Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Latif Beg and Others Moef and Others Vs. Jyoti Mishra and Others
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2014
Msw Bareilly Case 1. On 03.01.2005, Respondent No.2, UPPCB granted a no- objection certificate in favor of Respondent No. 4, Municipal Corporation, Bareilly for setting up an integrated mechanical composting plant of 500 t/d capacity at village Razau Paraspur, in an area of 21.20 acres. On 28.03.2013, respondent no. 2 granted authorization to the respondent no. 4 for its MSW Plant at the same site. The said authorization expired on 31.12.2013.On its meeting held on 19.12.2012, State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) agreed with the recommendation of the State Environmental Appraisal Committee (SEAC) and declared that respondent no. 4 was not required to take Environmental Clearance for Municipal Solid Waste Project under EIA Notification of 2006. The validity and correctness of this letter was challenged before this Tribunal in Application No. 86/2013, a petition filed by Rayons-Enlighting Humanity, a society, in Application No. 99/2013 by the Invertis University ...
S.R. Mohapatra Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, New Delhi and Oth ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2014
V.N. Gaur, Member (A). MA No. 1386 of 2011 The present application filed for condonation of delay is allowed. OA No.1757/2011 The present OA has been filed with the following prayer: (a). Call for the records of the case. (b) Direct the respondents to release and pay all legal dues of the applicant along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from 10.1.2009, i.e. after expiry of statutory notice period of three months from the date of notice of voluntary retirement, i.e. 10.10.2008. (c) Quash and set aside the removal order No. P/UBL/227/GAZ/Optg/UBL/SRM along with order No. E(O)I/2007/PU-2/SWR/50 dated 19.10.2009 issued by Dy. Secretary/E(O)I, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India, against the applicant by the disciplinary authority being non-est in the eyes of law as the same has been passed after the retirement of the applicant. (d) Direct the respondents to pay all the retiral dues, namely, pension etc. along with interest at the rate of 18% per ann...
Anil Kumar Constable (Ex.), Delhi Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Co ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2014
A.K. Bhardwaj, J. 1. In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the order No.5541-5562/HAP/Sec.(P-I) dated 23.5.2013 whereby the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Security (HQ), New Delhi ordered him to be dealt with departmentally under the provision of Rule 16 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. The proceedings were entrusted to Inspector Vikram Singh, respondent No.3 (inquiry officer) to conduct the same on day to day basis. 2. The only argument put up by learned counsel for applicant is that the charges against the applicant in the departmental proceedings are same as in the criminal case registered vide FIR 354/2004 under Sections 452/323/34 IPC Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi. According to him, the charges involve the complex question of law, thus the criminal proceedings should take precedence over the disciplinary proceedings. The plea of the applicant that the charge against him in th...
Har Swaroop Sharma, Delhi Vs. the Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Ch ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2014
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following main reliefs: Quash the entire proceedings of the I.O and charge memo dated 03.04.2006, Impugned order dated 24.05.2012 and dated 27.11.12, allow the O.A. with cost. Direct the respondents to grant ACP-1st and MACP 2nd benefits w.e.f. 27.02.2003 and 27.02.2011 respectively with all the benefits. 2. The respondents issued a Charge Memorandum dated 03.04.2006 (Annexure 3 Colly.) to the applicant, which contains the following Charge: ARTICLE I SHRI, HAR SWAROOP, T.G.T. GBSSS-NO.1, GHONDA, SHAHADRA, DELHI while working in the said School had claimed Rs.25350/- only (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty Only) as LTC amount for the block year 1994-97 extended up to 1998 in respect of himself and other members of his family for visiting TRIVANDRUM. On verification, the tickets and certificates furnished by the said teacher was found fake. This show...
Rubina Begum, New Delhi Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2014
A.K. Bhardwaj, J 1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) respondent No.2 invited applications for the post of Teacher Primary (Urdu) in the year 2007 vide Post Code No.166/2007 in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The applicant applied for the said post and participated in the competitive examination on 15.6.2008. When her name was not included in the list of selected candidates, she made an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 to know the status of her candidature and the marks obtained by her. On 9.1.2009, she got an information that she had secured 128 marks out of 200 while the last candidate got 118 marks out of 200. Being a departmental candidate, the applicant worked out her right for regularization and filed Original Application No.714/2009. The Tribunal allowed the said Original Application in terms of the Order dated 20.8.2010 and directed the respondents to consider her candidature by giving age relaxation. The Order of the Tribunal was challeng...
Siri Ram Syal and Sons (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ircon International L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on: May 30, 2014 EX.P. 288/2011 & E.A. (OS) No.618/2011 SIRI RAM SYAL & SONS (ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD. .... Decree Holder Through Mr.Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv with Mr. Shreyans Singhvi, Ms. Ekta Mehta, Ms.Joanne Pudussery and Mr. Umrao Singh Rawat, Advs. Versus IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD Through ....Judgement Debtor Mr.K.R. Gupta, Adv. with Ms. Priti, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The decree holder has filed the present execution under Order XXI Rules 9 & 11(2) CPC read with Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for executing the award dated 27th November 1997 which was made a rule of the court vide judgment dated 20th August 2008 of this court in CS (OS) No.19A of 1998 and judgment dated 28th January 2010 and 9th July 2010 passed by the Division Bench of this court in FAO (OS) No.459 of 2008 and Review Petition No.122 of 2010 respectivel...
Maruti Insurance Distribution Services Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2014
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:30. 05.2014 + ITA2422014 CM APPL.9613 & 9614/2014 MARUTI INSURANCE DISTRIBUTION SERVICES LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Jr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) Admit.1. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice. With consent, the matter was taken up for hearing.2. The following question of law arises for consideration:Did the Tribunal fall into error in upholding the disallowance to the tune of Rs.89,98,913/- made on account of remuneration to dealers. 3. The brief facts necessary to decide the case are that the assessee is engaged, inter alia, in the business of corporate insurance agency; it ITA24214 ...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: May 30, 2014 + CRL.A. 513/1998 RAKESH KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. K.B. Andley, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J1 By this appeal filed under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned judgment dated 17.10.1998 and order on sentence dated 27.10.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the appellant is convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, together with payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to further u...
Ram Manglani Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: May 30, 2014 + TEST CAS342012 RAM MANGLANI Through .... Petitioner Mr.Ankit Jain, Adv. with petitioner in person. Versus STATE & ORS. ....Respondents Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner has preferred the present probate petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 1st August, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as the said Will), executed by Sh. Hassaram (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), who expired on 26th November, 1987 at Delhi, in respect of his movable and immovable properties.2. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner is one of the beneficiaries under the said Will. The deceased did not have any natural son / daughter and his wife, Smt. Janki Manglani, pre-deceased him on 28.04.2002. However, the deceased used to treat respondent N...
Karambir Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1 and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on March 05, 2014 Judgment Delivered on May 29, 2014 + W.P.(C) 774/1997 KARAMBIR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Vinay Sabharwal, Advocate with Ms.Neha Sabharwal, Advocate versus + PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT No.1 & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Latika Chaudhary, Advocate with Ms.Chandni Mehta, Advocate for R2 & R3 W.P.(C) 809/2001 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ...... Petitioner Through: Ms.Latika Chaudhary, Advocate with Ms.Chandni Mehta, Advocate versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Vinay Sabharwal, Advocate with Ms.Neha Sabharwal, Advocate for R3workman CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. Since the afore-captioned two writ petitions involve a challenge to an award dated July 05, 1996 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No.405/87 by both the parties before the Labour Court, the same are being disposed of by this common order. For convenience, the parties shall be re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »