Delhi Court August 2004 Judgments

Meer Kaur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT387; 2004(76)DRJ462

ORDERMukundakam Sharma, J.1.This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner Special Family Pension w.e.f 5th August, 1994 along with interest thereon.2.The son of the petitioner, Constable Driver Vikram Singh was enlisted in the Central Reserved Police Force (C.R.P.F) on 23rd September, 1991. While working as a Driver in the said force, he applied for and was granted earned leave on 28th July, 1994 from 29.7.94 to 26.9.94. On being granted the said leave, the son of the petitioner left for his home-town. On reaching home, however, on 4th August, 1994 he started vomiting and was immediately taken to Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak, where he died on the same day. After his death, his mother, the petitioner herein, sent a copy of the death certificate to the respondent No.2 praying for grant of Special Family Pension to the petitioner. As the son of the petitioner was a bachelor at the time of his death, he had no other ...

Jainder Singh Tomar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(76)DRJ432

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common judgment, I would be deciding the above three writ petitions as same question of law and almost similar questions of fact arise. 2. Petitioners in the writ petitions are seeking stay of the departmental proceedings initiated against them during the pendency of the criminal cases registered against them.3. Let us notice the individual facts in the three writ petitions to the extent they are relevant: (i) Jainder Singh Tomar, petitioner in WP(C) 565/2004 had joined the MCD on daily wages in 1980. He was regularized in the post of Mali w.e.f. 1.4.1988. In January, 2000, petitioner was deputed to the Toll Tax Department of MCD. (ii) Rajinder Prasad Yadav, petitioner in W.P.(C).593/2004 had similarly joined the MCD in May, 1989 on daily wages and was regularized in the post of Mali w.e.f. 1.4.1995. He was also deputed to Toll Tax Department in January, 2000. (iii)A criminal case has been registered against both the petitioners vide FIR No.64/2000 dated 20...

Satender Vs. Ved Pal Sharma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is manufacturer of mini offset printing machine. One machine was purchased by the respondent from the appellant at the price of Rs. 2,40,000/-. The machine was installed on payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- by the respondent. The balance of Rs. 40,000/- was to be paid after installation of the machine. According to the respondent the appellant did not fulfil its promise to get the machine functional nor did he send any mechanic to remove the defects as the machine failed to function properly right from the beginning. 2. As regards the grievance of the appellant that the respondent had made only part payment of the price of the machine and in order to avoid payment of the balance amount of Rs. 40,000/- as well as to avoid payment of sales tax he started adopting this tactics that the machine was defective. A legal notice was also sent by the appellant to the respondent for making payment of balance amount. The aforesaid dispute between the parties gave r...

Jet Airways India (P.) Ltd. and Others Vs. Dipak Bhattacharya

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is a provider of service of travel through air. It goes by the name of M/s. Jet Airways India Limited. It has been directed vide order dated 5.10.2001 to make up the loss of two baggages by the respondent with the appellant while travelling from Bangalore to Chennai for a sum equal to US $ 200 besides the cost of litigation. Impugned order has been assailed through this appeal mainly on the premise that the District Forum has erred in applying international Rules of Carriage of Goods by directing the appellant to pay an amount equivalent to US $ 200 whereas the appellant being domestic airline is not subjected to the International Rules of Carriage of Goods condition of contract does not provide for compensation for loss of baggage international carriage by Air Act. However, peripheral objection raised by the appellant that Delhi Court has no territorial jurisdiction needs to be repelled at the outset inasmuch as that the respondent travelled fr...

Press Comp International Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(98)ECC435

1. This Larger Bench has been constituted pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition. 8987/2000. The direction of the High Court is as follows: "The President of the tribunal is directed to constituted a Larger Bench of the tribunal to resolve the disputed question dealt with and hold that the dictum in S.B.S. Organics, is correctly decided and answer whether an Invoice/Gate pass endorsed more than once is valid document within Rule 57-G of the Central Excise and Customs Rules. The Appellate Order passed by the second respondent is set aside. The appeal filed by the petitioner is ordered to be restored to the file of the second respondent. It is to be heard and disposed of in accordance with law after disposal of the matter by the Larger Bench." 2. The disputed question is whether Modvat Credit could be taken on "the invoice-cum-challan of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. which have been endorsed twice".3. We have perused the records and hav...

Mrs. Geeta Sabharwal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ269CAT

(i) that the seniority list dated 27th November, 2001 (Annexure A-19) be quashed and set aside; and (ii) direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the applicants from the date they were selected in accordance with the Rules and joined their duties; (iii) direct the respondents to promote the applicants in accordance with the Rules at least from the date when their juniors have been promoted if not earlier with consequential benefits including arrears of pay and also further promotion to the next higher post; (iv) and pass such other and further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. On framing the Safdarjung Hospital Class III Recruitment Rules, 1973, recruitment to the posts of LDC required matriculation with experience in typewriting/By a memorandum dated 4.11.75 by the DoPT, which was followed by OM by Direct General Health Services, Government of India dated 17.12.76 recruitment to the posts of LDC and Stenographers in the subordin...

Mrs. Florence Joel Vs. Mater Dei School and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT511; 2004(76)DRJ421; [2005(104)FLR44]

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule.With the consent of parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner, by this writ petition assails the order dated 17.7.2002, passed in appeal by the Delhi School Tribunal. Mr.Shukla, submits that petitioner was an illiterate widow, who had been engaged by Mater Dei School as a class IV employee. This was done in January, 1983. Her duties were washing clothes, cooking food, dusting and cleaning residential quarters of the Sisters and the chapel where the Sisters prayed. It is further claimed that petitioner was also cleaning the class rooms. Respondent-School and its Society did not issue any appointment letter to the petitioner. Petitioner's services were terminated vide letter dated 5.7.1996 w.e.f. 15.7.1996. It is stated that respondent Society, which ran the School paid a sum of Rs.13,288/- towards settlement of dues. Petitioner was not paid the regular salary and other retiral benefits, as paid to other employees. At the time of settlement, ...

Pachranga International (Chander Group) Vs. Som Nath and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(77)DRJ256; 2004(29)PTC433(Del)

R.C. Jain, J.IA No. 3729/2004 in CS (OS) No. 23/2004.1. This is an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151, CPC made on behalf of the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint as also of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit under the name of M/s. Pachranga International (Chander Group) for a permanent injunction, passing off action, for accounts and delivery, etc. The suit is being contested by the defendant on a variety of pleas and grounds. The plaintiff now wants to incorporate certain facts as to the division/dissolution of the partnership firm and its consequence in the plaint and in the application. The plaintiff also wants to incorporate facts relating to institution of certain earlier proceedings filed by its plaintiff through its partner Rajinder Kumar Dhingra against the defendant at Panipat Court and certain compromise having been reached between the parties in the said suit.3. Though no reply is filed to t...

Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN494(Delhi)

For the assessment year 1986-87 in ITA 4593/Delhi/1994, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while deciding the appeal on 30-5-2003, considered that the addition of Rs. 75 lakhs in trading account was on the higher side and thought it to maintain an addition of Rs. 25 lakhs on account of excessive and unverifiable production loss shown by the assessed. The question before this court is:Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal in so far as it has maintained an addition of Rs. 25 lakhs is based on any reasons or notAt the request of the parties we are taking the matter for final disposal today itself.On behalf of the assessed it is contended that in fact there should be complete deletion of addition as the loss was verifiable and accordingly decision ought to have been rendered in his favor in its entirety. On behalf of the revenue it is contended that there is sufficient material on record to show that the production loss shown by the assessed was excessive and unverifiable. On consid...

Chandan Saha Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This is an appeal against adjudication order No. SDE(SSB)II/33/2003, dated 10-10-2003 passed by Special Director of Enforcement, New Delhi imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant for violation of section 9(1)(b) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant has made pre-deposit of Rs. 25,000 in compliance of the order dated 15-3-2004 passed by this Tribunal and Shri T.K. Gadoo, DLA confirms the same. Presently the appeal is taken up for hearing on merit. The appellants counsel has filed written submissions which are taken on record. 2. The admitted facts are that premises of one Shri Mantu Kumar were searched where four documents with certain amount of Indian currency were recovered. The said Mantu Kumar gave a confessional statement implicating the appellant involving him in contravention of FERA, 1973. Similarly, the appellant made confessional statement, which he later retracted, involving him in the activities in contravention of section 9(1)(b) of FERA, 1973...