Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 2 of about 438 results (0.030 seconds)Joginder Singh Malik Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.164 of 2009 Reserved on: May 27, 2014 Decision on: May 30, 2014 JOGINDER SINGH MALIK Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mohd. Faraz and Ms. Swati Goswami, Advocates. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION..... Respondent Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP with Mr. Manoj Pant and Ms. Uttkarsha Kohli, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT305.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 13 th February 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI (PC Act), in CC No.92/08 convicting the Appellant for the offences under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and the Order on Sentence dated 17th February 2009 whereby, for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d), the Appellant was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment (RI) with a fine of Rs. 50,000 and, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for a period of three mon...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Kumar Gupta and anr Vs. Vinay Malani
Court: Delhi
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:30. 05.2014 CM(M) 1067/2011, CM APPLs. 17144/2011 and 18242/2013 PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA & ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik, Advocate versus VINAY MALANI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshumaan Sahni, Ms Aastha Dhawan, Mr. Shanker Chhabra and Ms.Aakriti Jain, Advs. CM(M) 606/2013, CM APPL. 9118/2013 VINAY MALANI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshumaan Sahni, Ms Aastha Dhawan, Mr. Shanker Chhabra and Ms.Aakriti Jain, Advs. versus DELHI PRANTIYA MARWARI YUVA MANCH & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik, Advocate for Pawan Gupta. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI1 Two petitions of two parties are being heard and decided by this common judgement. Although the petitions were filed two years apart and in respect of two different impugned orders, the petitions were heard together for two reasons: (a) t...
Tag this Judgment!Randhir Singh and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.518/2011 Reserved on:30. h April, 2014 Date of Decision:30th May, 2014 % RANDHIR SINGH & OTHERS ..... Appellant Through Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manu Sharma and Mr. Abhir Datt, Advocates for Randhir Singh and Krishan. Mr. D.C. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Advocate for appellant Chattar Singh. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Additional Public Prosecutor. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J: Seven appellants, namely, Randhir Singh, Chattar Singh, Krishan Kumar, Ranbir Singh, Ajay @ Leelu, Netarpal and Jagjit @ Jaggar in the present appeal have impugned their conviction under Sections 148,302,326,308,323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) by the impugned judgment dated 26th February, 2011 passed in S.C. No.54/09 arising out of FIR No.09/2003 registered under Sections 307/302/201/148/341/506/326/324 IPC ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Matta Automobiles Vs. Brij Mohan
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. Aggrieved by order dt. 19.01.2009 passed in complaint case no. 1065/2007 by DCDRF (East) Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi, opposite party filed this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1956 (Hereinafter called the Act). 2. The facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is owner of Hyundai Ascent car bearing no. DL2FJ-0070. On 26.06.2007, he was going to Hathras (UP) from Shakarpur (Delhi) along with his friends. On the way he went to a petrol pump namely Matta Automobiles, appellant/OP, and asked the vender/operator to fill speed diesel. However, inadvertently or by mistake the fuel operator filled petrol instead of diesel. When the complainant detected this blunder mistake he brought this fact to the notice of the owner/respondent who assured that petrol filled in the tank will be removed and that no harm to the engine of the car will be caused. He called a mechanic from Tata Telco who removed the petrol fr...
Tag this Judgment!Sorabh Mathur, Cantt Vs. Union of India Through Secretary (Defence) Mi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the posting order dated 3.1.2014 (Annexure A-1) whereby he is posted from CE (AF) WAC Palam Zone to PM MAP Kapurthala. 2. Mr. Vinay K. Garg, learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant is working in Military Engineer Services (MES) as Superintending Engineer and is an officer of the level of Director, thus the respondents are not justified in transferring him as Project Manager in Married Accommodation Project (MAP). According to him, the post of Project Manager, Kapurthala is meant to be manned by an Executive Engineer and not by an officer of Director level. To buttress his submission, he referred to rationalization of MS and E1B VAC dated 4.6.2012 (Annexure A-2), letter dated 17.11.2003 (Annexure A-6), letter dated 22.4.2010 (Annexure A-7) and the table describing the duties of CWE (Annexure A-8). 3. Learned counsel for applicant further submi...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza Hadi Hasan, New Delhi Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Thr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J): On receipt of the requisition from Directorate of Education (Municipal Corporation of Delhi), Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), issued advertisement no. 07/07 and 08/07 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher/Teacher (Primary) under post code No. 165-166/07. As per the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules notified on 08.05.2006 and 13.07.2006 the maximum age for the post was reduced from 32 (Male)/42 (Female) to 20-27 years. The cut off date for submission of the application was 29.10.2007. The Recruitment Rules notified on 13.07.2007 were challenged before Honble Delhi High Court. In the meantime, the examination for the post was held on 15-16/06/2008 by the Board. The Honble High Court of Delhi disposed of the petition on 28.08.2008 with the following order:- To conclude the language and marks criteria (namely passing of Hindi subject at primary level and minimum 50% marks in Senior Secondary Examination) are uphel...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Singh, Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, who is working in the substantive post of Peon and in the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on ad hoc basis, filed the present OA, seeking the following reliefs: 8.1. Direct the Respondents to amend the seniority list and place the applicant above Shri Lohre Ram in the seniority list since the applicant is senior to him. 8.2.Direct the Respondents to confirm the applicant on the post of LDC with effect from 24.10.2000 i.e. the date from which his junior was confirmed by the Respondent. 8.3.Direct the Respondent to consider applicant for promotion to the post of UDC with effect from 27.04.2010 i.e. the date from which his junior was promoted to the post of UDC with all consequential benefits. 8.4. Levy exemplary cost on the respondent for their inaction, and deliberate unwanted delay in implementing C.A.T.s orders which has caused immense mental agony to the applicant. 8.5. Grant any other relief which the Court may think just and proper und...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar, Irs Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, New Delhi an ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. As has been captioned in the Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant is direct recruit of the 1986 batch of IRS and joined as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in the year 1986. He got promotion as Deputy Commission (IT), Joint Commissioner (IT), Additional Commissioner (IT) and Commissioner of Income Tax in the years 1990, 1999, 2000 and 2007 respectively. When he was sought to be transferred on promotion to Kochi, he questioned the same by filing OA 332/2007 before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal. According to the applicant, the OA was decided in his favour and in the Writ Petition preferred against the order of the Tribunal before Honble High Court is still pending. When in terms of the order No. 106/2013 issued on 14.06.2013, the applicant was transferred from Mumbai (CCA) to Chennai (CCA), he filed the present OA under section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 praying :- 1. This Honble Tribunal m...
Tag this Judgment!NitIn Kumar Sahu Vs. the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant joined the service as Inspector, Group C officer in Central Excise (Delhi Zone) on 22.12.2009. The Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) issued a circular No.A-22015/19/2006-Ad.III.A dated 27.3.2009 providing for inter-commissionerate transfer (ICT) of Groups B, C and D posts on spouse ground without loss of seniority. The circular is reproduced hereinbelow:- Subject: Ban on Inter-Commissionerate Transfers (ICT) in Group-B; C and D Posts, Relaxation on Spouse Ground. I am directed to refer to the Boards Circular F. No. A-22015/3/2004-Ad.IIIA dated 19.02.2004 as modified vide letter dated 09.03.2004; vide which the Inter-Commissionerate Transfers of Groups B, c and D officers were banned. Although the term used was Inter-Commissionerate Transfers, the ban was actually confined to transfers from one Cadre Controlling Authority to another. There was no ban on transfers amongst the Commissionerates having common cadre, where no loss of seniority was involved, as was c...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Shekhawat (inspector), New Delhi and Another Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J): Mr. Satyendra Garg, Joint Commissioner of Police Traffic, Delhi issued a common Show Cause Notice No.2576-78/HAP-T (D-II) dated 28.02.2011 calling upon the applicants herein as also Inspector Ashok Saini (D/3433), Inspector Ved Prakash (D/890) and Inspector Prashant ( D/3281) to show cause as to why their conduct for allowing the blue Line buses to ply without permit on route from Najafgarh to Inder Lok be not censured. In his reply to said notice, Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, the applicant in OA no.3007/2013 submitted that he took over the charge of TI/SBC on 09.11.2010 and soon after the study of topography of Sadar Bazaar Circle, he briefed and directed the ZOs and subordinate personnel to take proper traffic precautions and not involve or connive with the operation of unauthorized vehicles as well as running of blue line buses without valid permit. According to him, he made sincere efforts and took positive approach to launch such drive which resulted prosecution ...
Tag this Judgment!