Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments

Shri Sushil Pal Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)477; 107(2003)DLT797; 2003(71)DRJ580; 2004(2)SLJ321(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. Petitioner is an employee of Delhi Development Authority working as Technical Supervisor in Horticulture Division of the DDA. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner was entitled to be promoted as Sectional Officer as per the recruitment rules under the quota of 50 % departmental candidates. The Selection Board was constituted by the respondent/DDA and the Selection Board prepared a list based on merit-cum-seniority principle. The petitioner pursuant to the letter dated 29.4.93 issued by the respondent was asked to attend office of the Assistant Director on 5.5.93 for checking of the educational certificates of the petitioner and on checking and verification of the said certificates he was issued roll number and was directed to appear for interview on 13.5.93. Petitioner was awarded aggregate of 35 marks. Petitioner is aggrieved by the award of 35 marks. His case is that he ought to have been awarded 37 marks as per the guidelines of the respondent. 3....

K. Gian Chand JaIn and Co. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005ACJ1787; 109(2004)DLT780; 2004(72)DRJ392

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order. 3. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging only that part of the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal where it is held that the liability of the insurance company under the policy of insurance was limited to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The claimants had filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of one Mr. J.M. Harlanhusband of respondent No. 2 and father of respondents 3 and 4 and son of respondent No. 5 in the road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle owned by the appellant and insured with respondent No. 1. The tribunal by the impugned award awarded total compensation of Rs. 10,07,500/- to the claimants, namely, respondents 2 to 4 but the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-. It was held by the tribunal that a bare perusal of Section...

Times Guaranty Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Perfect Pipes Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)335; [2005]127CompCas600(Delhi); 108(2003)DLT618; 2004(72)DRJ70; [2004]52SCL178(Delhi)

ORDERMukundakam Sharma, J. 1. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Three preliminary objections have been raised in this petition by the respondent. The first objection is with regard to maintainability of the petition on the ground that no affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in accordance with Form 21 as prescribed under the Companies Act. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the said issue. Upon going through the records, I find that after the aforesaid objection was raised by the respondent the petitioner has filed an application in this Court enclosing therewith an affidavit, which is in Form 21 and by filing the said application the petitioner seeks for an order to take the said affidavit on record. I see no reason to deny the said liberty to the petitioner as was done by the Supreme Court in the case of MALHOTRA STEEL SYNDICATE VS. PUNJAB CHEMI-PLANTS LIMITED reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 565 wherein in a case of winding up o...

Pradeep Dewan, Advocate Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 107(2003)DLT764

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. This petitioner registered himself under the 5th SFS Scheme in August, 1982 and deposited the registration amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner thereafter kept on applying for allocation of a flat but was not successful in the draw of lots.2. In December, 1993 a final opportunity was granted to the registrants of the 5th SFS Scheme to apply for a flat and the petitioner was found successful for allocation of a Category II flat in Dwarka in terms of the allocation letter dated 15.3.1994.3. The petitioner was not willing to accept a flat at Dwarka and on 2.4.1994 sent a letter for refunding back the registration amount. This letter is dispatched on 4.4.1994 and the UPC receipted is annexed to the petition. The amount was, however, not refunded back and the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking reliefs of flat in a different locality or in the alternative for refund of the registration amount with interest.4. Learned Counsel for the petiti...

M.C.D. Vs. Om Praksh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)136PLR48; 2004(2)SLJ366(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. Rule.2. With the consent of the Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing.3. This writ petition challenges the award dated 28th May, 1997, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, directing the reinstatement with full back wages from 31st July, 1989 in favor of the respondent No. 1/workman.4. The Tribunal has found as under:(a) that the averment about demand notice dated 31st July, 1989 not having been served is not correct in view of the reply filed by the petitioner/MCD before the Conciliation Officer wherein the demand notice dated 31st July, 1989 was admitted to have been received, and(b) that the plea of management that the respondent No. I/workman had abandoned his services has been held against the petitioner management on the ground that nothing has been shown to substantiate this plea. The attendance register which should have been the best indicator of the abandonment of services has not been produced by the MCD.5. Admittedly there ...

Syam and Company Vs. Ito

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)852

ORDERS.K. Yadav, J.M.:This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the penalty levied under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record. The facts borne out from the record are that assessed had not deducted TDS from interest paid to various creditors on the basis of the Form No. 15A received from them. Since no TDS was deducted, the assessed was obliged to avail Form No. 27A as per provisions of section 206A on or before 30-4-1991. However the said Form No. 27A was filed late by 77 days on 16-7-1991. The assessing officer, thereforee, initiated the penalty proceedings under section 272A(2)(c). In response to assessing officer's show-cause notice, it was submitted by the assessed that the accountant of the assessed was only part-time accountant and he was out of station during the relevant time and as such, the F...

Rita Mehta Vs. Maxworth Orchards India Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Smt. Rita Mehta, the complainant, has filed the present complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), averring that she had invested a sum of Rs. 9,29,000/- out of her husbands NRI earnings with the opposite party (for short the O.P), in the various schemes/projects launched by the O.P. from time to time. The details of the schemes/projects in which the complainant had invested the above-mentioned amount have been given in Annexure -1, annexed to the complaint. It is stated in the complaint, filed by the complainant, that the O.P. neither allotted the promised land nor the sale deed was got executed in 180 days as per the agreement, executed between the parties. It is stated that in response to a registered letter, dated 28th December, 1998, the O.P. advised the complainant to contact its NOIDA office in February, 1999. It is stated that the NOIDA office of the O.P. had not been opened till...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. U.K. Bagrodia

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. This is an appeal against order dated 5.2.1999 passed by District Forum-I, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 965/1995 entitled Shri U.K. Bagrodia v. General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and Anr. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the respondent before the District Forum was that he had received a telephone bill for the billing cycle 16.11.1994 in respect of his telephone No. 7511531, installed at his premises bearing No. 63, G.B. Road, Delhi. The said bill for Rs. 17,313/- was challenged by the respondent on the ground that the same was excessive in view of the fact that the average billing for the preceding year had never exceeded Rs. 1,200/-. As such the respondent had prayed for the refund of the amount after deducting Rs. 1,200/- together with interest @ 18%, as well as compensation and costs. 3. In its reply/written version filed before the District Forum, it was stated on behalf of the appellant, that it had received the representation o...

Sanwar Lal Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT410TriDel

1. In this application, waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery are prayed for in respect of an amount of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the applicant by the Commissioner of Customs. The penalty has been imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the impugned order, some electronic goods have been absolutely confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act. The above penalty imposed on the applicant is apparently connected with this confiscation. The seizure of the goods was made on 31-3-2002 under a panchnama which says that the goods had been found in the applicant's truck as early as on 24-1-2002.Between 24-1-2002 and 31-3-2002, the goods were dealt with by the Sale-tax authorities, but no sale-tax document correlating the goods to the truck appears to have been relied on by the Customs authorities in this case. It is also found that none of the goods was notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that there was no...

Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Agro Engg. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC156

1. The issue involved in these appeals, arising out of common Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner, is regarding availability of Modvat Credit of duty paid on capital goods imported by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and sent to M/s. Agro Engg. Works.2. Shri. B.L. Narashimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Agro Engg. Works, Appellant No. 2 manufacture various automobile components, which are sold to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., Appellant No. 1; that as the components, manufactured by Appellant No. 2, are meant for supply to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., the dyes & fixtures, necessary for the manufacture of these components, are imported by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. from abroad; that in March 2000, M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. imported a consignment of dyes and fixtures and as the same were meant to be supplied to Appellant No. 2, M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. filed a declaration at the time of assessment of the Bill of Entry itself to the effect that C.V. duty, paid on the imported goods, would be ta...