2013, he had appeared in the examination for recruitment to the post of Senior Resident in the said Department, which was held on 23.06.2013. 2. According to the applicant, the prospectus for recruitment to the post of Senior Resident for January 2013 session was issued on 12.12.2012. A certificate dated 21.5.2013 was issued to the applicant stating that he had been working as Junior Resident since 09.07.2010 and would complete his period of registration on 08.07.2013. Another certificate dated 24.5.2013 was issued by respondents stating that there was no objection to his applying for the Senior Residency Examination. The issue of finishing tenure before 30.06.2013 was taken up with the Registrar and a representation was also filed on 2...
Pal Jain, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through the The Secretary, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. The issue involved in this case is whether the penalty of compulsory retirement inflicted on a delinquent employee under the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 can be enhanced under the provision for review contained in Rule 29 (1)(v), that too after his normal date of superannuation is over. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant was proceeded under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The charge against him was that while he was functioning as Sub Postmaster Govindpura Post Office, Delhi-110051 during the period 03.03.2003 to 14.09.2004, he allegedly took withdrawals from different Savings Accounts of Govindpura Post Office by affixing forged signature or thumb impression of the depositors on the withdrawal forms (SB-7) himself for his personal use. The Enquiry Officer has held a detailed enquiry into the matter and submitted his report on 07.09.2007 holding that the charges against the Applicant were proved. After receiv...
Cce, Jalandhar Vs. M/S. Deepak Foreign Money Exchanger
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of order-in-appeal No. 764/CE/APPL/JAL/2008 dated 16/12/2008 passed by CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh. M/s Deepak Foreign Money Exchanger, Nakodar Road, Mehtpur, Distt. Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as appellant) are sub-agent of M/s Paul Merchant Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as PML). M/s Paul Merchant Ltd. are an agent of Western Union Financial Services Inc., USA (hereinafter referred to as WU) who provide money transfer services worldwide. WU do not have an office in India and operate throughout the world including India through a network of agents. PML are one of their agents in India. Any person in USA or in any foreign country, who wants to remit money to his friends or relative in India through WU, has to approach the office of the Western Union abroad and pay the money to be transferred alongwith the commission and he is given a code number by the WU. When this code number is communicated by him to his intended beneficiary in Indi...
Yog Raj Singh, Delhi Vs. New Delhi Indian Council of Agricultural Rese ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
G. George Paracken, M (J). 1. In this Original Application, the Applicant has challenged the order dated 01.02.2012 whereby the Respondents have refused to grant him the benefit of second Assured Career Progression Scheme (œACP Scheme? for short) with effect from 09.08.1999.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No.2 appointed the Applicant as Junior Stenographer on 31.08.1971 (redesignated as Stenographer on 06.09.1971). On 24.01.1978, one Ms. Jeevan Asha was also appointed as Stenographer. Both of them were appointed on the same terms and conditions. The Respondent No.2 vide its Office Order dated 08.08.1978, declared that the Applicant completed his probation period as Junior Stenographer with effect from 19.04.1978. In the year 1979, Respondent No.2 issued another order appointing the Applicant on quasi permanent basis with effect from 20.04.1978 under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Thereafter, in the seniority list of Junior Stenographers in the ...
K. Babu Janardhanan, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretar ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
(Oral) G. George Paracken, Member (J): 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. Both these OAs are identical and the applicants have filed these OAs seeking the following identical reliefs:- i. quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 25.10.2012; ii. direct the respondents to grant the applicant the Pay Scale of Rs.37,400 - 67,000 with Grade Pay of Rs.8700 in Pay Band-4 with effect from the date of DPC i.e. 30.05.2011; and iii. pass any other order(s) which this Honble Tribunal deems fit. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Ashish Nischal, has submitted that these cases are squarely covered by the decision of the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Noorul Hoda vs. Union of India and others in OA No.1127/2012 decided on 30.8.2013. The operative part of the said Order reads as under:- 11. It is seen that the Superintending Engineer (Electrical) belonging to the Construction Wing of AIR had earlier been given the pay scale in Pay Band 4 with Grade Pay of ...
R.K.Pathak Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
$~R-6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 02, 2014 + WP(C) 7354/2000 R.K.PATHAK Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Arvind Kumar Gupta, Advocate with Mr.Abhishek Goyal, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Bhupinder Sharma, DC, BSF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner was tried at a General Security Force Court on the following charge:BSF ACT Sec-46 COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE, THAT IS TO SAY, ATTEMPT TO MURDER, PUNISHABLE U/S307RPC. In that he, at BOP Sewa, on 13.4.96, fired six shots, from his AK-47 Rifle, Butt No.5, Body No.XM1395 at No.79010032 HC Anushil Kumar of the same Unit, with intent to kill him and thereby caused multiple wounds to the said HC Anushil Kumar. 2. The petitioner pleaded not guilty.3. Proceedings before the General Security Force Court dated January 15, 1997 would reveal that permission was granted to the p...
Employee Provident Fund Organization and anr. Vs. Sewa International F ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment pronounced on: January 02, 2014 CM(M) 1379/2012, C.M. Nos.21171/2012 & 7294/2013 EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Dev P.Bhardwaj, Adv. with Ms.Anubha Bhardwaj, Adv. versus SEWA INTERNATIONAL FASHIONS & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, Mr.Rajiv Shukla & Ms.Sneha Mukherjee, Advs. for R-1. Ms.Deepika, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed order dated 28th September, 2012 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal allowing the application of the Respondent No.1 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.2. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to an inspection conducted at the branch office of respondent No.1 at 5, Furniture Block, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, on complaints filed by Respondent No.2 with the peti...
Pulkit Khurana Vs. National Law University, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
#2 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8182/2013 & CM APPL. 17274/2013 PULKIT KHURANA Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Mukul Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vibhor Garg and Miss Suvarna Kashyap, Advocates versus NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, DELHI ..... Respondent Through None Date of Decision :2. d January, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the hostel rules/regulations of the respondent-University mandating the B.A.,LL.B. (Hons.) programme to be residential. The petitioner has also prayed for reconsideration of semester fees charged by the respondent-University.2. Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that the condition of mandatory residential five years stay at the campus, imposed by the respondent-University is not only financially onerous but illegal as well. Mr. Gupta submits that the Bar Council of India has n...
Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mohan Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment pronounced on: January 02, 2014 RC. Rev. No.391/2011, C.M. Nos.18078/2011 & 3189/2012 AERO TRADERS PVT LTD Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Anil Sapra, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Ruchi Jain, Adv. versus MOHAN SINGH AND ANR Through ..... Respondents Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Siddharth Bambha & Mr.Siddharth Aggarwal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 2nd November 2011 passed by the ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the leave to defend application of the petitioner was dismissed in an eviction petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner in respect of a shop bearing No.19 B/2, Ground Floor, New Market, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi -110005 (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premises) 2. The brief f...
M/S Vysali Pharmaceuiticals Ltd Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:02. 01.2014 W.P.(C) No.2562/2013 M/S VYSALI PHARMACEUITICALS LTD ... Petitioner versus APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION AND ORS ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Arjun Chawla For the Respondents : Mr Vivek Sibal and Mr Jitender Ratta, for respondent No.3 Ms Aparna Bhat and Ms Sudipta Sarkar, Advocates for respondent No.6 Mr Jogy Scaria, Advocate for respondent No.8 CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.03.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (AAIFR) in Appeal No.193/2011 whereby the petitioners said appeal arising from the order dated 07.06.2011 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) in Case No.33/2009, was rejected.2. The or...
- ‹ Prev
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- Next ›
- Last »