Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 18 of about 540 results (0.022 seconds)Mahipal Singh Vs. the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1190/2014 Date of decision:21. t February, 2014 % MAHIPAL SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Subhash Chand Tomar and Mr.Yatendra Nagar, Advocates versus THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Suryadeep Singh, Adv. for Ms.Prabhsahay Kaur, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. The writ petitioner assails the order dated 10th September, 2013 whereby his O.A.No.2811/2013 was dismissed in limine by the Central Administrative Tribunal.2. It appears that the petitioner stands convicted by judgment dated 24 th January, 2012 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi for commission of offence under Sections 7 and 13 (i) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner has assailed the said conviction by way of the Criminal Appeal No.146/2012 before this court which is stated to be pending.3. It appears that in...
Tag this Judgment!Pacific India Trade Concern Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev)
Court: Delhi
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:21. 02.2014 + CUSAA62014 PACIFIC INDIA TRADE CONCERN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R. Santhanam with Mr. A. P. Sinha, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. This is an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The assessee challenges a final order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), whereby its appeal was dismissed. It urges that a substantial question of law in respect of the valuation of imported hair oil arises for consideration.2. The appellant had imported various cosmetics including hair oil, hair colour, shaving gel, shaving cream etc. in retail packs for sale to the end users, i.e., consumers. The goods were cleared under bills of entry dated 2.2.2007. In terms of the provisions of the Custom...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Anneyamma Johny, Gurgaon Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). Following relief has been sought in this O.A.:- (a).Declare the impugned Note 2A below Rule 7 dated 29.8.2008, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, unjust and inequitable and quash and set aside the same and direct the respondents to upgrade the post with proposed scale. (b).Direct that their notional pay fixation should be as per proposed scale mentioned in the 6 CPC Report and as accepted by the GOI Resolution dated 29.8.2008, and as has been done for other similarly placed officers (normal) who were in service before 1.1.12006. (c).Direct that the arrears which are due to the applicants from 1.1.2006 onwards be immediately paid to the applicants herein along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum; and (d).Direct that the cost be paid to the Applciants. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant is working as a Staff Nurse with Respondent No.3. On 24.03.2008 VI CPC submitted its report to Government of India relating to structure of e...
Tag this Judgment!Devender Kumar, Delhi Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, New De ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, M(J). 1. The grievance of the Applicant is that even after he has been duly selected for appointment as Gramin Dak Sewak (GDS for short) Packer, the Respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not issued him the appointment letter. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Applicant was initially engaged as a Part Time Casual Labourer in Krishna Nagar Head Post Office (KNHPO for short) with effect from 15.01.1996. While he was working in the said capacity, the Chief Postmaster KNHPO issued an Employment Notice dated 15.09.2008 inviting applications from Casual Labourers/ Part Time Employees of the KNHPO who are willing to be appointed against two vacant posts of GDS. The conditions to be fulfilled for such appointment were as under:- (i). Applicant should have rendered service as Casual Laboour/Part Time Casual Labour for complete one year; (ii). Applicant engagement should have been made through Employment Exchange; and (iii). Applicant should possess the educational ...
Tag this Judgment!Col (Ts) Mahender Singh Yadav Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
This case was listed before this Court in terms of the order passed by the Chairperson on 03.10.2013. A prayer was made by the respondents for vacation of the interim order dated 7th May, 2013. No orders were passed on the said date in view of the fact that the petitioner was not present. The matter was listed on 05.02.2014. On 05.02.2014 also, the petitioner was not present. It was observed in the order dated 05.02.2014 that despite the service of notice on the petitioner, he was not present. An application was moved by the petitioner to the Principal Registrar, AFT, Principal Bench, New Delhi requesting for adjournment of the matter. While seeking adjournment, the petitioner sought intervention of the Court on the following counts: (a) Temporary duty move sanction from Guwahati to Delhi and back or (b) Attachment to Delhi by MS Branch, or (c) Grant of leavy by GOC 51 Sub Area. The prayer was declined by this Court and he was advised to seek redressal from the concerned authority in t...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Kishore, New Delhi and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, J. RA No.44/2013 in OA 2168/2011 This Review Application has been filed by the Applicants under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking review of the order of this Tribunal dated 12.12.2011 dismissing OA No. 2168/2011 relying upon its earlier order in OA No.1657/2006 Ram Kumar Tyagi and Others Vs. GNCTD decided on 18.04.2007. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:- The Applicants are Assistant Teachers in the schools run by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD, for short). They have been recruited directly through the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB for short) in the year 2001. As per the recruitment rules of the Directorate of Education of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, they have been promoted as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT for short) and appeared under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, vide Annexure A-2 order dated 19.05.2010. According to the Applicants, they were made to understand at the time of their promotion that e...
Tag this Judgment!iqbal Hasan, Scientist-f, New Delhi and Others Vs. Union of India, Dep ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, J. 1. Applicants have filed this Original Application seeking the following main reliefs:- (a).Direct the Respondents to consider and grant the benefit of FCS to the Applicants, with all consequential benefits in the subsequent grades as well, and to suitably modify the dates of in situ promotions by antedating the same from the dates when the eligibility period was completed by the respective Applicants in the respective grades as per the details of the Applicants regarding their dates of eligibility to the various Grade, actual date of in situ promotion to the said Grade and the dates w.e.f. it should have been granted, as mentioned in the CHART annexed as Annexure A-6 with the OA; (b).Direct the Respondents to consider and grant the benefit of FCS to the Applicants, with all consequential benefits in the subsequent grades as well, and to suitably modify the date of in situ promotions by antedating the same from the dates when the eligibility period was completed ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. National Construction Company Vs. Cce, Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are, in brief, as under. 1.1. The appellant are a partnership firm mainly engaged in business of mining and related works. They are registered with Service Tax Department since 06/4/09 for payment of service tax. The appellant also provide services to M/s Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd., a Government of Rajasthan Enterprise [hereinafter referred to as RSMML] in relation to mining of lignite. In this regard the appellant entered into an agreement with RSMML on 16/1/03. In terms of the agreement, the appellants job was clearing the site for mining, excavation of top soil and its dumping at a specified place, removal of the over burden and raising of saleable lignite from Matasukh Mines located at Jayal Tehsil, Nagaur District, Rajasthan. The payment for the services provided by the appellant, in terms of Section VII of the agreement, was on the basis of per M.T. of saleable ignite mined by them. Inquiry in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Devinder Pramod Vs. Cc, New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
D.N. Panda, J. 1. Consequent upon receipt of an intelligence by DRI from China on 19.09.2005 through the consulate General of India, Hong Kong that one M/s Vikas Overseas, B-6, Arya Nagar Society, Patparganj, Delhi having IEC No. 0592009335 had exported Ketamine from India in the guise of Alfa Olefin Sulphonate (AOS) and 1010 Kgs of Ketamine was seized by Chinese Bureau of Narcotics Control, DRI investigated into the export made by Shipping Bill No. 1494427 dated 06.08.2005 backed by Invoice No. 465/2005-06 dated 04.08.2005 covering export of 17,500 kgs of Alfa Olefin Sulphanate (AOS) to a Chinese buyer viz., M/s Yantai High Link Import and Export Co. Ltd., 47, X inanhe Road, Yantai, China, by M/s Vikas Overseas in India. 2. According to the outcome of investigation, there was an allegation against Shri Devinder Pramod and Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta that they had exported Ketamine in terms of 3 (three) Shipping Bills No. 1494427 dated 06.08.2005 1435176 dated 02.11.2004, 1470670 dated 29....
Tag this Judgment!Bhawna Garg Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:14. 02.2014 Date of Decision:20. 02.2014 CRL.A. 305/2010 BHAWNA GARG ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K. Singhal, Adv. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CRL.A. 333/2010 NEELAM ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. versus STATE Through: + USHA ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CRL.A. 396/2010 Through: ..... Appellant Mr. M.A. Niyazi with Ms. Anamik Ghai Niyazi and Mr. Manish Kumar, Advs. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. + CRL.A. 590/2010 HEMANT GARG @ BITTOO Through: Mr. K. Singhal, Adv. versus STATE Through: ..... Appellant ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. + CRL.A. 1205/2010 SHAHID ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K. Singhal, Adv. versus STATE Through: + SARLA ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CRL.A. 1279/2010 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K. Singhal, Adv. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CO...
Tag this Judgment!