Delhi Court February 2004 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.
Shri D.P. Mahajan Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT23; 2004(73)DRJ176; (2004)IILLJ935Del; 2004(3)SLJ280(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. It becomes advisable sometimes to look into the law before focusing on the facts, in particular where the facts are a little lengthy, disputed and situationally entwined. It helps to identify as to what part of the controversy is relevant and what part is irrelevant.2. Many a challenge, when the findings of a domestic enquiry are in question, are based on the ground that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. It is alleged that material gathered behind the back of the employee was used. It is alleged that adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was not given. It is alleged that defense was not given an adequate opportunity to produce evidence. Should the result of the domestic enquiry be set to naught if any such infraction is found? Does law require something more to be found faulty?3. Law on the subject can be traced to the decision in 1874 LR 9 where it was held that a decision given without regard to the principles of na...
Gulf Air Company Vs. Delhi Administration, Through Secretary (Labour),
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT145; 2004(73)DRJ304; [2004(101)FLR1145]; 2004(3)SLJ263(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is an international airline having its main office in Bombay. It also has an office in Delhi where it has employed certain staff.2. Sometime in 1986, the Petitioner proposed to streamline its functioning in Delhi and as a part of its proposal, it planned to hand over the ticketing work in the Delhi office to a General Sales Agent (GSA). This would have rendered surplus some employees in the ticketing section in the Delhi office. With a view to avoid any hardship to its employees, the Petitioner proposed to transfer them to its other establishments in India or to be retrenched after due compensation as per law Along with an offer of alternative employment with the GSA.3. The employees of the Petitioner, through their association that is Respondent No. 3, raised an industrial dispute. Since conciliation proceedings failed, the Delhi Administration referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal on 27th February 1986: --'Whether the proposed a...
Mrs. Prem Lata Datta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT4; 2004(73)DRJ156; 2004(3)SLJ274(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The petitioner prays that notice dated 28.2.1980 issued by the Principal of respondent No. 4 school notifying that services of the petitioner shall stand terminated w.e.f. 30.4.1980 be quashed. Letter dated 7.4.1980 issued by respondent No.5 terminating the services of the petitioner be quashed. Respondents No.4 and 5 be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service as Assistant Teacher in the school w.e.f. 7.4.1980 with all consequential benefits of pay and allowances, promotions, seniority and continuity of service.2. Respondent No.4 is Meera Model School, established by respondent No. 5 Oberoi Education Society (Regd.). Petitioner was employed as an Assistant Teacher under respondent No. 4 school w.e.f. 5.1.1970 as claimed by her. School claims that she was employed as an Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 1.5.1972. Said disputed fact, however, is irrelevant for the purpose of determination of the present writ petition. 3. The school was an unrecognised school and, ...
Babulal (Conductor) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ150; 2004(3)SLJ269(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By and under Order dated 18.9.1987, the following penalty was imposed upon the petitioner:-'He is removed from the service of the Delhi Transport Corporation w.e.f. 19.9.1987.'2. The order of removal was preceded by issuance of a charge sheet to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was held. The enquiry report indicted the petitioner. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner Along with the same report of the Enquiry Officer was furnished. Petitioner's response was obtained.3. Petitioner was employed in the Delhi Transport Corporation (for short 'DTC'). As per the petition, till the incident in question, there was nothing adverse against the petitioner and he had a good record of service, a fact disputed by the respondent to which I would refer to later. On 2.11.1985, charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. Charge leveled was that he was found missing from duty on 2.10.1985 at 12.30 hours by the Vigilan...
Ranjit Kairos Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT248; 2004(73)DRJ464
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. Heard, Petitioner is in judicial custody in the case FIR No. 623 dated 10.9.2002 under Sections 489C and 489D, IPC registered at PS Dabri, South West District, New Delhi. Recovery has already made. The trial will take quite some time.2. In view of the above, petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, subject to the condition that he will not indulge in such type of activities in future failing which his bail will be cancelled.3. Petition stands disposed of. dusty....
indira Gandhi National Center for Arts Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT573; 2004(75)DRJ391
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. It appeals that the Petitioner had applied for exemption from payment of property tax for a considerable number of years. By a letter dated March 17, 1993, the Director (Tax) had conveyed the decision to withdraw the demand for property tax for the year 1992-1993 under Section 70(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act. It had further conveyed the decision that the said exemption will be available to the Centre for 1993-1994 and 1994-95 also, provided that no portion of its property is let out or used for any commercial activity of any kind. In the course of the arguments, it has not been contended by learned Counsel for the Respondent that any portion of the building of the Petitioner has been let out or has been used for commercial activities of any kind.2. By Order dated 16.11.2000, under Section 62(1)(a) of the NDMC Act, 1994, the Assistant Secretary (Tax) has rejected the Petitioner's application/representation for exemption from payment of property tax. I do not propo...
Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)177; [2005]275ITR587(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase the property namely D-203, defense Colony, New Delhi, which is the 1st floor and the terrace floor.2. The Revenue invoked Chapter XXC of IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for compulsory purchase of the property and made an order under Section 269UD of the Act, on 30th March, 1993, for apparent consideration of Rs. 25 lakhs.3. The petitioner has challenged the said order made by the authority under the Act under Section 269UD on the ground that the amounts as contemplated under Section 269UF has not been tendered in time to the petitioner. It may be noted that the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 makes it clear that the order was forwarded on 31st March, 1993. However, the same was returned unserved. It may be noted that the said letter was addressed to the transferor only. It is, thereafter, on 19th April, 2004, Chief CIT, IT-II, Delhi, sent, a letter to the transferor-Col....
Raj Ratan Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC683
1. Raj Ratan Castings (P) Ltd. has filed the present appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 15/2002 dated 205.2002 by which the Commissioner has fixed capacity of furnace as 4.28 M.T. and accordingly determined their Annual Production Capacity as 27,392 M.T. and rejected their request for determination of Annual Production Capacity under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act based on actual production for the period prior to 20.11.99.2. Shri Lajja Ram, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants are not pressing the appeal for determining their Annual Production Capacity on the basis of actual production prior to 20.11.99. He, further, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture M.S. Ingots of non-alloy steel in respect of which they were required to pay Central Excise duty on the basis of capacity of Induction Furnace determined under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, read with Induction furnace Capacity Determination Rules, 1997; that they had declared the capacity of their fu...
Seba International Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC162
1. The appeal is directed against the order of confiscation of 18 photocopy chassis imported at Chennai Port. Declared value was 150 Canadian Dollars per piece. The goods were also declared as 'used'. The Customs Authorities did not accept the declared value and got the value estimated by a Chartered Engineer, who fixed the value at 1000 Canadian Dollar per piece. Based on the enhanced value so fixed and the legal provision that machines more than 10 years old cannot be imported without licence, the authorities confiscated the consignment and imposed penalty on the appellant. The original penalty of Rs. 90.000 so imposed was reduced by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to Rs. 50,000 Commissioner (Appeals) also reduced the fine from Rs. 1.8 lakhs to Rs. 1.10 lakhs.2. In the present appeal, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the method of valuation adopted is grossly erroneous.He has taken us through the report of the Chartered Engineer and has shown that Ch...
Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT255TriDel
1. In this appeal the appellants have challenged the validity of the impugned order vide which their request for conversion of duty free shipping bills into drawback shipping bills had been declined by the learned Commissioner.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the goods were actually exported by the appellants in a hurry, to Myanmar and they failed to mention on the bills as drawback shipping bills, although in the shipping instructions, it was so mentioned. He has also contended that the claim for conversion of the shipping bills into drawback shipping bills was made within time and it has been wrongly held to be time barred. The learned Counsel has relied upon the ratio of law laid down in Smruti Pottery Works v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 184. On the other hand, the learned DR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. The perusal of the record shows that the goods were exported to Myanmar through two shipping bills dated 25th and 26th ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »