Delhi Court August 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sh. S.K. Jayaraman
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)325; 106(2003)DLT438; 2003(71)DRJ651; 2004(2)SLJ331(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing. 2. This writ petition challenges the impugned Award dated 23rd September, 1998, given by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, Delhi on a finding that since the respondent No.1 had been working on the post of Caretaker since 1979 the pay-scales applicable to the post of Caretaker be granted to the respondent No.1/workman.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding on the ground that (a) the Medical Officer, Leprosy Home, was not entitled to engage the respondent No.1 as a Caretaker and (b) that in any case from 1st April, 1980 after regularization on the post of Chowkidar, respondent No.1 could not claim the remuneration of a Caretaker. The other pleas relating to the competency of the Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCT) to make a reference does not survive and is not pressed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 while def...
Satwanti and ors. Vs. Rajender Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC132; 2003VIAD(Delhi)483; 106(2003)DLT296; 2003(71)DRJ669
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. RULE. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.3. Though respondents 1 and 2 have not been served but as they were ex-parte before the Tribunal and the compensation under the award is to be paid only by respondent no.3, I have not considered it necessary to serve the said respondents. 4. The short point involved in the case is whether the Tribunal has applied the correct multiplier while arriving at the compensation payable to the claimants. It is admitted case of the parties that the date of birth of the deceased was 5.8.1934, and he died in the accident on 2.6.1994. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was, thereforee, less than 60 years. The Tribunal while arriving at the compensation has applied the multiplier of five. It is now well-settled that unless there are special reasons to deviate from the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the Courts and the Tribunal should normally adhere to...
Mr. Umed Singh Vs. Ashok Hotel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)45; 109(2004)DLT508; 2003(71)DRJ22
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing. 2. This writ petition challenges the Order dated 27th August, 2002, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-VIII, Delhi, dismissing the review application of the petitioner because the award dated 22nd October, 2001 was passed and published. The petitioner moved the review application in respect of an award dated 22nd October, 2001 and the petitioner's plea inter-alia was that the name of the petitioner, figuring in the operative portion of the award dated 22nd October, 2001, i. e. , in Para No. 15 and 18 as well as in the last para was missing inadvertently and accordingly he was entitled to reinstatement with full backwages and all the consequential benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in Grindlays Bank Ltd Vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Others 1980 (Supp) SC 420 and Anil Sood Vs Presiding Officer, Labour...
Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta Vs. Assistant Collector and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)594; AIR2004Delhi101; 107(2003)DLT778; 2003(71)DRJ409
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. As indicated in paragraph 1 of the writ petition itself, it is clear that the writ petition has been filed challenging, inter alia, the legality and validity of the recovery proceedings initiated by the Respondent No 1 in pursuance of the recovery certificate issued by Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh i.e. Respondent No 2 herein. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction for quashing the recovery proceedings and the notice of recovery dated 14.02.2003 issued by the Respondent No 1.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents and in particular Respondent No 2 that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. It is thereforee necessary to first examine the question of territorial jurisdiction before proceeding with the hearing on the merits of the case.3. There are two aspects to the present writ petition. The first is the...
Mr. Lokesh Dhawan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)165; AIR2004Delhi26; 108(2003)DLT242; 2003(70)DRJ533
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner is a chartered accountant. On the basis of a complaint made by the respondent No. 4, the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (Respondent No. 2) (hereinafter referred to as a Council) referred the case to the Disciplinary Committee to examine the question as to whether the petitioner was guilty of any professional or other misconduct. There were three charges framed against the petitioner. After examining the written submissions and hearing the petitioner, the disciplinary committee in its report dated 17.01.2000 in paragraph 8.3 thereof recorded as under:-'8.3 The Respondent admitted the first charge against him, which read as follows:-'that the Respondent demanded and received large sums of money towards advance payment and claimed expenses beyond the eligibility/entitlement as pert RBI guidelines and failed to refund the unspent money.'The third charge was not examined by the disciplinary committee in view of the statemen...
Brijender Singh Deshwal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)186; 107(2003)DLT7; 2004(72)DRJ474
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This petition reflects the obsessive approach by a Court in forcing the Investigating Agency to abide by the wish of the Court in filing a charge-sheet inspire of the fact that I.O. after I.O. submitted before the Court that no case was made out against the petitioner. Such an approach by the Court does not augur well for administration of justice as Courts have over the period been advised not to interfere with and traverse into the functioning of Investigating Agency and its domain. Concerned Court is of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Initiator was Sh. Prem Kumar and precursor was Sh. R.K. Gauba.2. The petitioner being the Investigating Officer has been booked for an offence punishable under Section 409, IPC on account of having failed to produce the police file relating to FIR No. 155/89 under Sections 279/337, IPC i.e. causing simple and minor injuries due to rash or negligent driving. The facts leading to the registration of the case are, in brief, as under:3. An...
Commissioner Of Central Excise Vs. Teg'S Masrado Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT843TriDel
1. Through the present ROM application, the Revenue who were respondents, in the appeal, has sought rectification in the impugned Final Order No. A/761/2001-NB(D), dated 19-9-2001 [2002 (139) E.L.T.117 (T)] vide which the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner dated 17-4-2001 against the respondents (appellants in the appeal) was set aside for want of requisite permission from the Development Commissioner in terms of Government's Circular No. 21/95-Cus., dated 10-3-1995.2. The learned SDR has contended that the permission was already with the Department for initiating the recovery proceedings against the respondents. He has referred to a letter dated 13-2-2001 vide which the permission was allegedly granted to the Department. Therefore, the impugned order, according to the learned SDR, deserves to be rectified.On the other hand, the learned Counsel has contended that the letter dated 13-2-2001, referred to by the learned SDR, does not contain any permission of the Development Co...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC396
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the issue involved is whether refund claimed by them is admissible to them.2.1 Shri S. Ganesh, learned Sr. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture different Petroleum products; that the Asstt. Commissioner, Vadodara wrote a letter dated 6-1-1998 wherein it was mentioned that about Rs. 60 crores are pending in appeals or stay orders and clearance regarding pursuing the appeal from the Committee of Secretaries have not been produced; that it was also mentioned in the said letter that in addition an amount of Rs. 5,16,25,238/- is pending recovery from them on account of inclusion of state surcharge, RPO charges and RPO surcharges in the assessable value and is required to be paid by the Appellants; that the Asstt. Commissioner had also mentioned that if the amount is not paid, coercive action including detention/attachment of excisable goods would be taken; that they under their letter dated 9-1-1998 represented to...
Birla Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT455TriDel
1. Though both these appeals are posted for hearing the stay petition filed by M/s. Birla Textile Mills, I take up the appeals itself for disposal as the issue involved is in narrow compass, with the consent of both the sides.2. Shri R.D. Jaiman, learned Advocate, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has directed them to deposit Rs. One lakh under interim Order No. 450 dated 18.12.02; that they had deposited the said amount by debiting the CENVAT Credit account; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed their Appeal for non-compliance with the interim Order holding that debiting any amount in CENVAT credit account register is not legal for a manufacturing unit and such closed manufacturing unit can not operate CENVAT Credit account. I also heard Shri H.C. Verma, learned Departmental Representative.3. It is not in dispute that the Appellants have debited Rs. One lakh in their CENVAT Credit account, which in my opinion should be regard as due compliance with the Interim Order p...
Airport Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC669
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original vide which the Commissioner of Customs has imposed penalty of Rs 2 lakhs on them under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act.2. The facts are not much in dispute. A consignment of the goods by describing as books/printed matters arrived from Singapore by Malaysian Airlines at Delhi Airport, in the name of M/s. Umesh Book Service as consignee. The documents regarding that consignment were collected by the Customs Officers from Malaysian Airlines on 26.10.1997. Since there was a mis-descripton of the goods and on the basis of intelligence gathered by the Cargo Preventive, Air Cargo, IGI Airport, New Delhi, the goods were kept in the custody of the appellants. On the request of the Superintendent, Cargo Preventive, one consignment was produced for examination and the same was found to contain prohibited electronic goods, while the other four consignments of the same consignee, M/s Umesh Book Se...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »