Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 34 of about 438 results (0.010 seconds)Pankaj Grover, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, New Del ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A): 1. The instant OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicant here is not aggrieved by any particular order of the respondents. Rather, he is aggrieved by the respondents not giving him pay scale of Rs.14300-18300/- (Rs.37000-67000+GP of Rs.8700/-) despite the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission and its acceptance by the Government. 2. The case of the applicant briefly put is that he joined as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in SSB in the year 1989 and promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) on 23.12.1998 in the pay scale of Rs.10000-325-15200 (Revised pay scale in PB-3 Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.6600 as per 6th CPC) and thereafter in the year 2007, he was granted 2nd MACP in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.7600 w.e.f. 01.09.2008. He was finally promoted to the rank of Superintending Engineer vide the order dated 01.04.2009 in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500 (revised pay ...
Tag this Judgment!Visalam Rangarajan, New Delhi Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Water Res ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A): 1. In the instant Original Application, the dispute is that whether the applicant, as a consequence of 2nd financial upgradation under ACP Scheme, should be granted scale of Rs.5000-8000/- as has already been granted to her or Rs.5500-9000/- as is being claimed by her. 2. The applicant, vide this OA, has sought the following reliefs:- (i). To declare the action of the respondents in not granting to the applicant the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 as 2nd financial upgradation as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional. (ii). To declare the action of the respondents in taking decision for encadering the post of Time Keeper to CSCS after retirement of applicant is illegal and arbitrary. (iii).To direct the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 as a 2nd financial upgradation under ACP Scheme with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay. (iv). To allow the OA with cost. (v).Pass any further orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Zulfikar Ali Vs. Commissioner Under the Employees Compensation A ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO362011 9th May, 2014 MOHD. ZULFIKAR ALI Through: ......Appellant Mr. B.K.Pal, Adv. VERSUS COMMISSIONER UNDER THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Seth, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (in short the Act) impugning the judgment of the Commissioner dated 9.8.2010 which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant/applicant. Claim petition has been dismissed on two grounds. First is that the appellant was not a regular employee but the employment was of a casual nature, and such a person is not included in the definition of the expression workman as found in Section 2(n) of the Act as it existed on the date of the accident on 19.5.1997. The second ground for dismissal of the petition is that Section 10 of the Act provide...
Tag this Judgment!Ramjas Foundation Vs. Arun Kumar Pruthi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.62/2014 09th May, 2014 % RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate. ..... Appellant Versus ARUN KUMAR PRUTHI Through: Mr. G.D. Chopra, Advocate. + ..... Respondent RSA No.64/2014 RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate. ..... Appellant Versus ARUN KUMAR PRUTHI Through: Mr. G.D. Chopra, Advocate. ..... Respondent RSA No.65/2014 RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate. ..... Appellant Versus BHAIRAV DUTT JOSHI Through: Mr. G.D. Chopra, Advocate. ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) + RSA No.62/2014 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the impugned judgment of the first appellate court dated 01.11.2013 by which the first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment of the trial court dated 01.03.2012. The trial court by it...
Tag this Judgment!Commandant, Army Base Workshop and anr. Vs. Smt. Amrita Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.460/2012 9th May, 2014 % COMMANDANT, ARMY BASE WORKSHOP & ANR. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, with Mr. R.N. Singh, Advocates Versus SMT. AMRITA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. D.D. Singh, with Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocates for R-4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (in short the Act) against the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2012 which was allowed by the claim petition filed by the respondents no.1 and 2 herein, and who are the dependants of the deceased Mr. Vijay Kumar Giri, aged 28 years, Vijay Kumar Giri died on 14.03.2001 in an accident of fall from the roof where he was working.2. The Commissioner by the impugned judgment has held that in view of the affidavit filed by the appellant through its Col. Raj Pal Singh, it is admitted on record that the decease...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
40 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2946/2014 & CM APPL. 6130/2014 UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Solicitor General with Mr. Chidanda D.L., Mr. B.V. Niren, Mr. Prasouk Jain, Mr. Ashwin Kumar, Mr. Udit Gupta and Mt. Atit Jain, Advocates for UOI. versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate for GNCT of Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN ORDER0905.2014 % Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.17/2014 registered by the Anti-Corruption Branch of Delhi Government as well as for declaration that the said Anti-Corruption Branch has no jurisdiction with regard to employees/public servants of the Central Government. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General for UOI submits that the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Delhi Government has no power and jurisdiction to investigate the subject matter of the complaint, namely, Gas pricing, having regard to the Constit...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Goyal Vs. Pratibha Goyal
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TR.P.(C) No.43/2014 9th May, 2014 % RAHUL GOYAL Through: ..... Appellant Mr. P.R. Chopra, Advocate. Versus PRATIBHA GOYAL ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.8178/2014 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. + TR. P.(C) No.43/2014 2. This petition under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is totally misconceived because the provision of Section 24 CPC cannot be invoked because the Judge dealing with a case gives a comparative longer date i.e of two months because of the roster. If powers under Section 24 CPC are exercised in such a case, then, I am sure that in innumerable number of cases, this power will be prayed for being exercised for transfer of suits pending in different courts and which is not the object of Section 24 CPC. Also, it is not acceptable that the appellant can ...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.138/2014 and C.M. Nos.8262-63/2014 9th May, 2014 % SH. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 23.1.2014 by which the claim petition filed by the claimant has been dismissed. The appellant/claimant had filed the claim petition on the ground that he got injured in his left eye on account of an untoward incident on 14.7.2010 when a stone was thrown by some person from outside the train and he got injured in the eye because of the stone hitting his eye.2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the appellant are that he was travelling on 14.7.2010 by Seemanchal Express train no.2488 from Anand Vihar railway station to Jogbani....
Tag this Judgment!Indian Olympic Association Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON:18. 12.2013 PRONOUNCED ON:09. 05.2014 % + W.P. (C) 2310/2012 CM APPL.4946 & 17545/2012 INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit and Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mohan Parasaran, SG, Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG, Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC with Mr. Devvrat, Mr. Kartikey Mahajan, Mr. Shoaib Qureshi, Ms. Aarthi S. Anand and Mr. N. Meyyapan, Advocates for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT1 The Indian Olympic Association (hereafter IOA) seeks appropriate directions that the National Sports Code, issued by the respondent Union Government (hereafter UOI) is beyond its executive power (since Parliament does not possess legislative power to enact a law in that regard) and that its provisions are violative of its (IOAs) rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1) (c)...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Saddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of C.P.Act, 1986 against order dated 31.1.2012 passed by Ld. DCDRF Vikas Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi, in complaint case No.1664/2008. 2. Relevant facts are that respondent/complainant Shri Suman Kaushik in the capacity of proprietor of Kaushik Tours and Travels, New Delhi obtained insurance policy No.212200/31/2007/1133 for a Tata Sumo Victa LX passenger carrying vehicle bearing Regd. No.DL-IVB-4233 for a sum of Rs.5,07,000/- for one year w.e.f. 21.6.06 to 20.6.07. This vehicle was purchased after securing loan from Tata Motors Finance Ltd. on an EMI of Rs.14,500/- per month. Unfortunately, this vehicle met with an accident on 6.11.2006 at about 1.40 A.M. (mid-night) with a Tata Indica Car No.HR-26P-2700. This vehicle came from Munirka side at a high speed, took turn at a red light signal of Ber Sarai, Hauz Khas, Delhi and straight away collided with the vehicle of the complainant. At the time of acciden...
Tag this Judgment!