Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 8 of about 723 results (0.024 seconds)Uoi and Others Vs. Sep Ram Chandra
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Heard learned counsel for parties. This Review application has been filed for seeking review of the final order of the Tribunal dated 12.04.2010 passed in OA 185/2009 Sep Ram Chandra Vs UOI and Ors. By this order dated 12.04.2012 the petitioner was allowed disability pension and it was further ordered that petitioner since suffered disability to the extent of 20% therefore, his case may be considered by the Resurvey Medical Board to find out that said disability is for life or not. If it is found that disability is for life then the petitioner is entitled to benefit of rounding up of the benefit in view of the circular of the Government of India being No. 1(2)/97/D(Pen-C) dated 31.01.2001 and his benefit may be increased from 20% disability pension to 50% disability pension. 2. After the final order of the Tribunal dated 12.04.2010 Resurvey Medical Board was constituted and said Board examined the petitioner and declared petitioners said disability œfor life?. The respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!Jasvir Vs. Union of India Ministry of Agriculture Through Its Secretar ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A): 1. Following relief has been sought in this O.A.:- (a) To set aside the appointment of the last candidate recommended under General Category to the post of Finance and Accounts Officer Grade-I in the Indian Council of Agricultural Institute, New Delhi. (b) Direct the Respondents to appoint the applicant on the post of Finance and Accounts Officer Grade-I in the Indian Council of Agricultural Institute, New Delhi and he be given all consequential benefits from the date of his selection. (c) Any other and further relief which this Honble Tribunal deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant had appeared in a written examination conducted by the respondents for the post of Finance and Accounts Officers Grade-I in ICAR as a general candidate on 22.05.2011. He was short listed for interview in which he appeared on 22.08.2011. The result of the selection was declared on 23.09.2011. The applicant did not fig...
Tag this Judgment!Micro Super Cables Pvt.Ltd. Unit-ii Vs. Cce, Delhi-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
D.N. Panda, J. 1. Learned Counsel in all three appeals submits that the figures were very well available to satisfy learned adjudicating authority on the count of accounted stock and unaccounted stock. However fact finding is to be recorded on this aspect for resolving controversy. That shall resolve the dispute on the determination of liability if any.2. We have examined the contention of learned Counsel and para 6 of the order in a batch of appeal registered CEAC No.37/2012, 38/2012 and 39/2012 passed by Honble Delhi High Court on 18.9.2013 where all the three appellants were parties before the Honble Court. Honble High Court directed as under:- 6. We have examined the grounds of appeal raised by the appellants wherein the said contention has been explicitly raised. However, we find neither the adjudicating authority, first appellate authority and the tribunal have dealt with and examined the said grounds or answered the same. RG-IV Registers, entries therein and whether they were fo...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Surender Kumar Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. This T.A. case was first filed before the Honble Delhi High Court as W.P. (C) No.3249/2006. The Writ Petition progressed before the Honble High Court for some time. On 25.03.2009, it was ordered to be transferred to this Tribunal in view of the Notification dated 01.12.2008 transferring the jurisdiction pertaining to the then unified Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD, in short) to this Tribunal as the Court of first instance. 2. When on two-three occasions nobody appeared before the Tribunal, on 15.07.2010 this TA No.1086/2009 was dismissed in default by the Bench chaired by Honble Chairman, CAT. However, an MA for restoration was filed, in which notices were issued on 16.07.2012 by the Bench chaired by the acting Chairman of the Tribunal, and finally on 27.08.2012, the MA for restoration of the case was allowed by the Bench chaired by the Honble Chairman of the Tribunal, and the TA was restored to its original number, and listed for hearing thereafter. F...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Clearchem Agencies Vs. Cce, Indore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Rakesh Kumar, J. The appellant are a Clear and Forwarding Agent. The period of dispute in this case is from April, 2002 to September, 2006. During this period, they were providing CandF Agent services and also the services of the packaging to M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. Mumbai. There is no dispute in respect of the service tax on the packaging services. The dispute is only in respect of the value of the CandF Agent Services. The departments allegation is that during the period of dispute, the appellant were not paying service tax on payment received under following heads:- (1). Godown Rent Rs.48,000/- per month. (2). Charges for unloading from wagons and loading into trucks @30PMT. (3). Other misc. expenses @ Rs.5/- per kg. (4). Charges for transportation from rail head to godown Rs.60/- PMT. (5). Unloading and stocking at godown @ Rs.15/- per MT. (6). Loading for onward movement @Rs.20/- PMT. According to the Department, the above amounts received by the Appellant should be part of asses...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kirtan Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Bsnl, Bharat Sanchar Bh ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A): 1. Following relief has been sought in this O.A.:- (A) Direct Respondent No.1 to revoke applicants suspension forthwith; (B) Direct Respondents to fix applicants pension under the revised orders dated 4.4.2011; (C) Direct Respondents to pay all arrears of pay/pension/gratuity, without any delay; (D) Direct Respondents to give 10% interest on the delayed payments due/to be made. (E) Pay costs of the Original Application; (F) Pass any other Order/s that this Honble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant joined Department of Communication as Junior Engineer on 18.12.1968. On 11.06.1984 he was promoted as Asstt. Engineer. On 12.06.1996 he was promoted as Divl. Engineer on ad hoc basis and regularized on 03.11.1997. He was last posted as Asstt. General Manager on 19.08.2002. On 12.02.2004 he got absorbed in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. w.e.f. 01.01.2000. 2.1 On 22.03.2005 the applicant was placed u...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Foreign Service (B) Gazetted Officersass Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on January 10, 2014 Judgment Delivered on January 29, 2014 + W.P.(C) 5348/2001 INDIAN FOREIGN SERVICE (B) GAZETTED OFFICERSASSOCIATION, MEA, NEW DELHI & ORS. ..........Petitioners Represented by: Mr.A.K.Behera, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Meera Bhatia, Advocate for R-1. Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Tinu Bajwa and Mr.Ashwarya Sinha, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated May 22, 2001 whereunder the Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed OA No.1777/1999 filed by the petitioners.2. The issue which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Section Officers, are entitled to the relief of i.e. drawing the eligibility list for promotion to the Grade-I posts of IFS(B), i.e. Under Secretary by excluding the Private Secretary, w...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Dhingra Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:29. h January, 2014 % + LPA5482013, CMs No.11737/2013 (for stay), 11739/2013 & 11740/2013 (both for condonation of delay) VIPUL GUPTA + ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Nitish Jain & Mr. Jatin Sethi, Advs. Versus STATE & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel for GNCT for R-1,3 to 5. Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Bina Gupta, Mr. Harish Pandey & Mr. Anuj Dhir, Advs. for complainant. AND LPA5672013, CMs No.11963/2013 (for stay), 11965/2013 & 11966/2013 (both for condonation of delay) PRADEEP DHINGRA Through: STATE & ORS ..... Appellant Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Nitish and Mr. Jatin Sethi, Advs. Versus ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Bina Gupta, Mr. Harish Pandey & Mr. Anuj Dhir, Advs. for complainant. Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv. for R3,4&6. AND + LPA5692013, CMs No.11973/2013 (for stay) & 11975/2013 &...
Tag this Judgment!Life Technologies Corporation and anr. Vs. Atz Lab Solutions (India) P ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % I.A. No.10879/2012 in CS(OS) 1698/2012 + Date of Decision:29. h January, 2014 # LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION AND ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Amit Sibal with Mr. Jayant Kumar & Mr Abhimanyu Kumar, Advocates VERSUS $ * ATZ LAB SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Pratibha Singh & Mr.Abhishek Saket, , Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN ORDER P.K.BHASIN, J: The two plaintiffs have filed this application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in their suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from using their trade marks, trade names, domain names etc.2. The relevant averments made by the plaintiffs in different paras of the plaint, which need to be noticed for the disposal of this interim injunction application and in respect of which only submissions were made from both sides during the course of arguments, are a...
Tag this Judgment!Rajan Rai Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:27. 01.2014 Date of Decision:29. 01.2014 % + CRL. A. No.442 of 2010 SUNITA BHAGAT Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. versus SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Mann, SPP & Mr. R.K. Pillai, Advs. + CRL. A. No.464 of 2010 MAJOR P.C. THAKUR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Rahul Bhagat, Adv. versus SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Mann, SPP & Mr. R.K. Pillai, Advs. + CRL. A. No.473 of 2010 RAJAN RAI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. versus SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Mann, SPP & Mr. R.K. Pillai, Advs. + CRL. A. No.474 of 2010 AJAY VOHRA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. versus SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Mann, SPP & Mr. R.K. Pillai, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K.JAIN, J.Section 12 (1B) of the Securi...
Tag this Judgment!