Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments

Yuvneet Kumar and ors. Vs. M.C.D. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT380; 2005(80)DRJ145; [2005(105)FLR491]; 2006(1)SLJ125(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioners claim is that although they have been appointed on contract basis they are legally entitled to receive salaries in the scale of regular employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work.2. The preponderant view enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that the persons such as the Petitioners would not per se have the right to claim salaries equal to that of regular employees. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the Petitioners on the thought provoking decision titled Randhir Singh v. Union of India and others, : (1982)ILLJ344SC . The opening paragraph deserves to be thoroughly digested for its perspicuous legal content; it also commends careful reading because of its literary excellence. In all humility the passage is reproduced: 'Equal pay for equal work' is not a mere demagogic slogan. It is a constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies, by the enforcement of constitutional rights. So the petitioner...

Smt. Pinki JaIn Vs. Sh. Sanjay Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi273; 117(2005)DLT130; I(2005)DMC241; 2005(79)DRJ637

O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.12.99 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby respondent-husband's petition under Section 13(1) (i.e.) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( for short the 'Act') seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been allowed. Various instances of cruelty alleged by the respondent have been detailed in para No. 4 (i) to (xxii) of the impugned judgment. In the written statement appellant-wife controverter the allegations made by the respondent husband and further alleged that petition has been filed because the appellant did not satisfy the respondent's greed for more and more dowry. In support of their respective versions, the respondent husband examined himself as PW-1 and appellant wife examined herself as RW-1. After cosidering the material on record, learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant wife had lodged a false complaint at Meerut ...

Anup Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT312; 2005(80)DRJ105

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for quashing of the Order of termination dated 20.10.2003 and for issuance of a direction to the Respondent to carry out a proper inquiry in respect of the complaint received against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was engaged as a Tuberculosis Health Visitor (TBHV) by the State Tuberculosis Control Society with effect from 11.7.2000 for a period of six months. The relevant Office Order is to the following effect - ''Consequent upon his accepting the offer of being DOT Provider on contractual basis for a period of six months with fixed consolidated remuneration of Rs. 5000/- per month, Mr. Anup Singh should report for duties as contractual DOT Provider ......''. A formal contract was duly executed between the parties, clause 9 whereof stipulates that - ''This contract can be terminated by either side with one month's notice or in lieu of it by paying one month's remuneration by the STCS or by surrendering one month's salary ...

Rajesh JaIn and anr. Vs. Dcm Shriram Leasing and Finance

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)22; 2005CriLJ2239; 118(2005)DLT47; (2005)140PLR8

ORDERShri G.S. Shekhawat, Sr. Regional Manager, Bhiwadi (in his absence Shri Rajiv Gupta, Regional Manager, Bhiwadi) of the Corporation is hereby authorised to takeover the possession of the fixed assets of M/s. Vinayak Industries Ltd. situated at G-282, 283, RIICO Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Distt. Alwar on 20th February, 1996 and to do all necessary acts and things for that purpose for and on behalf of the Corporation in pursuance of the powers conferred on the Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951.Sd.(M.L.BHARGAVA)CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER'2. I will first take up the case of Crl. Rev. 602/2000 in which the complainant is M/s DCM Shriram Leasing and Finance Ltd. M/s Vinayak Industries Ltd. approached the complainant for the purpose of taking on lease certain equipments known as shoe lasts required for manufacturing shoes of value of Rs. 22,16,250.00. A leasing agreement was entered into between the company and the complainant on 14.3.95 and the complaina...

Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT708TriDel

1. This order disposes of two appeals filed by M/s. Haldia Petrochemicals Limited relating to the question of eligibility of Cenvat credit on inputs used for the generation of steam and electricity during the period November, 2000 to October, 2002. One appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (E/4001/04-A) and the other against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) (E/4201/04-A).2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Haldia Petrochemicals Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') is a Public Limited Company promoted by the West Bengal Government through the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation, which had set-up a petrochemical complex at Haldia, comprising (a) Naphtha Cracker Unit (NCU) and (b) Associated Downstream Units for producing HDPE, PP, LLDPE, etc., which consume the products manufactured by the NCU. The principal raw material for manufacture of petrochemical products is Naphtha which is procured from Indian Oil Corporation or other indigen...

Btr Wadco Automotive Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 18,01,812/- on Weather Strips manufactured by the appellant No.1 during the period 1996-97 to 5.12.1999 by inclusion of cost of tooling supplied by the customers which were used in the manufacture of weather strips cleared on payment of duty, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 12 lakhs on the manufacturer and a penalty of Rs.1 lakh on appellant No.2 who is the financial Controller of the appellant No.1 in terms of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.2. We have heard both the sides. The appellants do not contest the duty demand which is, therefore, upheld. However, we see merit in the contention that the interest and penalty is not sustainable for the reason that they were under the bonafide that tooling cost was not required to be included in the assessable value of their products and during the period in dispute there were conflicting judicial dec...

Jt. Cit Vs. Dalmia Dairy Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)3SOT353(Delhi)

These two appeals by the revenue against the orders dated 6-11-1998 of learned Commissioner(A)-11, New Delhi raise the grounds as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,46,529 made under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner(A) erred in holding that the order passed under section 256/143(3) dated 22-6-1998 was barred by limitation and thereby cancelling the same." "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,41,141 made under section 41 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner(A) erred in holding that the order passed under section 256/143(3) dated 22-6-1998 was barred by limitation and thereby cancelling the same." Briefly the facts are that the assessee company was owner of certain ceme...

Thai Airways International Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)98ITD123(Delhi)

1. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee on 8 March. 1995 against the orders of the learned CIT(Appeals)-V, New Delhi dated 2.12.1994 in the case of the assessee in relation to two orders Under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) for the financial year 1992-93. In these appeals the assessee has disputed being treated as an assessee in default in relation to certain payments made by the assessee to its employees.2. Facts of the case leading to these two appeals briefly are that the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had made certain payments to its employees on which no tax was deducted at source. According to the learned Assessing Officer the basic issue was whether those payments were exempt Under Section 10(14) or not and whether the Principal Officer, Thai Airways was right in allowing the exemption and whether the salary paid by the assessee to its employees was truly reflected in the return filed in form No. 24. The learned Assessing Officer brought this to the notice...

Director General of Supplies and Disposals Vs. Mr. K.K. Chakravarty

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT285; 2005(80)DRJ287

Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.2. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the Tribunal suffers from the vice of non consideration of the ratio of Union of India and Anr. v. R. Swaminathan etc. : AIR1997SC3554 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in R. Swaminathan's case(supra) , it was held by the Supreme Court as follows:-'12. As the Order itself states, the stepping up is subject to three conditions: (1) Both the junior and the senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical and in the same cadre; (2) the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts should be identical and; (3) anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of Fundamental Rule 22-C which is now Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(1). We are concerned with the last condition. The difference in the pay...

Well Protect Manpower Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authorit ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT293; 2005(80)DRJ440; (2005)140PLR33

D.K. Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.3. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the legality and propriety of the order dated 17 July 2004, passed by the Director (Sports), Delhi Development Authority (for short ''the DDA''), respondent No. 3 herein, debarrig the petitioner from tendering in future for the Sports Wing of the DDA. The petitioner prays for quashing of the said order with a direction to the respondents to award to them the contract for prevention of trespassing and protection of the golf course land of Qutub Golf Course, New Delhi, their bid being the lowest.4. The DDA, through its Chairman, has been imp leaded as the first respondent and the second respondent is the Secretary, DDA, Qutub Golf Course, New Delhi.5. In the month of December 2003, the second respondent issued a Notice Inviting Tender (''NIT'' for short) for engagement of a firm for the af...