Delhi Court October 2005 Judgments

Jainander Kumar JaIn Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT751

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were initiated in 1988. At that time the petitioner's claim was for a direction or writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents (MCD) to promote him with ante dated seniority.2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed on 13.7.1963 as Peon by the MCD; he bettered his qualifications by passing in the metriculation examination in 1964. In 1963 the MCD had formulated rules for recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerks (LDC) and Upper Division Clerks (UDC). In terms of these rules a provision was made for promotion of Class IV employees such as Peons, with five years service and the qualification prescribed namely, metriculation, for promotion as LDCs; a quote was earmarked in that regard. The concerned candidates were required to qualify in a departmental test.3. It is averred that the quota which initially earmarked for the purpose was 20% but was later reduced to 10%. The pet...

S.L. Yadav Vs. Mahinder Kaur

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2006)BC160; (2006)142PLR13

J.P. Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order 11.3.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi dismissing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint.2. I have heard Mr. S.S. Panwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None was present for the respondent even on the last date of hearing. I have gone through the impugned order and copies of the documents placed on the file.3. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner herein (plaintiff in the trial Court hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed a suit under order xxxvII CPC for recovery of Rs. 1,09,000/- against the defendant. It is pleaded that plaintiff advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- to the defendant. In return for the said loan the defendant issued two account payee cheques, and also assured to begin payment of interest @ 24 % per annum because that was the promise given by the defendant at the time of taking...

Jai Shree Agro Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These three appeals filed M/s. Jai Shree Agro Industries Ltd. and two others (Shri Nand Kishore Aggar-wal and Shri M. S. Malik) have challenged the order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-Ill vide his Order-in-Original No. 16/2001, dated 24-8-01 read with corrigendum dt. 10-10-2001.2. M/s. Jai Shree Agro industries Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of pesticides and are availing modvat facility. Shri Nand Kishore Aggarwal is the Managing Director and Shri M. S. Malik is Manager.Based on the intelligence that the unit was evading Central Excise duty by clearing pesticides clandestinely and by selling pesticides from their sale depots at higher value than the value at which duty was paid at the time of stock transfer from their factory, investigations were undertaken by the Department.3. A show cause notice was issued to them on 24-2-99 demanding under Rule 9(2)/Sec. 11A(1) proviso: Rs. 77,294 being duty on pesticides, relating to the clearances from the factory on pa...

Pasondia Steel Profiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant has made Miscellaneous Application No. E/709/05 for getting the interim stay extended. It is stated that the stay was granted on 30-9-2004 and has already expired. This application was made on 22-9-2005 for getting an extension. The application should ordinarily be made before the expiry of the period of 180 days, because on the expiry of 180 days the interim relief stands statulorily vacated. We, however, in the interest of justice and having regard to the fact that the appeal could not be heard due to heavy pendency of the matters in the Tribunal direct that the interim relief as was operative, shall stand revived and will operate during the pendency of the appeal. This application stands disposed of accordingly.2. As regards the Miscellaneous Application No. E/743/05, the learned Authorized Representative for the department submits that having regard to the huge amount involved in the appeal, the matter may be posted for final hearing. Having regard to the facts an...

Sangam Structurals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The demand was based on an allegation that the appellants suppressed the value of the goods by not including the higher rate of interest that is at 18% prevailing in the market as against 10% given by them on the advance amount. It is a settled legal position that the mere fact of making interest free advance by a buyer to the manufacturer, by itself will not be a sufficient ground to reload the assessable value with notional interest and that it was necessary for the Revenue to show that such advance had influenced in the lowering of the price.There is no allegation that there was any lowering of the price due to such advance. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai-III v. ISPL Industries Ltd. the Board's circular dated 22.6.98, observed in paragraph 11 of the judgement that as per clause (iii) of that circular (reproduced in paragraph 9 of the judgement) it was directed that if there was no different in the selling price for both categories of the wholesale buyers an...

Cce Vs. Sanchar Bharti P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, the Revenue is challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty imposed on the respondents.Relevant facts are that the respondents were engaged in sound recording services and service tax was levied on these services w.e.f 16th July, 2001. The respondents defaulted in making the payment of service tax for the period from July 2001 to March, 2002 but subsequently paid the service tax and interest on service tax. The adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 28,933 and Rs. 10,020 on the respondents under Section 76 of the Finance Act 1994. Against this imposition of penalty the respondents preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who reduced the penalty from Rs. 28,933 to Rs. 15,000 and from Rs. 10,020 to Rs. 5000. The department was aggrieved by this reduction and challenged the order before the tribunal.2. None appeared for the respondents in spite of notice. The learned D.R. submits that as per provisions of Section 76 of th...

Ms. Anjum Nath Vs. British Airways Plc and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT717

Anil Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of the application of the defendants No. 1 and 2 under Order I rule 3(2) and rule 10(2) read with Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2, British Airways Plc. has sought deletion/striking out the names of Mr. Andy Stern and Mr. Neil Robertson, defendant Nos. 3 and 4. The applicant also seeks amendment to the cause title of the suit on the ground that British Airways Plc having addresses at DLF Plaza Tower, DLF City, Phase-I, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana and at Flat No. 2, 11th Floor, Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, 28 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 are the same entity having two different addresses.2. The applicant contended that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the executives to whom plaintiff reported in her capacity as an employee of British Airways and the plaint does not contain any reference to said defendants except their capacity as executives/employees of British Airways Plc. The applicant seeks dele...

Davinder Singh Vs. Surjit Malhotra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT102; (2006)143PLR24

Anil Kumar, J.1. These are applications by defendant for amendment of written statement under order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure and under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for permission to place on record photocopy of Special Power of Attorney dated 20th July, 1990; Photocopy of Power of Attorney dated 24.3.2001 executed by Sh. Ashok Kumar Gulati in the U.S.A, photocopy of perpetual sub lease dated 12.8.1970 and photocopy of FIR No. 119/2000 dated 18.4.2000 in P.S Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi and notification of land rates of Land and Development Office.2. The plaintiff filed this suit for the specific performance of an agreement in respect of property number GI/23, G.T. Karnal Road, industrial area, Delhi. The defendant has contested the pleas of the plaintiff contending that an exchange agreement was entered into between the parties in respect of G.T. Karnal Road property and house No. A-122 Gujranwala Town, Delhi. Since the title of the property of Gujranwala Town, Del...

Kartik Ramachandran R. Vs. P.O., Labour Court and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006(109)FLR100]; (2006)IILLJ160Del

Gita Mittal, J.1. The issue in the present case is as to whether a 'trainee steno clerk expeditor' would be covered within the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and whether the service of such trainee could not have been terminated without compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The petitioner in the instant case was admittedly appointed as a trainee steno clerk expeditor vide a letter dated April 20, 1990 by the respondent under the training scheme of Wipro Fluid Power. As per the letter of appointment, the petitioner was required to report on training on or before April 30, 1990. The training was stipulated for the period of six months from the date of joining unless extended in writing by the company. During such period of training, the trainee/petitioner was to be paid a consolidated stipend of Rs. 1,800/- per month and was not entitled to any other allowance or benefit of any nature. There was a prohibition und...

Smt. Omvati Kalshan Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT57; [2006(109)FLR376]; (2006)142PLR5; 2006(2)SLJ495(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, an official working with the first respondent as Receptionist, is aggrieved by the decision dated 09.07.2004 refusing promotion to her. She seeks an appropriate mandatory order and also direction that she be granted conveyance allowance.2. The petitioner was working with the first respondent (DDA) when she started suffering from deteriorating eye- sight, sometime in the year 1985. She was then in the cadre of Private Secretary, holding the post of Welfare Officer in the grade of Rs. 650-200 (pre-revised). When the petitioner reported for her duties on 29.07.1985, the DDA insisted on her examination and production of a fitness certificate. The Dr. Rajendra Prasad Center of Ophthalmic Sciences, by communication dated 21.11.1985, certified that though the petitioner was visually impaired, she could perform duties of Welfare Officer, but she would encounter difficulty in deskwork. The DDA, after considering the petitioner's case, decided to utilize he...