Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 71 of about 723 results (0.012 seconds)State Vs. Ravi@ Ravinder and anr
Court: Delhi
$~1 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.L.P. 191/2012 & Crl. M.A. No.4383/2012 (delay) STATE ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Sub-Inspector Sandeep, Police Station Vasant Kunj (North), Delhi versus RAVI@ RAVINDER & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Deepak Vohra, Advocate for respondent No.1 & 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA ORDER % 02.01.2014 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. By this petition filed under Section 378(1) of the Code Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner seeks grant of criminal leave to appeal to challenge the judgment dated 26.08.2011, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge-02 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi, thereby acquitting the accused persons of the charge framed against them under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.2. The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the registration of the case against th...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mathura Singh
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: January 02, 2014 + CM(M) 709/2013 & CM No.10807/2013 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Arjun Pant, Adv. versus MATHURA SINGH Through ..... Respondent Mr.J.K.Jain, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner (defendant in the suit) has assailed the order dated 15th February, 2013 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement was dismissed.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) filed a suit for permanent injunction against dispossession of the respondent from the suit property without due process of law in May, 1995. The petitioner filed its written statement, raising various objections, in December, 1996.3. By way of application for amendment, the petitioner submitted that in the written statement the suit property had been inad...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. M/S. Gurbachan Singh and Sons
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.8/2010 2nd January , 2014 % MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ......Appellant Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Advocate. VERSUS M/S. GURBACHAN SINGH & SONS ...... Respondent Through: Mr. B.M. Sehgal, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short A&C Act) against the judgment of the lower court dated 11.9.2009. impugned judgment dismissed the Learned ADJ by the objections filed by the appellant/Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) against the Award of the sole Arbitrator dated 19.9.2008. The Award of the Arbitrator is a common Award with respect to two claim petitions filed by the respondent/contractor with respect to two separate works. The parties were the same and therefore the Arbitrator delivered the common Award. One claim petition which was filed by the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Pal Gulati Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes
Court: Delhi
$~R-2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:02. 01.2014 + W.P.(C) 3129/1992 ASHA PAL GULATI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Advocates. versus CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Jr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioner challenges an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, made on 17.08.1992. The impugned order was made on an application preferred under Section 273A of the Income Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking waiver of penalty and interest for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1988-89. Apparently, the application stands disposed off vide order dated 17.08.1992 and upon being challenged this Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for reconsideration.2. Briefly, the facts are that the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Anuradha Kapoor, New Delhi Vs. Director General and Secretary, Indian ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. Applicant is aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-I order dated 22.06.2012. According to the said order, she was appointed as Laboratory Assistant (Key Punching)/T-1 dated 05.03.1983 in Laboratory Technician Functional Group in Category-I and further placed in T-2 w.e.f. 01.01.1989, T-1-3 w.e.f. 1.7.1974, T-3 w.e.f. 03.02.2000 and T-4 w.e.f. 03.02.2005 under New Technical Service Rules. However, when the Technical Service Rules (œTSR? for short) were notified with effect from 03.02.2000, any existing technical employee who would like to be governed only as per the existing TSR was required to specifically exercise the individual option. But the Applicant did not opt for the Old TSR and as such she was governed under the New TSR under which she was placed in T-3 w.e.f. 03.02.2000. Further, as per Councils letter No.19(10)/2004-E.IVdated 19.10.2006 and vide IARE Circular No.22-1/95-P-V dated 14.11.2006, fresh option was called for from all Technic...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K. Asaiah, New Delhi Vs. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, Member (J): 1. This is the second round of litigation by the applicant. Earlier he had approached this Tribunal vide OA No.3544/2011 challenging the Disciplinary Authoritys order dated 14.06.2011 compulsorily retiring him from service. The said OA was disposed of vide order dated 28.9.2011 observing that he had already filed an appeal against the aforesaid order and directing the appellate authority to decide his appeal in a time bound manner. As the aforesaid order was not complied with, the applicant filed Contempt Petition No.351/2012 in the aforesaid OA and the same was closed vide order dated 8.5.2012 taking into consideration of the respondents OM dated 13.10.2011 informing the applicant that there was no provision for making any appeal against the order passed by the President and advising him that he can file review petition under Rule 29-A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application seeking a direction to the respondents to ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas Delhi and Others Vs. the General Manager, New Delhi and Othe ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sh. G. George Paracken, J. Applicants in this Original Application are aggrieved by the impugned letter dated 05.04.2011 issued by the Divisional Personnel Manager, Northern Railway whereby their dates of promotions and seniority as Technician (œTech? for short)-III, Tech-II and Tech-I respectively have been reassigned retrospectively after annulling and withdrawing their seniority as Tech-III and consequential promotions made vide letter No.847-E/187/03/TLF-II/P-3 dated 13.09.2004 in purported implementation of the directions of the High Court of Delhi in its common order dated 21.07.2010 in Writ Petition ( C) No.6790/2007 and connected case Ram Niwas and Others Vs. U.O.I. and Others. They have also sought directions to the respondents to place the private respondents 3 to 9 below them by strictly complying the directions of Supreme Court in its judgment and order dated 07.04.1997 in V.K. Dubey and Others Vs. U.O.I. and Others 1007 (5) SCC 81 and not to reduce their pay but to p...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Jainsons Industries Ltd. Vs. Cc, Icd, New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant imported Ball Valves against two bills of entries dated 07/.2/07 and 31/1/07. The duty was discharged on the said imports on the tariff value on 09/2/07 and 02/2/07 respectively. Subsequently, the appellants realized that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2007-CUS dated 22/1/07, which prescribed concessional rate of duty, they filed refund claims for excess payment made by them to the extent of Rs. 1,25,450/- and Rs. 35,519/-. The said refund claims were made on 15/11/07. 2. The claims made by the party stands rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that they had not challenged the bill of entry and as such in terms of the law declared by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Flock India Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.) and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. vs. CC (Preventive) 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.), their refund cannot be entertained. 3. However, we find that the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjaybhardwaj, New Delhi and Others Vs. Union of India to Be Represen ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. According to the learned counsel for the Applicants, the present Original Application is identical to OA No. 181/2009 Shri K.S. Premkumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others decided by the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal on 26.04.2010 except for the fact that the Applicants therein were working in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (œBSNL? for short) whereas Applicants herein are working in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (œMTNL? for short). 2. The facts in OA No.181/2009 (supra) are that the Applicants therein were working as Sub Divisional Engineers (œSDE? for short) in BSNL. They have been promoted on the basis of the result of a Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion from the cadre of Junior Telecom Officer (œJTO? for short) to Telecom Engineering Service (œTES? for short) under 25% quota. A common examination was held in the year 2002 for the vacancies which have arisen in the vacancy years 1996-97, 199...
Tag this Judgment!Wg. Cdr. (Retd.) Dinesh Kumar, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Ch ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. The Applicant in this Review Application is the Applicant in the Original Application No.4235/2010. In this RA, he has sought a prayer for recalling the order of this Tribunal dated 28.02.2012 in the aforesaid OA. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:- 6. In the factual gamut of the case, the very foundation of the claims being agitated under the OA gives way. When an per the terms and conditions of re-employment under the NTRO, the Applicant was required to join the New Pension Scheme of 2004, any agitation of claims for pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme would be in contravention of the basis terms of re-employment. We are unable to accept the argument advanced by the applicants learned counsel that the 25.07.2006 order of NTRO impliedly meant a change of this condition of appointment. In any case, the respondents have averred this order to be not correct or legally tenable. Without going into the other legal technicaliti...
Tag this Judgment!