Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.29 seconds)
Akash vs Delhi Police on 16 April, 2025 cites

Commissioner Of Police & Ors vs Om Prakash Budhwar on 1 September, 2022

(v) In view of the judgment dated 14.08.2024 of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 11276/2014 in the matter of The Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash and Anr., we do not find any improvement in the manner of working of the respondents and come to the conclusion that this 43 OA No. 645/2024 OA No. 579/2024 Item No.16/C-II Tribunal cannot remain a mute spectator to such inactions of the respondents. We are of the firm view that inaction on the part of respondents deserves to be dealt with seriously and accordingly, a cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) each is imposed upon the respondents nos. 2 & 3. The cost shall be paid in the Prime Minister‟s Relief Funds within above mentioned period of eight weeks. The respondent no. 1 is further directed to record inaction on the part of the Respondents nos. 2 & 3 in their APAR for the year 2025-26.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others on 11 July, 1985

"The respondents, after considering the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra) and the Order(s)/Judgment(s) passed by this Tribunal have issued another circular dated 11.09.2007 (Annexure A/13 of the rejoinder filed in OA 467/2020). In the said circular, they have emphasized that the disciplinary authority should pass a speaking order(s) based and supported by material/facts on record for dispensing with prior inquiry and before passing such order(s), the disciplinary authority should be satisfied that it is not practicable to hold an inquiry in view of threat, inducement, intimidation, affiliation with criminals etc. and the disciplinary authority has no option but to resort to Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. The said circular dated 11.09.2007 reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 138 - Cited by 1450 - D P Madon - Full Document

Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs In Item Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, 64, 66, 70, 91, ... on 14 September, 2022

10. We have also considered the decision in Dushyant Kumar (Supra) and find that in the said case, this Court had rejected a similar challenge by the petitioners to the Tribunal's quashing of a dismissal order passed after dispensing with the enquiry. In fact, this Court after considering the circulars dated 21.12.1993 and 11.09.2007 issued by the petitioners themselves, observed that despite there being a requirement to record cogent reasons to dispense with the enquiry, the petitioners were passing cryptic orders dispensing with the enquiry in the most mechanical manner.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 87 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Charan Lal Sahu Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 December, 1989

[Per Mukharji, C.J. in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India [(1990) 1 SCC 613] (Bhopal Gas Disaster), SCC p. 705, para 124.] While interpreting legal provisions, a court of law cannot be unmindful of the hard realities of life. In our opinion, the approach of the Court in dealing with such cases should be pragmatic rather than pedantic, realistic rather than doctrinaire, functional rather than formal and practical rather than "precedential"."
Supreme Court of India Cites 99 - Cited by 290 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Government Of National Capital ... vs Dr. Ranjana Amar & Ors. on 11 September, 1998

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the order/judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 12573/2024 in the matter of GNCTD & Ors. Vs. Amar 8 OA No. 645/2024 OA No. 579/2024 Item No.16/C-II Singh Chauhan decided on 20.09.2024 wherein the applicant (GNCTD) withdrew the aforesaid petition in view of judgment dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Hon‟ble High Court in W.P. (C) 11276/2024 titled as The Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs OM Prakash & anr., Learned counsel for the applicant further places reliance on the following orders/judgments namely; (i) W.P (C) 10572/2023 in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs. Neeraj Kumar decided by Hon‟ble High Court on 24.10.2024; and (ii) OA No. 3055/2023 in the matter of Rohit Vs. Delhi Police & Ors. decided by this Tribunal on 08.10.2024.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - M Sarin - Full Document

Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors vs Rajeev & Anr on 30 January, 2020

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the order/judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 12573/2024 in the matter of GNCTD & Ors. Vs. Amar 8 OA No. 645/2024 OA No. 579/2024 Item No.16/C-II Singh Chauhan decided on 20.09.2024 wherein the applicant (GNCTD) withdrew the aforesaid petition in view of judgment dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Hon‟ble High Court in W.P. (C) 11276/2024 titled as The Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs OM Prakash & anr., Learned counsel for the applicant further places reliance on the following orders/judgments namely; (i) W.P (C) 10572/2023 in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs. Neeraj Kumar decided by Hon‟ble High Court on 24.10.2024; and (ii) OA No. 3055/2023 in the matter of Rohit Vs. Delhi Police & Ors. decided by this Tribunal on 08.10.2024.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - G S Sistani - Full Document
1   2 Next