Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments

Keshav Kishore Sharma Vs. Municipal Corp. of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT348; 2005(80)DRJ180

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner seeks quashing of the communication dated 4.4.2001, rejecting the request for reimbursement of medical charges (Annexure P-17). Petitioner also seeks quashing of Resolution No. 4017 dated 27.9.1904, insofar as the same is pressed to deny reimbursement of expenditure incurred on diseases. Petitioner also seeks a mandamus, directing MCD to pay and reimburse the amount of medical claim.2. Petitioner had joined MCD as a Lower-Divisional Clerk on 24.9.1998. Petitioner superannuated on 31.8.1993 in the position of Head Clerk. Petitioner suffered cardiac trouble in April, 1999 and was taken to G.B. Pant Hospital. An angiography was done and in July, 1999. Petitioner was advised surgical re-vascularisation. Petitioner thereupon applied to MCD on 6.8.1999, along with the report of G.B. Pant Hospital for sanction of the estimated amount for cardiac surgery operation. Petitioner thereafter visited Hindu Rao Hospital of MCD for getting treatment in the Cardiology D...

Neelam Chaturvedi Vs. M.G.F. (India) Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The complaint of the appellant was dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.2.1994/8.4.1994 solely on the ground that the appellant is not entitled to the relief sought by her, as the hire-purchase agreement entered into between the parties does not entitle her to any relief on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. 2. Admittedly the appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent for the purchase of motor vehicle by paying initial amount of Rs. 23,400/- and the balance in equal monthly instalments. The delivery of the vehicle was made to her on 30.6.1987, the date of agreement. In spite of the fact that the entire payment by way of instalments was made by the appellant, the respondent declined to issue No Objection Certificate for transfer of the vehicle in her name. The District Forum interpreted the hire-purchase agreement as a lease agreement for the period of two years whereafter the respondent was entitled to take back the...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Zubeda Begum

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant MCD has been directed to pay Rs. 2,000 to the respondent as compensation for not issuing certified copy of record in respect of premises No. 8, Raj Niwas Marg, Delhi in spite of respondent having affixed a Court-fees stamp of Rs. 2 on the application. 2. To put briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent claims herself to be the owner of premises No. 8, Raj Niwas Marg and in that capacity she filed Civil Suit for perpetual injunction restraining the Union of India and other from interfering with her possession and restraining the custodian of the Evacuee Property, declaring the same as evacuee property. It is also the case of the respondent that in the month of March, 1998 the respondent came to know that the record of the said property in the appellant MCD office was being tampered with and therefore she made a written application on 24.3.1998 requesting the appellant to supply a certified copy of the property record wi...

The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Shriram Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These three appeals are directed to be disposed of by a common order.2. In the assessee's appeal in ITA No.2950(Del)/1998, the ground raised are as under; 1. 'The on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), has erred in upholding the action of the AO that transfer in respect of property No.3, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi took place in AY 1986-87 and hence Capital Gain was liable to be taxed in this assessment year'. 2. 'That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), has erred in holding that amendment to section2(47) was clause(v) of the said section 2(47) of the IT Act'., 3. 'That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned the CIT(A), has erred in holding that market value of land beneath property at 3, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi as on 01.01.1964 at Rs.150/- per sq. yard as against Rs.250/- per sq. yard adopted by the approved valuation officer'. 4. 'That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), has e...

Fusebase Eltoro (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The dispute is about valuation. The contention of the appellant was that it has ex-factory sales on wholesale basis and such ex-factory whole sale price constitutes assessable in terms of Section 4(1)(Q) of Central Excise. It is also pointed out that when wholesale price is available on ex-factory basis, there is no requirement to go into what are the prices at depots and other places. Ld. Counsel submits that the goods sold from the depots and other places are also to be assessed at the ex-factory wholesale price. Reliance is being placed on our decision in the case of Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2000(120). 405 in support of this legal proposition.2. We have perused the records and heard Ld. DR. It is not in dispute in the present case that considerable ex-factory sales existed on wholesale terms. In such a case, the assessee is right in its submission that all removals were required to be assessed at the ex-factory price. This legal position remains setted b...

Renuka Cement Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC522

1. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Order-in-Original and rejected the claim of the appellants. The appellants were availing the benefit of Notification No. 12/95 dated 16.3.95 without firstly exhausting the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. No one has come present on behalf of the appellants. They have requested for a decision on merits.3. We find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of cement and availing the full exemption benefit under Notification No.1/93 dated 28.2.93. But before exhausting their clearances of goods under the said Notification, they attempted to avail the benefit of Notification No. 12/95 dated 16.3.95 under which the specific rate of duty has been provided. In our view, they could not legally opt for benefit of this later notification when they were also availing the benefit under the first Notification No. 1 /93. However, only aft...

Cce Vs. Pasupati

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order in appeal, the issue relates to the effective date of applicability of the Gazette Notification regarding the enhancement of the rate of duty. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the view, by following the apex court judgment in the case of CCE v. New Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1998 (97) ELT 388 that the date of applicability of the notification will not be the date of simple publication in the gazette, but the date when the gazette is made available to he public.But the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has lost sight of the fact that this judgment was later on disapproved and rather over-ruled by the apex court itself in the case of Union of India v. Ganesh Das Bhoraj 2000 (116) ELT 431 wherein, the apex court has specifically ruled that notification would come into operation as soon as it is published in the gazette i.e. the date of publication of the gazette and no further publication is contemplated.2. ...

Waris Mohd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)SLJ116(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order of retrenchment dated 15.4.2004 and a direction that he be allowed to continue on the post of Depot Manager-Grade II at U.P. Handlooms Showroom, Nehru Place, New Delhi, presently held by him.2. Petitioner joined U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd., i.e., respondent No. 3 in 1979. Petitioner had joined as a Salesman, got promoted as Senior Salesman and finally as Depot Manager-Grade II, upon being transferred from Ambala to Munirka.3. Petitioner assails notice dated 12/13.4.2004, published in Amar Ujala, mentioning names of 866 employees for retrenchment w.e.f., 15.4.2004 including that of petitioner. Petitioner claims that respondents failed to comply with the requisite mandatory provisions for retrenchment. Petitioner also assails the rehabilitation package approved by the State Government. Petitioner is aggrieved since his name in the seniority list displayed on 6.4.2004, is shown at Sr. No. 40. It is claimed that the senio...

Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC229

1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order of the adjudicating authority who dismissed the refund claim of the appellants.2. It has been fairly conceded by the learned counsel that the refund claim is hit by the ratio of law down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CC (Preventive), 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC) wherein it has been ruled that unless the assessment order is challenged by the assessee, no refund claim can be lodged by him for the refund of the duty paid under the said order. In the instant case also, the assessment order on the bill of entry was never appealed against by the appellants for challenging its correctness. Having accepted that order, their refund claim is not legally maintainable.Therefore the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld....

Plyboard Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT391TriDel

1. In this appeal, which has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original, the issue relates to the availability of exemption Notification No. 85/85, dated 17-3-1985 to them.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants were engaged in the plywood block board etc. during the disputed period. However, later on they were taken over by M/s. J.K. Industries Ltd. (J&K State Government). They were served with show cause notice by denying them the benefit of the above said notification during the years 1986-1987 to 1989-1990. They were called upon to pay duty as per law and penalty was also proposed to be imposed on them, in the show cause notice.3. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand by denying them the benefit of the above said notification on the ground that their clearance and that of the unit of J & K Industries exceeded the limit prescribed under notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86. He has also opined that the appellants were...