Delhi Court September 2003 Judgments

Ghansham Dass Seth and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)437; 107(2003)DLT53; 2003(70)DRJ617

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The petitioner No. 2, who is the owner of plot No. 32, Lajpat Nagar, Part -I, New Delhi is aggrieved by the issuance of the letter dated 16.5.2002 by the respondent whereby she has, inter alia, been asked to make the payment of Rs. 24, 42, 227/- by way of penalty for belated construction from 1.7.1977 to 31.12.2003 within thirty days failing which her case for grant of `No Objection Certificate' in respect of the said premises would be closed. The case of the petitioner No. 2 is that penalty for belated construction for the period 1.7.1977 to 31.12.2003 cannot at all be charged at least during the period within which the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was in operation. The petitioners' case is that under the said Act there was a prohibition on construction and, accordingly, the petitioner could not carry out any construction during that period and consequently no penalty could be imposed on the petitioner ...

Mcd Vs. Lekh Ram and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)480; 107(2003)DLT661; (2004)ILLJ533Del

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the award dated 11th July, 2001 granting reinstatement to the respondent with only 20% back wages. 2. The Labour Court in the impugned award had found as under:(a) The MW1 (MCD's witness), Deputy Education Officer admitted that the respondent worked from 26th April, 1990 to 28th January, 1991. (b) The plea of MCD that the workmen himself did not report for duty and his services were never terminated was disproved by the pleading that the services of the workman were disengaged as the work for which he had been engaged had been completed. (c) Section 25F was violated as its provisions were admittedly not resorted to or complied with. 3. On 5th August, 2003, this Court passed the following order : 'Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the award on the ground that the award itself displays an error apparent on the face of the record as to the period of working of the respondent No.1 from 26th June, 1990 to 23rd January, 1991....

Lido Restaurant Vs. the Regional Pf Commissioner

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)449; 107(2003)DLT618; 2003(71)DRJ432; (2004)ILLJ558Del; 2004(2)SLJ310(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule has already been issued in the writ petition on 7th October, 1988. Accordingly, this petition is taken up today for final hearing.2. This writ petition mainly challenges the constitutional validity of Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952(in short the `Act').3. The said Section 7-A of the Act reads as follows:-'7A. Determination of moneys due from employers.__(1) the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner, any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, or any Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may, by order,__ (a) in a case where a dispute arises regarding the applicability of this Act to an establishment, decide such dispute; and (b) determine the amount due from any employer under any provision of this Act, the Scheme or the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, as the caste may be, and for any of the aforesaid purposes may conduc...

Abdul Rashid Vs. Shiv Bidi Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ540; 2004(28)PTC564(Del)

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.S. No. 1782/2002 1. Counsel for defendant No. 4 has stated that written statement was filed only yesterday. It has not been added to the record. Counsel for defendant No. 4 shall check up with the registry and will ensure that it is added to the file. Counsel for plaintiff has pressed for cost for accepting the written statement, which is not in terms of the order dated 28.5.2003. Subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/-, the written statement filed by defendant No. 4 shall be taken on record. Cost shall be paid on the next date. Replication to the written statement of defendants No. 1 to 3 has not been filed. Replication shall be filed by the plaintiff within four-weeks. Parties shall file original documents within four weeks and appear before the joint Registrar on 11th November, 2003 for admission/denial of the documents thereafter the case shall be listed before the court for framing of the issues on 25th November, 2003. is 6182/2003 2. Application is filed defendant N...

Shahid Ali Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT353; 2004(75)DRJ51

ORDERThis is in reference to your representation dated September 27, 2001 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, JMI regarding revocation of Rustication Order dated October 11, 1999.Your case was placed before the Discipline Committee in its meeting held on December 10, 2001 at 2.30 p.m. The case was deliberated at length. The judgment of Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. Sessions Judge in Session Case No. 93 of 2000 was perused. It was noted by the Committee that the learned Judge has given benefit of doubt to the accused as the prosecution could not prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt. You are hereby communicated that the Discipline Committee, considering the academic stability is the prime concern of the University and the fragile environment of law and order in the Campus is not disturbed in any manner whatsoever, resolved that the decision taken by previous Committee held on September 27, 1999 remains unaltered. Resultantly, your representation (dt. September 27, 2001) stands rejected.(Dr. M...

Daulat Ram Nature Cure Centre Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)ILLJ902Del; 2004(3)SLJ394(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule has already been issued in the writ petition on March 20, 1998. Accordingly, this petition is taken up today for final hearing.2. This writ petition mainly challenges the constitutional validity of Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the 'Act').3. The said Section 7-A of the Act reads as follows:'7-A. Determination of moneys due from employers, -(1) the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Additional CentralProvident Fund Commissioner, any Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner, any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, or any Assistant Provident FundCommissioner may, by order,- (a) in a case where a dispute arises regarding the applicability of this Act to an establishment, decide such dispute; and(b) determine the amount due from any employer under any provision of this Act, the Scheme or the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, as the case may be, and for any of the aforesaid purposes may conduct su...

Senior Post Master, Head Post Office Vs. K.G. Sharma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.12.2002, passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. OC/2238/1999 entitled Shri K.G. Sharma v. Head Post Master, Post Office, Parliament Street, G.P.O., New Delhi. 2. The case of the respondent before the District Forum was that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- in M.I.S. Account bearing No. 102191 on 27.2.1993 and was entitled to receive interest and bonus, at the rate as amended from time to time, on the completion of six years. However, the respondent was informed by the appellant vide letter dated 25.1.1999 that the said account had been opened in contravention of the rules prevailing for M.I.S. accounts, as the maximum limit prescribed for investment under the Scheme was Rs. 2,04,000/- only whereas the respondent had deposited Rs. 2,40,000/- as such, the account being irregular, the respondent was entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,51,570/- only after deducti...

i.T.i. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC63

1. This order will dispose of the above-captioned appeals which had been preferred by the appellants against the Orders-in-Appeals of different dates, but involving the same issue. Since the issue involved in all these case is common, we are going to dispose of the matter by this common order.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants imported the goods in the year 1985 after paying the duty as demanded by the authorities.They lodged the claim for the refund of the dues by claiming exemption from duty under Exemption Notification No. 284/76-CE but the authorities below rejected their refund claims. We also find from the record that the matter was first remanded by the Tribunal to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh after affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing to produce the relevant documents in support of their claims. But having failed to do so, the authorities below have again rejected their claims.3. We have heard Shri J. Selvam, C.O.A. for the app...

Cce Vs. Fine Indus. and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC27

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority allowing the benefit of SSI exemption Notification to the respondents in respect of clearances of goods in question detailed in show-cause notice.2. We have heard Shri A.S. Bedi, SDR for the appellant/Revenue and shri Ravi Ragavan, Consultant for the respondent/M/s . Fine Industries & ORs. 3. Ld. SDR has contended that the benefit of SSI exemption deserves to be denied to the respondents as they are using brand name "Bhalla Fine" on the disputed goods, which is similar to the brand name "Bhalla belonging to M/s . United Foundry & Engg. Works, but the authorities below have wrongly allowed the same. After going through the file, we find that contention of Id. SDR can not be accepted. Both the authorities below have recorded findings that the brand name 'Bhalla Fine' being used by the respondents ...

Elemec Industries, Shree Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT595TriDel

1. In these six appeals arising out of a common Order, the issues involved are whether the value of clearances of all the units is to be clubbed for the purpose of levying and collecting Central Excise duty and whether penalties are impassable on all the Appellants.2. Shri C.S. Lodha, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Elemec Industries, Appellant No.I, commenced the activity of carrying out turning and grinding operation on job work. as a partnership firm; that in 1982, they commenced manufacture of their own products, such as Magneto Assembly, dynamic balancing machines and its components and Ratchel Assembly; that they were availing the benefit of SSI exemption notification as they were registered as a small scale industrial unit with the Directorate or Industries with effect from 1975. He, further, mentioned that on 7.8.91, the Central Excise Officers carried out search of their factory premises as well as the factory premises of M/s. Shree Electricals, M/s. Anand Auto Electric...