Court : Delhi
G. Rohini, C.J. 1. Though based on different set of facts, the controversy in all the petitions centers on common issues relating to the exercise of legislative power and executive control in the administration of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD). 2. The parties to the writ petitions and the orders impugned have been set out in the following Table so as to get a glimpse of the controversy involved in each writ petition. Sl.No.Writ PetitionPartiesImpugned order/action1.W.P.(C) No.5888/2015GNCTD vs. UOINotifications dated 21.05.2015 and 23.07.2014 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs empowering the Lt. Governor to exercise the powers in respect of matters connected with 'Services' and directing the ACB Police Station not to take cognizance of offences against officials of Central Government.2.W.P.(C) No.7887/2015Rajender Prashad vs. GNCTD and Ors.Notification dated 11.08.2015 issued by the Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * + W.P. (C) 4214/2017, CM APPL.18452, 28395 & 38814/2017 Judgment reserved on:27. 02.2018 Judgment pronounced on:17. 07.2018 TECHNOCRATS ADVISORY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mani Gupta, Mr. Sanjeevi, Ms. Aakashi Lodha and Mr. Sashidhar S., Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH: THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. Shyam Sundar and Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.Prefatory Facts:1. This is a writ petition in which the petitioner seeks, principally, two reliefs: (i) First, that its name be substituted in respect of the seven projects which have been referred to in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. W.P.(C) No.4214/2017 Page 1 of 22 (ii) Second, that a direction be issued to the respondent to substitute its name in place of an entity known as M.C. Consulting in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken: 1. This Original Application has been filed by the applicant Shri K.K. Maheshwari, who is an IPS Officer of 1980 batch, belonging to the AGMUT Cadre and is presently posted as Director General (Home Guards), GNCT, Delhi. His grievance is against the impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 11.09.2012 transferring him from Delhi to Arunachal Pradesh as Director General of Police and the impugned Annexure A-2 order dated 25.09.2012 by which his representation has been rejected by the respondents. 2. According to the applicant, he has already been posted at two hard stations in the North-East, one in Arunachal Pradesh from 1984 to 1986 and then from 2008 to 2011 in Mizoram. Thus he spent three years in the hard areas as against the stipulated period of two years for officers in suppertime scale and above. He came back to Delhi from Mizoram only in March, 2011 and within less than a year, he is again transferred out of Delhi to Arunachal Pradesh causing great hardship to him. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1989)77CTR(Del)101; ILR1988Delhi522b; [1989]177ITR24(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.1. The question in issue in this case is whether the petitioners, who are members of 'Scheduled Tribes', are entitled to the benefits of exemption under section 10(26)(a) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), even when they are working outside the specified scheduled areas 2. The petitioners are admittedly government servants and members of Scheduled Tribes of the North-Eastern States. They are persons who draw salaries, etc., from the Government of India, State Governments or Union Territories of the Schedule area States, namely, Nagaland, Manipur Tripura Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram, and are posted outside the specified scheduled areas. However, it is claimed that they are permanent residents of the said areas. 3. Mr. Harish Salve, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that since the petitioners are permanent residents of the specified scheduled areas, they should be entitled to the exemption under section 10(26)(a) of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Govt. of NCT of Delh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Shyam Sharma, Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. The Constitution makers fervently hoped to usher a society committed to equality, where barriers of race, gender, domicile, descent and the unforgiving marginalization of a large section of the society as a result of the ills of the caste system and the practise of untouchability, would eventually be eliminated. The commitment has remained largely an unrealized promise. The strategy of the State to bridge the social gulf through affirmative action has thrown up constant challenges which Courts are called upon to resolve. This is one such challenge, where the Court has to grapple with the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 read with Article 16, in the context of differing standards of what is the permissible reservation standard applicable on the one hand to residents of states who take up residence in one state, as opposed to residents of states who take up residence in Union territories. This judgment seeks to answer a reference made to the Full Bench, constit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1988Delhi522a
Leila Seth, J.(1) The question in issue in this case is whether the petitioners, who are members of Schedule Tribes are entitled to the benefits of exemption under section 10(26)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), even when they are working outside the specified scheduled areas (2) The petitioners are admittedly government servants and members of Scheduled Tribes of the North-Eastern States. They are persons who draw salaries etc. from the Government of India. State Governments or Union Territories of the scheduled area States, namely, Nagaland, Manipur. Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh arid Mizoram and are posted outside the specified scheduled areas. However, it is claimed that they are permanent residents of the said areas. (3) Mr. Harish Salve, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the petitioners are permanent residents of the specified scheduled areas, they should be entitled to the exemption under section 10(26)(a) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
SANJIV KHANNA, J: 1. These four appeals by Harpreet Singh, Satyender Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Munish Kumar impugn the judgment dated 17th August, 2009 in Case No. 10/2004 arising out of FIR No. 247/2003 and the order of sentence dated 22nd August, 2009. The appellants Harpreet Singh and Satyender Singh have been convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) and all the appellants-accused have been convicted under Section 394/366/34 IPC. Kuldeep Singh and Munish Kumar were also tried for charge under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, but have been acquitted. State has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal. 2. The appellants-Harpreet Singh and Satyender Singh have been awarded life imprisonment for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) and directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months. For the offence under Section 394 IPC, the appellants have been awarded life imprisonment and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1993Delhi255
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) The petitioner was commissioned as an Officer of the Indian Army on 3rd June 1956 and has a high career profile. In due course the petitioner rose to the rank of Lt. General. He was also awarded the Mahavir Chakra, the second highest gallantry award during 1971 War. Petitioner was approved for promotion to the acting rank of a Lt. General on 18th October 1989 and was posted as Director General Military Training (DGMT). By letter dated 5th June 1990 the petitioner was informed by Army Headquarters that bids promotion to the substantive rank of Lt. General with effect from 30th November, 1989 has been approved and notified in Gazette of India dated 2nd June, 1990. (2) In the writ petition the petitioner says that he has learnt from a report published in one of the newspapers that the Government is proposing to post him as Director General, Assam Rifles (for short 'D.G.A.R'.) and post Lt. General R. V. Kulkarni as Adjutant General in Army Headquarters. The post of A...
Tag this Judgment!