Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments

Khushi Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT584; 2005(80)DRJ339; (2005)IILLJ448Del

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.2. This writ petition challenges the Order dated 11th June, 2001(Annexure P-11 at Page 33A of the writ petition) declining to refer the industrial dispute raised in respect of the petitioner for adjudication. The petitioner claims that he had worked for about two years from 26th September, 1998 as a Helper at ARSR/TX Stand High Security Radar facility of the respondent No. 2 (Airports Authority of India) at Bijwasan. The respondent No. 1 is the Union of India through the Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi, who has the authority to make the reference of the industrial dispute raised by the aggrieved workman under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the `Act') and who has also passed the order dated 11th June, 2001 impugned in this writ petition. The respondent No. 2 is the Airports Auth...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shri Begh Raj

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT438; 2005(80)DRJ351

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the award dated 6th October, 1995 directing reinstatement of the respondent in service of the petitioner MCD with full back wages and consequential benefits. Full back wages were directed to be paid at minimum wages fixed by the appropriate Government from time to time under Minimum Wages Act since 1st January, 1984 till the date of his reinstatement. It is also directed that the respondent will be deemed to be in continuous service and will also be entitled to consequential benefits. The Labour Court inter alias recorded the following findings:-(a) That the workman had claimed that he had been working from 4th August, 1979 till 1st January, 1984 as Mali/Beldar and he was being treated as daily rated/casual/muster roll worker and his services were terminated on 1st January, 1984 without assigning any valid reason contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors., : (1986)ILLJ127SC ...

Master Abhishek (Minor) Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT556

Manju Goel, J.1. The revision petition is directed against the order refusing bail to the petitioner who is a Juvenile. Petitioner was arrested in an offence u/s 323/302/34 IPC in case FIR No. 338/04 dated 5.7.2004 PS Kalyan Puri. As per practice, Juvenile Justice Board asked for the social investigation report. The Probation Officer in the social investigation report dated 12.8.2004 says that the petitioner was not arrested in any previous case and that the family was taking care of the juvenile properly. He further reports that the ethical and religious value of the family are normal. The relationship between the family members was healthy and there was no anti-social history of the family. As per the school record, the juvenile was a good student having scored scholarship in class VII. The circumstances leading to the offence are said to be co-incidental. The Juvenile Justice Board rejected the application for bail on the observation that the juvenile was of impulsive nature. Furthe...

Alkarma Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT478TriDel

1. The appellants are manufacturer of aluminium Doors, Windows and Partitions etc. On 28-9-1999, the Central Excise Officers visited the appellants' factory, and upon stock taking, pointed out certain shortages. The appellants deposited the duty due with regard to the goods found short. Subsequently, on 8-8-2002, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants invoking the extended period provided under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. In the present appeal, the Order is being challenged on many grounds, including jurisdiction. However, the basic grievance of the appellants is about the imposition of penalty on them i.e. equivalent to the duty amount.3. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. We find that the duty demand is based only on the shortages detected at the time of stock taking by the Central Excise Officers. There is no evidence about the clandestine removal or manufacture of the goods by the appellants.In these circumstances, the penalty was no...

C.C.E. Vs. J.K. Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Revenue filed these appeals against the Orders-in-appeal whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) that dipped rubberized tyre cord fabric is classifiable under sub-heading 59.06 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.3. We find that this issue is now settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Vikarat Tyres Ltd. and Anr., vide Final Order No. 13 to 16/05-NBA dated 6.1.2005 where it is held that the goods in question are classifiable under heading 5906 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and not under heading 5902 of the CETA. In view of the above decision, we find no merit in these appeals and the same are rejected....

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aimil Limited

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)682

1. The Department is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 24th Jan., 2000 for asst. yr. 1996-97. The grievance of the Department is that deduction under Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) was allowed keeping in view the accounts of M/s AESPL only despite the fact that as per the order of the Delhi High Court, dt. 18th March, 1996, the amalgamation was to take effect from 1st April, 1995.2. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading, servicing and export of scientific instruments. It had returned a total income of Rs. 21,89,840 for the year under consideration. It was seen that two companies, viz., Aimil Exports & Services (P) Ltd. (AESPL for short) and Aimil Sales & Agencies (P) Ltd. (ASAPL for short) had amalgamated with Aimil (P) Ltd. (APL for short) under the scheme of amalgamation effective from 1st April, 1995 and thereafter APL was converted into a public limited company with the name Aimil Ltd., the asse...

Joginder Kumar Singla and ors. Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi258; 117(2005)DLT220; 2005(80)DRJ34

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. By filing this petition, petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of prohibition/mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions, directing the respondents not to issue any drug license for sale and manufacture of the drugs in any residential premises and has further prayed for directing the respondents to grant license only in commercial areas. Petitioners are residents of Delhi and are engaged in business of various types of medicines. They have their shops in the market area in a commercial zone which is fully developed by Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Development Authority'). The shops occupied by the petitioners are in compliance with the provisions of Municipal Laws, Delhi Development Act and building bye laws. 2. The petitioners are holders of licenses issued under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Drugs Act') read with Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'...

Municipal CorporatIn of Delhi Vs. Shri Ram Pal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT551; 2005(80)DRJ331

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the award dated 12th May, 2000 passed in I.D. No. 1541/88, 56/95. The said award directed the reinstatement but did not grant any back wages. The impugned award is challenged interalia on the ground that the petitioner was engaged for a specific period that too on compassionate appointment on the death of his father and on the same terms and conditions of appointment of his father.2. The impugned award dated 12th May, 2000 notes that the respondent was appointed as a daily wager under the Minimum Wages Act on the same terms and conditions as applicable to his father's post, however, the terms and conditions of his father's appointment have not been brought on record.3. The impugned award records a finding that the respondent workman was a daily wager. It also notes that the work and conduct of the workman was found to be satisfactory as adduced by the Management's witness Shri S.P. Vip. It also recorded that the evidence also disclosed t...

Kailash Chand Gupta Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005CriLJ2846; 118(2005)DLT60; 2005(80)DRJ484

Manju Goel, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.10.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge directing framing of charge against the petitioner as well as against the other co-accused under Sections 328 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC'). The facts of the case can be enumerated as under:Following a complaint of sale of adulterated mustered oil a raid was conducted in the premises of Ram Lalit and 50 gms. of oil from an open tin of mustered oil was seized. On Ram Lalit's disclosure that the mustered oil had been purchased from the petitioner, Kailash Chand Gupta, the raiding party went to his premises and recovered two iron tins of mustered oil. Ram Lalit and petitioner-Kailash Chand along with Gauri Shankar, who was the manufacturer of the mustered oil, were challaned for offences under Sections 272/273/328 IPC as well as for offences under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short `PFA Act') all the three were charged u...

Bhupendra Steels Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants were clearing the goods through consignment agents, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 4(4)(b)(iii) of Central Excise Act, the place of removal in such a case is the premises of the Consignment agent. The value charged by the consignment agent becomes he normal price and duty is payable on that price whereas the appellant has paid duty at ex-factory price which is lower than the consignment agent price.2. The contentions of the appellant is that the demand is for the period 28.9.96 to 30.6.2000 and SCN was issued R.T. 12 returns indicating the sale through consignment agents, therefore, there is no intention of the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty. The appellant also filed the statutory declaration showing marketing pattern, under Rule 173C of Central Excise rules and in these declaration...