Delhi Court November 2004 Judgments

Rajinder Prasad Vs. the Chairman, Dsssb of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT351

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in NDMC, pursuant to an advertisement published on 11.6.1998. Petitioner applied as an OBC candidate. OBC certificate issued from the Competent Authority of the NCT of Delhi was dated 14.10.98. Petitioner has been denied appointment on the ground that the certificate was required to be submitted by the cut-off date i.e. 30.6.981 Petitioner having failed to do so, his candidature was rejected.2. This question of cut-off date had been considered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Tejpal Singh and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., reported at 2000 II AD 428.Counsel submits that the advertisement was the same as in the present case. Learned Judge came to the conclusion that there was no requirement to furnish the SC certificate by the last date referred to as the cut off date i.e. 30.6.98.Learned Single Judge had taken note of the fact that the vacancies had not even been filled up. It ...

Shri Ram Scientific and Industrial Research Foundation and ors. Vs. Un ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT394

B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. Against the order dated 31.10.1981 passed by the Commissioner of Excise, Delhi under the provisions contained in the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 the present writ petition is filed. From the narration of facts it transpires that the writ petitioners, Shri Ram Scientific and Industrial Research Foundation and Shri Ram Institute for Research, both located in Delhi were granted exemption for carrying out research work and scientific investigation in relation to manufacture, commerce, industry and also for the purpose of a test house as an information and advice bureau, etc. The institute was a recognised research and development laboratory of the Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India. Considering this aspect, a concession was granted for purchase of rectified spirit since April, 1972 by Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Delhi. However, vide letter dated 21.5.1979 (Annexure IX) the petitioner was informed that the facility of purchase of rectified spirit at a con...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. S.P. Constructions

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant has assailed the impugned order dated 12.2.1998 whereby it has been given following directions: O.P. is thus directed to prepare fresh bills covering the billing cycles 1.7.1993 and 1.9.1993 for the periods 15.4.1993 to 14.6.1993 and 15.6.1993 to 14.8.1993 on the basis of average of last six months preceding 15.4.1993 plus 10% of the amount so determined or highest bill received during last six months preceding 15.4.1993 plus 10% of the amount so determined and refund the excess amount charged for the two bills after charging higher amount so determined in the alternative, the refund shall be paid within 30 days by the O.P. to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. Admittedly the main grievance of the respondent was against the bills of telephone raised by the appellant for the billing cycle 1.7.1993, 1.9.1993 for the period from 15.4.1993 to 14.6.1993 and 15.6.1993 to 14.8.1993. Accordin...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. Mrs. Suman Kalra

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 5.1.1999 passed by the District Forum whereby the appellant has been directed to revise the bill for the cycle January, 1995 for the amount of Rs. 1,04,554/- for the period w.e.f. 15.10.1994 to 31.10.1994 by deeming that the respondent had made only 1702 calls the maximum class shown in the FNMR, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Respondent is proprietor of S.S. Investments and her telephone No. 7523852 is installed at her premises with STD facility since March, 1993. For two years there was no problem but suddenly in the month of January, 1995 respondent received a bill for Rs. 1,04,554/- and when the respondent requested the appellant to revise the bill on the ground that she had not made such a large number of calls during this period and there was some misuse of the telephone, the appellant did not take any action or decision. 3.The stand of the appellant is that the telephone of the respondent was provided w...

Ganganagar Sugar Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC366

1. Under the impugned order, the Commissioner has revised the assessable value of the glass bottles manufactured by the appellants and demanded differential duty for the period February 1988 to November 1991 and demanded duty of over Rs. 90 lakhs and imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs.2. The contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner was in error in holding that there was suppression of facts which justified taking resort to extended period as provided in proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The order is being assailed only on the ground of limitation.3. We have perused the records and considered the submissions made by sides.4. The finding of the Commissioner on suppression of facts is to be found in para 11 of the order. We reproduce that part of the order : "It appeared that in the Chartered Accountant's certificate, expenses upto the factory cost level (i.e. raw material, power and fuel, wages other factory overheads and depreciation) had been taken into consid...

Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages P. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC907Tri(Delhi)

1. After hearing both the sides on the application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs. 77,47,000/- and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs, we find that it is possible to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides.2. The issue in dispute is the availability of modvat credit to the appellants as credit has been denied on various items such as bottling line, UPS system, lubricating systems for conveyors, etc. The grounds for denial of credit as seen from the impugned order are varied, e.g.credit on UPS accessories has been denied on the ground that it is excluded under Rule 57Q; Credit on bottling line has been denied on the ground that it is excluded under Rule 57Q; Credit on Glycol falling under Heading 2905.90 has been denied on the ground that the Heading itself stands excluded from the coverage of Rule 57Q. It is explained that all the above items are covered by the description of capital goods e.g. UPS accessories have been fo...

Sah Polymers Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case Modvat credit in respect of the duty paid by the job worker was disallowed.3. In this case, the appellant were sending the fabric for job work and the job worker obtaining duty paid granules and used the same for lamination of fabric and thereafter cleared the goods on payment of duty. The laminated fabric was received by the appellant and they also availed the credit in respect of duty paid by the job worker.4. The contention of the Revenue is that under job worker procedure/rules and Notification No. 94/86 the job worker is not required to pay duty. as the job worker paid duty, which he requires not to pay, therefore, the appellant cannot take credit of such duty. I find that this issue is covered by the series of decisions passed by the Tribunal.CCE v. Anupam Engineering Works The Tribunal in the above mentioned cases allowed the credit in respect of duty paid by job worker...

Standard Chrome Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT366TriDel

1. Duty demand of Rs. 38,780/- has been confirmed against the appellants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of High Carbon Ferro Chrome, by inclusion of forwarding charges collected by M/s.TISCO Ltd. under whose direction goods were dispatched by the appellant to the customers, at the rate of Rs. 560/- PMT over and above the price claimed by the appellants in respect of supplies made to M/s. SAIL, Durgapur under purchase order dated 26-11-1993. Penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has also been imposed.2. We have heard both sides. The appellant had entered into an agreement with M/s. TISCO for supply of entire production of High Carbon Ferro Chrome to them on lump sum conversion fee of Rs. 10,930/- PMT. The entire quantity required for production was made available by M/s. TISCO and the goods were supplied by the appellants to M/s. SAIL, Durgapur Steel Plant on behalf of M/s. TISCO. Forwarding charges at the rate of Rs. 560/- were recoverable from the customers. Appellants claim that forward...

Mrs. Nidhi Vs. the Rao Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT216; 2005(81)DRJ46

Vijender Jain, J1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 16th March, 2004 passed by the Delhi Co-operative tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the award dated 11th August, 2003 passed by the Learned Arbitrator. 2. The petitioner has impugned the action of the society on the grounds that the area of flat of type C is less then what was represented by the Society; the society increased the number of members from 122 to 130 illegally, instead of `A' Class construction, the society has done `C' class construction in the flats; provision of additional lift made by the society was illegal; expenditure of the society was not approved by the general body; land cost claimed was higher by three to four times and that the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 25, 87,550.00 from the society. 3. We have perused the entire record and also the finding of the Arbitrator which is as follows:- '' I have heard the oral submissions of both the parties and have also carefully gone throug...

Radha Paintal and anr. Vs. Smt. Prerna Bakshi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT583

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 15.1.2003 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E-190/2002 whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller has decreed the eviction on a petition by the respondent under Section 14(d) of the Rent Control Act. 2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Controller are as follows:- ''Petitioner Smt.Prerna Bakshi has claimed that she is owner-cum-landlady of property No.23/2, first floor, double storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. It has been claimed that Sh.R.S. Paintal (husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 and 3) had been inducted as tenant by the husband of the petitioner. Sh.R.S. Paintal died and after his death, all the respondents become tenants under husband of the petitioner. Husband of the petitioner also expired an, thus, all the respondents are now tenants under the petitioner. It has been claimed that premises had been rented out for residential purpose and premise are requi...