Delhi Court April 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 40 of about 432 results (0.020 seconds)Smt. Babi Kunvar Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO2182012 2nd April, 2014 % SMT. BABI KUNVAR ......Appellant Through: Mr. Shubhashis R. Soren, Mr. Tushar Taneja, Advocates VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, Mr. Debojyoti Bhattacharya, Advocates CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. I have in the recent past while dismissing the appeals which have been filed against the judgments passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing claim petitions, simultaneously initiated proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C because I am finding that there is now a rash of cases wherein because of the high statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lakh which is payable on account of a death in an untoward incident, there is an organized racket in certain cases to get the huge statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lakh and which is awarded with pendente lite and future interest. The present appeal is one such false a...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:02. 04.2014 + CRL. A.399 of 2013 PAWAN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Man Mohan Goel & Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advs. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CRL. A.408 of 2013 MANDEEP RANA @ TIGER ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar & Mr. Yogesh Vashisht, Advs. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CRL. A.421 of 2013 ANIL Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Salil Kumar Jha, Adv. versus STATE Through: + CHARAN SINGH ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CRL. A.1202 of 2013 Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Vikas Padora, Adv. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CRL. A.1256 of 2013 SUBHASH TYAGI Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Arundhati Katju, Adv. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K. JAIN, J.(Oral) On 12.6.2001 at about 5:05 a.m., S.I. Umesh Malik informed Police Station B...
Tag this Judgment!Mohinder Singh Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Limited
Court: Delhi
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:02. 04.2014 + W.P.(C) 5158/2011 MOHINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the petitioner: Mr N.S. Dalal, Mr Amit Rana & Mr P.C. Yadav, Advs. For the respondents: Mr Sandeep Prabhakar, Mr Amit Kumar & Mr Vikas Mehta, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER,J1 The short point which arises in the writ petition is, whether or not the petitioner ought to have been paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension which were denied to him, on account of his prosecution in a criminal case. The period of suspension involved in the present case is 30.03.1999 to 29.09.2009.2. To be noted, the petitioner was implicated under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC). 2.1 In view of a FIR being registered against the petitioner, as indicated above, the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Rajbir Singh and anr Vs. National Ins Co Ltd and ors
Court: Delhi
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:2. d April, 2014 MAC.APP. 758/2012 RAJBIR SINGH AND ANR ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr. S. N. Parashar, Adv. Versus NATIONAL INS CO LTD AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Ram Ashray, Adv. for R1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 28.04.2012, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.7,42,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.2. Vide the present appeal, appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation amount as noted above.3. Mr. S.N. Parashar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that deceased Anuj Kumar was a Graduate (B.Sc.) and MBA. He was working with M/s. Serco Consultant and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He had also done Post-Graduate Programme in Lighting Technolo...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Adharshila Designs (P) Ltd. Vs. M/S. Mvl Limited
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TR.P (C)No.86/2013 2nd April, 2014 % M/S. ADHARSHILA DESIGNS (P) LTD. ......Petitioner Through: Mr. S. Shantanu Advocate with Mr. Pratap Shankar, Advocate, Mr. Anand Kumar Singh, Advocate and Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate. VERSUS M/S. MVL LIMITED Through: ...... Respondent Ms. Puja Shrivastava, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) cannot be allowed inasmuch as transferring of the suit as prayed for from Tis Hazari courts to District courts at Saket would be setting aside the specific circular issued by Honble the Chief Justice of this Court on 19.2.2013 whereby in order to ensure equal distribution of work among different courts, only some pending cases of Tis Hazari courts were transferred to other courts whereas other suits in spite of creation of fresh district courts continued in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. B.K. Mittal, New Delhi and Others Vs. Ministry of Railways Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sh. Shekher Agarwal, Member (A). 1. The issue in this O.A. is whether the benefit of the Scheme of Non-Functional Up-gradation (NFU) should be extended to the officers of Indian Railway Medical Service (IRMS) or not. Pursuant to the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC), the Department of Personnel and Training vide their O.M. dated 24.04.2009 introduced a Scheme of NFU in which it was provided that whenever an officer of IAS is posted at a Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific grade pay in Pay Band-3 or Pay Band-4, the officers belonging to batches of Organised Group-A Services that are senior by two years or more and have not so far been promoted to that grade would be granted the same grade on non-functional basis. While this Scheme has been implemented for other Organised Group-A services, it has been denied to Indian Railway Medical Service on the ground that they are already covered under Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme. The contention of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rishi Raj, Delhi and Others Vs. Union of India the Secretary and Other ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). 1. The issue in this case is whether on first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme the applicants should get the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000, which is the pay scale of Technician or the pay scale of Rs. 3050-5490, which is the pay scale of LDC. The respondents have granted them the latter. Aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, they have filed this O.A. before us. The applicants are also seeking direction to the respondents to re-designate them as Broadcast Assistants and give all consequential benefits from the due date. 2. The applicants are presently working as Helpers with the respondents. It is not disputed that when they were recruited the minimum prescribed qualification for them was 8th pass with working knowledge of electrical and mechanical machines. This was more than the qualification required for general Group-D posts, which was only 8th pass. It is not disputed that the Recruitment Rules for the post of LDC provide 5% promotion quot...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Lata Parmar, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). 1. The applicant is aggrieved by denial of promotion to her to the post of Assistant Architect and is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider her case for promotion afresh w.e.f. the date when her two immediate juniors, namely, Mr. Neera Kumar and Mr. Thangalum Hanghal were promoted with all consequential benefits. She had initially joined the Department of Posts and Telegraph as a Junior Architect in 1972. On 21.02.1980 cadre of the applicant was changed and she was made Architect Assistant. She had been awarded a penalty on 11.10.2004. On 03.10.2006, two colleagues of the applicant, who were junior to her, were promoted to the grade of Asstt. Architect Group-B. This was before her superannuation on 30.09.2007. On 29.06.2009 the applicant filed OA-1751/2009 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.07.2009 by this Tribunal with liberty given to the applicant to file a fresh one. On 24.02.2010 she filed OA-3694/2009, which was disposed of by this Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar, New Delhi and Another Vs. Union of India, Through the Fore ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). Syed Rafat Alam, J. In the instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants are aggrieved with the action of the respondents in fixing their seniority vis-a-vis persons promoted on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) and are, therefore, seeking the following reliefs:- (i). To declare the action of respondents in giving retrospective seniority to the persons appointed on the basis of LDCE as illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (ii) To quash and set aside the impugned seniority list dated 03.01.2012 of Private Secretaries as well as other relevant seniority list as at Annexure A-1 and direct the respondents to fix the seniority of all the Private Secretaries in Grade I of Stenographers Cadre of IFS(B) in the Ministry of External Affairs appointed on the basis of seniority cum fitness and LDCE from the date of substantive app...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Kanta, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). 1. The applicant was an officer of Indian Railway Accounts Service of 1977 batch. Her junior one Sh. Raghuraman was granted Higher Administrative Grade on 04.01.2010. However, she was not granted the same. Aggrieved by that, she submitted a representation to the respondents on 26.02.2010 and reminded on 29.09.2011 just a day before her superannuation on 30.09.2011. Her contention is that her ACRs have not been communicated to her and she could get the same only on the intervention of Central Information Commissioner (CIC) in December, 2011. The present O.A. was filed on 31.01.2012. 2. During arguments the following two grounds were taken by the applicants counsel:- (i). Her ACR for the year 2005-06 was incomplete inasmuch as it had remarks written only by the reporting officer and had no remarks of the reviewing/accepting officer. Therefore, in terms of law laid down by this Tribunal in the case of Balvinder Singh Vs. UOI (OA-253/2009) and Ashok Kumar Aneja...
Tag this Judgment!