Delhi Court April 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 33 of about 432 results (0.020 seconds)Shri Hari Telecom Vs. Micromax Informatics
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Order Pronounced on: April 04, 2014 O.M.P. No.1178/2012 & I.A. No.22615/2012 SHRI HARI TELECOM Through .....Petitioner Mr.Praveen Nagar, Adv. versus MICROMAX INFORMATICS .....Respondent Through Mr.Sunil Dalal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By way of present petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner has assailed award dated 16th July, 2012 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator, with a prayer to set-aside the same.0 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of present petition were as under:- (i) The petitioner was chosen to function as the Authorised Service Center (hereinafter referred to as the ASC) for the respondent-Company by their authorized representative in August, 2009. However, the formal agreement (hereinafter referred to as the agreement) was executed between the parties on 31st December, 2009 for a period of 1 year fr...
Tag this Judgment!Harun Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :21. t MARCH, 2014 DECIDED ON :4. h APRIL, 2014 + CRL.A.No.556/2012 DULAL ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Saurabh Kansal, Advocate with Ms.Pallavi Kansal, Advocate. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Through : AND + ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CRL.A.No.557/2012 & CRL.M.B.No.435/2014 HARUN ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Saurabh Kansal, Advocate with Ms.Pallavi Kansal, Advocate. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.The present appeals stand disposed of in terms of a detailed common judgment delivered today which is placed in the file of Crl.A.No.555/2012 titled Munir @ Chota vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi). (S.P.GARG) JUDGE APRIL04 2014 / tr...
Tag this Judgment!Dulal Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :21. t MARCH, 2014 DECIDED ON :4. h APRIL, 2014 + CRL.A.No.556/2012 DULAL ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Saurabh Kansal, Advocate with Ms.Pallavi Kansal, Advocate. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Through : AND + ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CRL.A.No.557/2012 & CRL.M.B.No.435/2014 HARUN ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Saurabh Kansal, Advocate with Ms.Pallavi Kansal, Advocate. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.The present appeals stand disposed of in terms of a detailed common judgment delivered today which is placed in the file of Crl.A.No.555/2012 titled Munir @ Chota vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi). (S.P.GARG) JUDGE APRIL04 2014 / tr...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Baroda Bhajanpura Branch Vs. Laxmi Prashad Gupta
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Appellant/ OP Bank of Baroda has filed this appeal under section 15 r.w section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (Hereinafter called the Act). Brief facts of the matter are that Respondent/ Complainant Laxmi Prasad Gupta was having a SB Account No. 6232 with OP/ Appellant Bank having sufficient balance on 20.11.2006, Complainant/ Respondent visited the OP Bank and obtained statement of account. Complainant was shocked to learn that a sum of Rs 55,000/- and amount of Rs. 30,000/- were illegally withdrawn, from the account of the complainant either with the help of the Bank employees or withdrawn by someone from the account of the Complainant, due to negligence or deficiency on the part of the OP Bank. Complainant/ Respondent brought this fact to the knowledge of the Bank officials and told them in clear terms that the aforesaid amount has never been withdrawn by the Complainant/ Respondent. The Complainant lodged his complaint; kept on pursuing...
Tag this Judgment!Desh Raj, Faridabad Haryana Vs. Union of India Through the General Man ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J). In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following relief: (i). That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 18.10.2011 declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and based on wrong facts and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to reconsider and to grant the compassionate allowance to the applicant as per rule-65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 or previous pension rules from the date of removal from service with all consequential benefits including the arrears of back period pension. (ii).That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent to release the GPF amount to the applicant with interest. (iii).Any other relief which the Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the cost of litigation. 2. Brief facts of the applicants case run thus: The appl...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Misra, New Delhi Vs. Anil Goswami Secretary to Govt. of India Min ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman. 1. By means of this Application, the applicant has prayed for initiating contempt proceeding against the respondents for deliberate violation of the Tribunals order dated 13.09.2013 in OA No.1175/2012. 2. We have heard the applicant who appeared in person and Sh. R. N. Singh, learned counsel for respondents. The applicant vehemently contended that the Tribunal gave a positive direction to consider the application for grant of compassionate allowance u/r 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 but the respondents without applying their mind, by a cryptic order dated 04.03.2014 rejected the same. He submits that the respondents never called upon the applicant asking for details of his assets, etc., which could have been furnished for appropriate decision in the matter. 3. On the other hand, Sh. R. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-contemners relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in J. S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and Ors. [AIR 1997 S...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Vijay Kumar Saxena, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Its Secre ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). 1. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is entitled to get pay scales of Rs. 4000-6000/- and Rs. 4500-7000/- from due dates as benefits under the second ACP and third MACP respectively instead of the scales of Rs. 3200-4900/- and Rs. 4000-6000/- granted to him by the respondents. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant joined the respondents on the post of Semi-skilled Fitter on 13.07.1976. He was promoted as Fitter (Domestic Appliances) on 15.03.1990. He superannuated from that post on 29.02.2012. Admittedly, the following hierarchy of posts exists in the department:- S.S.F. (Refrigeration) Fitter (Refrigeration) Fitter (Domestic Appliances) Mechanic (Refrigeration) Assistant Chargeman (Refrigeration) Chargeman (Regrigeration) The applicant was promoted as Fitter (Domestic Appliances) after which there was no promotional avenue available to him. 3. The respondents have stated that since the post of Fitter (Domestic Appliances) was an isolate...
Tag this Judgment!Tribunal at Its Own Motion Vs. the Secretary Ministry of Environment a ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. In the Bhopal edition of daily newspaper 'Times of India' dated 10th April, 2013 a news item was published on the front page under the caption "Dolomite mining a threat to Tiger corridor in Kanha - Foresters want ban on mining in Mandla District". Considering the gravity of the news item suo- motu cognizance was taken by this Tribunal and notice was issued to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 on 10th April, 2013 with a direction to place on record the particulars of Mining Leases (in short 'ML') mentioned in the news item. In response to the above notice, the Respondent No.5, Madhya Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (in short 'MPPCB') submitted reply dated 29th April, 2013 stating that the officials of the MPPCB inspected the Dolomite mines in Mandla District and monitored the Ambient Air Quality (in short 'AAQ') in different locations where Consent to Operate the mines was granted to 36 ML holders. Out of 36 mines, 26 mines are having valid Consent to Operate and during the inspection...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwini Kumar, Noida Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary, New Del ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. The applicant has filed this Original Application challenging the impugned Memorandum dated 14.03.2014 issued by the M/o Finance, Department of Economic Affairs. According to the said memorandum, sanction has been accorded by the President under sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension Rules, 1972 for instituting departmental proceedings against him. Accordingly, they proposed to hold an inquiry against him in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 2. The brief facts of the case are that while the applicant was General Manager in the Naval Armament Depot, M/o Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, he took voluntary retirement from there w.e.f. 10.08.2006. Thereafter, he joined Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd. (SPMCI for short) and from there also he superannuated on 31.01.2013. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1, namel...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Satya Prakash, Dehradun Vs. the Secretary to the Govt. of India, N ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). This review application has been filed for review of our order dated 13.03.2013 by which we had dismissed OA-253/2012. The respondents have opposed the review application on the ground that the review applicant has not pointed out any error in the judgment but is only trying to re-argue the matter. Each of the grounds taken by the review applicant along with our findings thereon are discussed as hereunder:- (i). The review applicant has stated that the Tribunal took on record written arguments on behalf of the respondents after hearing arguments of both the parties and reserved its order, thereby denying an opportunity to the applicant to rebut the submissions made by the respondents in their written arguments. He has stated that this has caused great prejudice to him. In our opinion, this ground is totally baseless. It is common practice in the Courts to hear the arguments of both sides and also take written arguments from the parties. In this case after t...
Tag this Judgment!