Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing North Delhi Power Ltd. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi [Along With Wp (C) ... on 2 July, 2007

Rosy Jain vs Gnct Of Delhi & Ors. on 9 July, 2013

In fact, I may note that the learned Single Judge who passed the judgment in the case of North Delhi Power Ltd. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 142 (2007) DLT 65 has already clarified the position when confusion was sought to be created by the private DISCOMS that its liability cannot arise till there is decision as per the mechanism which was laid down in the judgment, and the learned Single Judge of this Court who passed the judgment in the North Delhi Power Ltd. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi thereafter clarified the position subsequently in his judgment dated 20.04.2011 and relevant portions of which have again been reproduced by W.P.(C) No.4532/2010 Page 15 of 17 me in the judgment of Smt. Pawan Vohra(supra) as quoted above. Para 15 of the said judgment dated 20.04.2011 of the learned Single Judge clearly stated that the electricity companies were to bear the liability of the employees and if necessary, seek adjustment in the final determination by the Tribunal which was referred to in the judgment North Delhi Power Ltd.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Smt. Beena vs B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Limited on 29 August, 2013

In view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled "North Delhi Power Ltd. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 169 (2010) DLT 575 (SC)", I have no hesitation to say that the defendants are liable to pay to plaintiffs the dues claimed by them in the present suit. As such, it is held that defendants have failed to prove this issue. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour Suit No. 21/11 Page 8 of 10 pages of plaintiffs.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ranveer Singh S/O Sh. Narain Dutt Sharma vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd on 28 February, 2012

21 Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 relied upon the decision in North Delhi Power Ltd. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 142 (2007) DLT 65 (hereinafter referred to as NDPL-I judgment or (VRS judgment). Ld. Counsel has relied upon para no. 72 of the judgment. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has also relied upon para no. 72 alongwith para no. 56, 85 and 93 of the said judgment. Both the counsel have submitted that para no. 72 is in favour of the defendant they represent. As per counsel for defendant no. 1, para no. 72 provides that in cases of voluntary retirement from service (VRS) under Rule 48A, the liability is of the Pension Trust and also that of Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Counsel for defendant no. 2 has submitted that as per para no. 72 when read with the other paras, the liability is not of the defendant no. 2 but of Ranveer Singh Vs. BSES & Ors Page 13 of 35 Suit No. 49/10 the DISCOMS i.e. defendant no.1.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bombay Suburban Electric Supply ­ ... vs . on 16 November, 2021

7. Final arguments heard at length. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon various relevant documents in favour of complainant to address his case under Section 630 Companies Act, 1956 (Section 452 Companies Act, 2013). Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the judgments titled as North Delhi Power Ltd. vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. 169 (2010) Delhi Law Times 575 (SC), Crl.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arvind Sahdeo Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Akola And ... on 8 August, 2023

Ltd. Vs. ::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2023 08:54:48 ::: WP-4793-2021 8 Judgment Central Board of Direct Taxes [(2022) 140 taxmann.com 319]; and iv) The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Greatship (India) Limited [Civil Appeal No. 4956/2022 decided on 20/9/2022] it was submitted that the Writ Petition did not deserve to be entertained. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it was submitted that the re-opening of the proceedings was legal and valid since the Assessing Officer had strong reasons to believe that the amount of Rs.9,90,314/- had escaped assessment. The objections to the re-opening had been decided after due application of mind and no fault with that adjudication could be found. Since there was no jurisdictional error, interference with the re-opening of the assessment was not warranted on the grounds urged by the petitioner. The validity of the assessment order could be determined on these very grounds in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The Writ Petition was therefore liable to be dismissed.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document

Shri Suresh Chand vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 23 May, 2013

5. The applicant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by a cryptic order, without assigning any reason, and without any application of mind, which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Honble Apex Court in East Coast Railway & Anr. vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors. with K. Surekha vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors. 2010 (7) SCC 678, Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India and Ors. 2010(13) SCC 427, North Delhi Power Limited vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. with BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr. vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. 2010 (6) SCC 278; S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India 1990 (4) SCC 594; Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. 2010 (9) SCC 496, and Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, ORKS Contract & Leasing, Kota vs. M/s Shukla & Brothers 2010 (4) SCC 785.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahendra Gupta & Ors vs Delhi Electricity Regulatory ... on 24 March, 2014

(i) that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgment dated 2.7.2007 in North Delhi Power Ltd. v/s Government of NCT of Delhi reported in 142 (2007) Delhi Law Times 65 in para 72 held that the Government of NCT of Delhi has to the extent of Pension Trust being unfunded, to bear the liability wherever recourse is made by the transferred employees to Rule 48A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. After the judgment dated 2.7.2007, the Government of NCT of Delhi held a follow up meeting on 10.2.2009 and, thereafter, vide its letter dated 3.11.2009 issued to the Pension Trust directed the Pension Trust to entertain all cases of Rule 48A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 w.e.f. 1.7.2002, treating them at par with regular retirement, by paying the retirement benefits and pension as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and consequently raise demand on the successor entities for subsequent funding of the trust on this account for meeting the future liabilities accordingly.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suit No. 62/14 vs Delhi Power Company Ltd on 19 January, 2016

In support of the contention, the defendant no. 1 has successfully relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of North Delhi Power Limited Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors., civil appeal no. 4269 of 2006 coupled with the decision of BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr. Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors., civil appeal no. 4270 of 2006 decided jointly on 03/05/2010. A perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reveals that the Hon'ble Court was pleased to uphold the impugned Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein it was held that the Distribution Companies are responsible for meeting the liabilities relating to the employees who ceased to be employees of the erstwhile Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (predecessor of the Delhi Vidyut Board - DVB) prior to 01/07/2002 on account of their retirement, Suit No : 62/14 L.R. Mehta Vs. Delhi Power Co. Page 17 of 30 removal, dismissal or compulsory retirement in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Electricity Reforms Act 2000.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next