Delhi Court August 2004 Judgments

Master Mayank Vashishth Vs. Financial Commissioner

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT162; 2004(77)DRJ65

T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioners assail the legality of an order passed by the Collector, North-West District, Delhi and that passed by the Financial Commissioner in appeal, whereby an order attesting a mutation in favor of the petitioners on the basis of a sale deed executed in their favor has been set aside and directions for taking possession of the land covered by the sale issued on the ground that the sale was in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The facts giving rise to the controversy are few and may be stated at the outset:-2. Late Shri Ram Mehar and his brother Kanwar Lal purchased a certain extent of land situate in different khasra nos. of Village Khera Khurd somewhere in the year 1941-42. In terms of a sale deed dated 7th August, 1996 Ram Mehar transferred in favor of the petitioners, land situate in khasras Nos. 50/17 and 50/18 which had according to the case set up by the petitioners, f...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hemant Bhandari

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is an Insurance Company. It appears that every Insurance Company has started taking undue advantage of its wrong. Whenever they cover a person under medi-claim insurance policy and the person suffers from some or the other ailments or even dies a stereotype defence is taken by the Insurance Company that the insured had concealed the factum of the pre-existing disease he was suffering from. On this short ground alone Insurance Company repudiates the rightful claim of the insured. Any person who desires to be covered by the insurance policy is required to be medically examined by the doctors of the company and if the Insurance Company fails to do the same it cannot be allowed to take advantage of its wrong. 2. In the instant case the respondent was insured for mediclaim policy. After 2 days of obtaining the policy the respondent felt breathlessness and was taken to the hospital but was discharged after 3-4 days. This happened in the month of April...

Executive Engineer Tubewell Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC27

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division for restoration of appeal dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. E/974/98-B1 dated 16.6.98 for non-appearance on the date of hearing.2. Shri Anil Mittal, learned Advocate, submitted that during the period of the Appeal was pending before the Tribunal the office of Tubewell division was divided into two by the Government of UP and both the Divisions were allotted to different offices; that the present Appeal in question was assigned to Executive Engineer Division I; that the notice sent by the Tribunal for hearing on 16.6.98 was received by the office of the Tubewell Division II; somehow either the notice was misplaced or for some other reason the notice did not come to the notice of the Division I and as such the appearance could not be made before the Tribunal; that the Tubewell Division-I came to know about the dismissal Appeal through Tubewell Division II and immediately they had sought ...

K-three Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC124

1. M/s. K-Three Electronics Pvt. Ltd. have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No. 45/2004 dated 30.1.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Shri Lajja Ram, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture colour television set and plastic moulded parts; that when the Central Excise Officers visited their factory premises on 28.8.2002 they found finished goods valued at Rs. 8,11,621.42 in excess of the stock recorded in RG-1 register; that the officers also found shortage of raw material namely High Impact Polyesterene weighing 3123.771 kgs.valued at Rs. 1,56,188.55; that the Additional Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 7/2003 dated 30.5.2003 confiscated excess finished goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 2,05,000 and confirmed all other dues mentioned in the show cause notice; that on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the confiscation of the excess finished goods and redemption fine imposed on them as well as denial ...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Hindustan Steel Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT85TriDel

1. The above captioned two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the two different dated orders and are being disposed of through a common order as facts and issues involved are common. Appeal No. E/2084/3005-B has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 22-1-2004 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority, who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 4,33,975/- with penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondents in respect of waste and scrap cleared by them during the period April to December, 2001. Whereas the second Appeal No. E/2122/2004-B has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 16-1-2004 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority, who disallowed the claim of the respondents in their classification declaration, regarding benefit of Notification No.89/95-C.E. dated 18-5-95 with a further direction to p...

Arun Kumar Singh Vs. Director Genl. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT315; 2004(76)DRJ161; (2005)ILLJ793Del

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.1.1985 passed by the respondents removing the petitioner from service pursuant to a departmental proceeding initiated against him. In the writ petition the orders dated 30.4.1985 and 14.11.1986 are also under challenge which are orders passed by the appellate authority and revisional authority respectively.2. A departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the alleged ground that he removed an electric motor worth Rs. 6000/- from Delhi Food B.R. Shop on 19.2.1984 with the intention to sell the same in conspiracy with Shambhu and Kankala and in so doing he has removed government property unlawfully and unauthorisedly thereby committing misconduct and indiscipline. The petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge, which is dated 10.6.1984 as against which the petitioner submitted his reply. Upon going through the aforesaid reply of the petitioner, the respondents found the same to be uns...

Suman Lata Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT152; 2004(76)DRJ139; (2004)138PLR28

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner assails the policy/circulars, by which compassionate appointment can be denied to the Legal Heir because the deceased employee was punished in Disciplinary Inquiry during his employment. The Policy/ circular are assailed as arbitrary and based on extraneous factors. On the moral plain, it is urged that 'Sins of parents should not re-visit the descendant' to deny the benefit of compassionate appointment. It is urged that the parent having gone through the ordeal in his/ her life time it amounts to punishment twice over.2. The facts, giving rise to the petition are:-Petitioner a widow of D.S. Yadav, former employee of respondent No. 2 Punjab National Bank, applied on 16.3.2001, for being employed on compassionate grounds, following the death of her husband. Late D.S. Yadav had expired on 28.2.2001. Respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 7.10.2003 simply declined the request without recording any reasons. 3. Petitioner filed a writ petition CW NO. 8967...

Jagson International Ltd. Vs. Frontier Drilling

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC444; [2005]124CompCas361(Delhi); 113(2004)DLT189; 2004(76)DRJ299

R.C. Chopra, J.1. This order shall dispose of the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure numbered as is No.3743/2003, the defendant's application is No.5819/2003, under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure and is No.5639/2003, under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, filed by defendant for referring the matter to arbitration.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the aforesaid three applications, briefly stated are that the plaintiff a limited Company has filed a suit for declaration, injunction and recovery praying that Arbitration Agreement contained in Clause 24 of the Charter Agreement dated 15th September, 2000 between plaintiff and defendant be declared illegal, null and void, nonest, inoperative and incapable of being performed. It is also prayed that an injunction be issued restraining the defendant from taking an steps pursuant to the aforesaid arbitration clause. A d...

Shri Vijay Prasad Vs. Directorate of Education and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT141; 2004(76)DRJ143

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner by this petition assails the order dated 27.10.2003 Annexure P-1 passed by respondent no.4 terminating the services of the petitioner w.e.f 28.10.2003. The services of the petitioner as Upper Division Clerk (in short U.D.C.) have been terminated following the rejection of the proposal of grant-in-aid by the Directorate of Education in respect of the petitioner. The Directorate of Education refused the grant-in-aid since the petitioner was over age, being 28 years on the date of recognition of the school. The maximum age permissible under the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 being 25 years.2. The facts giving rise to the petition may be noted:-Petitioner Vijay Prakash was employed on 17.8.1994 by Sharda Devi Sanskrit Vidyapeeth-respondent no.4 as a U.D.C at a consolidated salary of Rs.1500/- per month. With the passage of time, his salary was enhanced to Rs.2000/- per month. The school was recognized by respondent no.1-Directorate of Education on 1.4.1...

Smt. Bimlesh Tewari (Deceased) Through Her Lrs. Vs. the Food Coporatio ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)CTLJ322(Del); 113(2004)DLT563; 2004(76)DRJ313

Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment delivered on May 14, 1981, this appeal is preferred by the appellants against Food Corporation of India (FCI). It was alleged in the plaint that at the representation of FCI appellants constructed godown at Hapur, it was pleaded that FCI assured that it would occupy the said store for a period of five years and by acting upon this representation, the plaintiffs/appellants constructed their godown at Hapur for use and occupation by the FCI on payment of compensation/rent at the rate of Rs.20 per 100 sq.ft. It is admitted position that FCI occupied the godown on August 1972. It was alleged that in violation of the term of the minimum occupancy guarantee, the respondents informed vide their letter dated January 25 , 1974 that they would release the godown on February 9, 1974 and would not pay compensation for use and occupation with effect from that date. It was contended by the appellants that no legal notice was served and thus the godown re...