Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments

Allied Shipping and Packing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Secretary (Labour) and o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT172; 2005(80)DRJ750; [2005(105)FLR490]; (2005)IILLJ437Del; (2005)141PLR31

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the award dated 31st October, 1995 entitling the workman for full back wages along with continuity of service. The dispute has been raised in the following terms of reference:-''Whether Shri Hazari Lal abandonedhis job or his services were terminated by the management illegally and/or unjustifiably, and if so to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?''2. The claim of the respondent was that he was working with the management as a Packing manand was drawing wages @ Rs. 555/- per month and while he was on medical leave from 30.3.87 and applied thereforee, and when he joined the services on 23rd April, 1987 along with fitness certificate, he was denied duty and was illegally removed from service.3. Written statement was filed by the management and the case set up by the petitioner management was that the respondent workman Hazari Lal absented from duties w.e.f. 6th April, 1987 without any information o...

Danvir Verma Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(81)DRJ581

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner has prayed inter alias for the issuance of appropriate orders quashing (a) his suspension as well as (b) the Charge Sheet against him, and (c) to restrain the continuance of the Domestic Inquiry instituted against him. After eleven hearings, an ad interim stay of the inquiry proceedings was granted on 14.05.1999. However, on 05.02.2002, resumption of these disciplinary proceedings was permitted subject to the condition that the final order passed would not be given effect to against the Petitioner. On 15.03.2004, the Petition was set down for final disposal. The learned counsel for the parties have addressed detailed arguments in the matter.2. The Petitioner has been acquitted of offences under Sections 420, 471/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in terms of the Judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate announced on 05.08.1995. The Respondent had also instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 93,325/- which has also been dismissed since the Civil Jud...

Rajeev Raijayada Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT44; 2005(79)DRJ565

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, an appropriate writ for quashing of a First Information Report alleging commission of offences under Sections 392, 452 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been sought.2. The petitioner is an Area Officer with M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd.(hereafter called ''The Company''). He avers that one Sh. Ram Gopal Verma (hereafter called ''Borrower'') approached the company for the financing of a two wheeler (Hero Honda Spleandor) Motorcycle. The proposal was accepted; consequently a Hire-Purchase Agreement was entered into. The vehicle was purchased and the monthly installment payable under the arrangement was Rs. 1831/-. The petitioner avers that the entire amount financed bythe company was repayable in 24 equated monthly installments, for which the borrower issued post dated cheques.3. It has been further averred that the borrower did not make timely payments leading to an outstanding amount...

Sahil Singh Maniktala and ors. Vs. Harpreet Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT350; 2005(81)DRJ183

B.A. Khan, J.1. This appeal is directed against impugned order dated 17.12.2004 passed in appellants' is No. 8627/2004 in Suit No. 1471/2004 issuing notice to respondents (defendants) for 11.2.2005 and at the same time providing that any transfer of interest of the share of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 in property bearing No. Okhla factory S-80, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi would be subject to the outcome of the application.2. Appellants had filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts and permanent injunction of the ancestral/joint family properties and businesses. Along with this suit they also filed is No. 8627/2004 for ex-parte interim directions that respondents (defendants) be restrained from alienating the property as detailed in Schedule-A attached thereto.3. Appellants' grievance is that learned Trial Judge had only issued notice of the application to defendants and had not granted the ex-parte stay for the entire properties as enlisted in Schedule-A and by doing ...

Satender Kumar JaIn Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This is a case of double allotment. The appellant, a handicapped person, was allotted a shop No. 31 in the Convenient Shopping Complex, Kondli Gharoli. There is no dispute that he had paid Rs. 1,24,670/- including the amount of Rs. 9,000/- towards stamp duty charges for the execution of the perpetual lease. When he visited the site to take possession of the said shop, he was shocked to find that said shop had already been allotted to some ex-serviceman. Having been held guilty for grossest kind of deficiency in service, the respondent has been, vide order dated 15.9.2001, given the following directions: That O.P. to allot shop No. 5, Ground Floor, CSC No. 2, Kondli Gharoli, Sector B of 19.34 sq. ft. area or shop No. 6, Ground Floor, CSC No. 1 Kondli Gharoli, Sector A of 18.69+8.00 sq. ft. as per the choice of the complainant. The complainant shall submit his choice in writing through registered post to the O.P. within 15 days from the date of receipt of a cop...

Sudha Gargia Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Admittedly, the complainant was allotted a flat in Paschim Puri, New Delhi by the O.P.-DDA against the consideration of Rs. 2,28,300/- as per estimated cost. For her failure to make the payment of 4th instalment which was deferred by the O.P.-DDA, her allotment was cancelled in spite of her having been paid the total amount of Rs. 1,59,810/- against the cost of Rs. 2,28,000/-. However, she was offered/allotted a flat in Dwarka at a price of Rs. 6,10,000/- which she declined to pay as she was not in a position to pay the said amount. 2. On account of deficiency in service on the part of O.P.-DDA inasmuch as that the complainant was not informed about the date of deferred payment of 4th instalment resulting in cancellation of the flat, the complainant has, through this complaint, sought the following reliefs:(a) Refund of Rs. 1,59,810/-with up-to-date interest @ 24% p.a.along with difference in price of flat today.(b) Money deposited with the O.P.Rs. 1,51,810/-...

interach Building Products (P) Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC389

1. In this appeal which has been directed against the impugned order in appeal, the issue relates to the applicability of principle of unjust enrichment to the refund claim of the appellants.2. The lower authorities have rejected the refund claim of the appellants by applying this principle. The learned Counsel has contended that the principle of unjust enrichment is not attracted to the case of the appellant for having not passed on the incidence of duty to the buyers, as there had been no change in the price of their goods at the time when they were not paying excise duty and thereafter when they started paying the duty under protest and that the reflection of duty element separately in the invoice was only to meet the requirement of law and not for charging the duty from the buyers.Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.3. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and contended that the appellants having passed on the in...

Cc and Ce Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC370

1. In these three appeals, filed by the Revenue, the common issue involved is whether Modvat Credit of the duty paid on HDPE bags is available to M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. 2. Shri O.P. Arora, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. Grasim Industries manufacture various chemicals including Caustic Soda Lye; that they procured salt, which is not chargeable to Central Excise duty, from various salt manufacturers; that they send HDPE bags to the salt manufacturers for packing the salt in the bags for the purpose of transporting through railway; that the Adjudicating Authority disallowed the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on HDPE bags on the ground that these are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products and that these bags are used for transporting raw-material from the manufacturer's premises to the premises of the respondents; that, however, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order, has allowed the Modvat Credit on the ground that the bags are used in re...

Narmada Gelatines Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT111TriDel

1. This is an application by M/s. Narmada Gelatines Ltd. for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 2,35,87,876/- under Rule 57AD of Central Excise Rules, 1944 or Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate submitted that the applicants manufacture gelatin out of crushed bones of animals; that they availed Modvat credit of duty paid on hydrochloric acid; that the crushed bones are demineralised using hydrochloric acid by which the calcium and phosphorus present in the bones are removed in the form of Mono Calcium Phosphate, Mother Liquor, a 'Spent Acid' and the bones are converted into Ossein, which is further used for manufacture of gelatin; that Spent Acid is a hazardous item, contains mono calcium phosphate which is treated with milk of lime solution and Di-calcium Phosphate is obtained; that Di-calcium Phosphate is exempted from payment of duty; that the Department has, therefore, demanded an amount equal to 8% of t...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samtel Electron Devices Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Delhi)706

1. The only ground taken by the Department in this appeal is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of the interest of Rs. 27,30,600.2. The assessee-respondent is a company. We are concerned with the asst. yr. 1991-92 for which the previous year ended on 31st March, 1991. The assessment was originally framed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, but on appeal it was set aside by the CIT(A) with the direction, inter alia, to consider afresh the disallowance of the interest. Accordingly, the assessment was reframed on 29th Feb., 1996 under Section 143(3) r/w Section 251. In this reframed assessment, the AO repealed the disallowance of the interest. The disallowance was based on the following observations of the AO.3. He noted that the assessee had borrowed huge funds from HSBC Bank in respect of which huge interest payment was claimed as a deduction in the P&L a/c. According to the AO, these funds were utilised by the asse...