Delhi Court December 2003 Judgments

Ankur Vahi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ428

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. In this Writ Petition a challenge has been laid to the decision of the Indian Institute of Foreign Technology sic Trade (hereinafter called the IIFT) removing the Petitioner from the Masters in Business Administration, 2002-2004 conducted by it. The Petitioner had applied to the IIFT while he was in the Final Year of Engineering and had scored 650 marks out of 800 in the Graduate Management Aptitude Test (GMAT). All students were required to submit their eligibility qualification, in the present case the Engineering Degree, as well as the Mark Sheet, on or before 3rd October, 2002. In paragraph 6 of the Petition it has been specifically pleaded that '' the Respondents had stated at the time of selection that in case the Petitioner does not get 50% in the Bachelor Degree Engineering Examination and fails to submit the result by 3rd October, 2002, his admission will stand cancelled. ...... Thus admission of the Petitioner was on provisional basis subject to the fili...

Baby Sapna Vs. Sh. Attar Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT84; 2004(72)DRJ379

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the injuries suffered by her in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle owned by respondent No. 2 and being driven by respondent No.1. 2. The only ground on which this appeal has been filed is that despite the fact that the appellant, who was a child of five years at the time of accident had lost her memory and had suffered permanent disability, the Tribunal has awarded a meagre compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs. 5,000/- towards injuries to the head and removal of bone. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle the minor appellant was seriously injured and she suffered permanent disability after having received grevious injuries in the scalp. The appellant had to undergo surgery of h...

Voltas Employees Union Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)233; 108(2003)DLT649; (2004)ILLJ1025Del

Mukul Mudgal J. 1. This writ petition by the petitioner which is the Voltas Employees Union of the employer M/s Voltas Limited respondent No. 2, seeks a writ of mandamus against respondent No. 1, Secretary Labour, Government of NCT of Delhi, for directions to prosecute respondent No. 2 under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). By the impugned order dated 5th May, 2000, the Conciliation Officer, Govt. of NCT of Delhi declined to take any action under Section 29 of the Act.2. The brief facts relevant for the determination of the issues raised in this writ petition are as under:-(a) The petitioner is the Voltas Employees Union, respondent No. 1 is the Secretary Labour cum Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi and respondent NO. 2 is the Management, Voltas Limited. (b) On 6th April, 1984 the understanding was arrived at between the respondent No. 2 employer and the employees that the union shall be consulted before entrusting the regu...

Dr. Birinder Singh Thind Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)421

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. After his schooling from Delhi, the petitioner perused his medical studies in the erstwhile USSR. He got admission in the MD `Physician' course at the Tver State Medical Academy, Tver, Russia in the year 1989 and obtained the MD Physician degree on 28th June, 1996. This course is equivalent of MBBS degree in India . As this degree was recognised by the Medical Council of India (MCI), the petitioner got himself registered with the MCI on 9th September, 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner got admission in the Ph.D. course in the same university for which he was awarded degree in the year 2001. When he applied to the MCI for registration of this additional qualification under Section 26(1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the MCI Act'), his request was rejected on the ground that this was not recognised. 2. Against the aforesaid rejection dated 5th March, 2002, the petitioner filed CWP No.3157/2002 in this court. He also challenged the va...

Sumit Kumar Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ388

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No. 123/2001 under Sections 302/394/458/460, IPC P.S. Mayapuri, Delhi.2. Prosecution allegations are that on the night intervening 16/17.5.2001 at a factory No. B-20, Maya Puri Phase-I, New Delhi, petitioner along with others committed murder of Chet Ram and assaulted Govind Bahadur and took away forcibly 119 packets of plastic dana and two telephone instruments and other goods and committed offence punishable under above noted sections. It is further alleged that petitioner was arrested in the other case; on interrogation petitioner disclosed his involvement in the above noted case, as well; petitioner and other accused persons were arrested and after their arrest, petitioner refused to participate in the TIP; after investigation challan was filed and the matter is pending trial. In support of their case learned Counsel for the State relied upon the statement of Dhan Bahadur (PW 2) and Govin...

K.B. Madan and Co. Vs. Iffco

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi131

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. This is an application moved by the plaintiff under Sections 152-153-A r/w. Section 151, CPC, praying to correct what the plaintiff labels as an inadvertent error/mistake in the judgment dated 13th October, 2000. It would be necessary to recapitulate the facts giving rise to the present application in some detail to appreciate and understand the prayer being made and the scope thereof. Reply to the application has been filed. It is opposed as a dilatory tactics to prevent the defendant from executing the decree passed in its favor. Defendant has already filed an execution application and the present application is intended to stall the same.2. Plaintiff filed the present Suit No. 877/ 1997 for possession. Plaintiff did not claim mesne profits, but averred in para 10 that he reserved its right to claim profits. Plaintiff claimed that the tenancy had been terminated earlier on 17th September, 1994, and again on 9th August, 1995, w.e.f. 31st August, 1995. Plainti...

Ankit Packaging Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC97

1. The South Zonal Bench at Bangalore has referred the following issue to the Larger Bench: "Whether an assessee who paid the duty at the normal rate at the commencement of the financial year under the provisions of Notification 1/93 and thereafter was eligible to avail the benefit of notification 1/93 during the same financial year if he satisfies other conditions?" 2 The above issue came up while considering appeal No. E/1493/98 filed by M/s Ankit Packaging Ltd. The essential facts for considering the issue are that M/s Ankit Packaging Ltd. is a small scale unit engaged in the manufacture of Poly Coated Paper/Plastic Films. Such small scale manufacturers are entitled to exemption from central excise duty under Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.2.93. However that notification also contained a proviso which allowed a small scale unit to opt out of the exemption and to discharge duty on the goods manufactured by it at the normal rates. We extract that proviso below: "Notwithstanding the e...

Venus Industries Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the interest is demandable from M/s. Venus Industries under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri P.M. Rao, learned D.R., submitted that a show cause notice dated 22.3.91 was issued to M/s. Venus Industries for demanding the duty for the period from 1.3.86 to 13.8.88 as they had wrongly availed of the small scale exemption benefit under Notification No. 175/86-CE; that the matter was adjudicated by the Collector under Order-in-Original No. 26/92 dated 23.4.92, by which he confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 10,50,165.76 and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed; that, however, on appeal, the appellate Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 384/2000-B, remanded the matter to the Commissioner for consideration of the applicability of the Proviso (b) to Para 4 of the Notification No. 175/86; that the Commissioner, in de novo proceedings under Order-in-Original No. 45/2001 dated 28.11.2001, has denied the benefit of sma...

Cce Vs. Ambay Indus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC393

1. None has come present on behalf of the respondents in spite of service of notice on them for today's hearing, No request for adjournment has been also received from them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the learned JDR.2. The Revenue in this appeal had made challenge to the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Order-in-Original and allowed the refund claim of the respondents by holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable to their case.3. The learned JDR has contended that the adjudicating authority disallowed the refund claim on the ground that the respondents had failed to prove that they had not passed on the incidence of duty to the customers, after following the remand order of the Tribunal, but the Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone into that aspect of the matter and reversed the order simply by holding that since duty was paid under protest, the principle of unjust enrichment d...

Cce Vs. Kaushal Steel Rolling Mills,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC119

1. In these appeals, the Revenue has made challenge to the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original and allowed the refund of the duty amount to the respondents.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of bars and dispute regarding the classification and rate of duty payable in respect thereof arose between the parties.During that dispute, the respondents deposited the duty at a higher rate, as demanded by the Department under protest. The Classification issue ultimately was decided in their favour by the Tribunal in December, 1990. But that order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Department before the Apex Court and the Apex court decided the matter in the year 1997.3. The plea taken up by the Department is that the refund claims should have been filed within a period of six months from the date of passing of the Tribunal's order. Having not so done, the adjudicating authority dis...