Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments

Ajit Singh Vs. Directorate of Education and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT1; 2005(80)DRJ321; 2006(1)SLJ211(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. One of the questions which has arisen in these writ petitions is the interpretation to be given to Rule 117 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The increments of pay of the Petitioners have been withheld for reasons which the Management of the School has endeavored to disclose for the first time in these proceedings. However, no correspondence was issued to the Petitioners putting them to notice, or requiring them to show cause why their increments should not be withheld. The principles of natural justice, thereforee, appear to have been violated. 2. Learned counsel for the Management had contended that since the Petitioners assert that minor penalties have been imposed on them they ought to have taken recourse to the alternative remedy of approaching the Delhi School Education Tribunal. Counsel for the petitioners, however, draws my attention to Rule 119 of the Rules which states that no order imposing minor penaltie...

Shakuntala Export House (P) Ltd. Vs. P.O. Labour Court X and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT479; 2005(80)DRJ389; [2005(105)FLR487]; (2005)IILLJ389Del; 2006(1)SLJ191(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This writ petition challenges the award dated 2nd May 2002 passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 1056 of 1995 (Old No. 149 of 1994). The award while finding the termination of service of the respondents No. 3 and 4 to be invalid nevertheless declined reinstatement on the ground that the management had closed down its manufacturing unit. Consequently only full back wages were awarded. The disputes was referred to in the following terms by the order of reference dated 18th August 1984:'Whether the termination of services of S.Shri Mohd. Alia-u-ddin Khan, Smt. Kanta Sharma and Mrs. Pushpa Batra is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions re necessary in this respect?'3. The petition averred that Smt. Kanta Sharma and Smt. Pushpa Batra were working with the petitioner company since 8th October 1978 and 18th January 197...

Bhim Singh Etc. Vs. Krishan Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT730

Manju Goel, J.1. This petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of criminal proceedings in the complaint case u/s 308/323/448/452/506/34 IPC titled Bhim Singh v. Krishan Kumar complaint case No. 206/01 of the Court of Ms. Raj Rani Mittal, Metropolitan Magistrate. During hearing, it became clear that the petitioner's main grievance of the petitioner was the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 6.11.2001 whereby charge u/s 323/448/452/506 of Indian Penal Code has been ordered to be framed. The present petition is thereforee considered u/s 379 and 401 of Cr.P.C. as a revision petition.2. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the complaint offence is u/s 323/448/452/506/34 IPC have been made out. The complainant's witnesses have also deposed to this effect. The only ground for challenging the order on charge is that the complainant herself had gone to the police on the date of the incident and had made a report on which a DD was registered ...

Parveen Kaushik Vs. A.S. Yadav and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT391; [2005(106)FLR584]; (2005)IILLJ1079Del

Manju Goel, J.1. This latter patent appeal is directed against the writ court judgment dated 22nd May, 2001 in Writ Petition (C) No.3256/2001 whereby the writ petition was dismissed and the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court was upheld.2. The appellant was engaged as Retainer Crew Driver by the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation on 6.5.1987. As per the appointment order the appointment was purely temporary and his services were liable to be dispensed with at any time without notice and without assigning any reason thereforee. He was to be paid Rs.29/- for the day he was actually given any duty to perform. His service was terminated on 20.12.1988. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court with the following terms:' Whether the services of Shri Praveen Kumar have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'3. The appellant challenged ...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V.R. Vaish

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Respondent obtained a mediclaim hospitalisation and domiciliary benefit policy from the appellant for a period of one year w.e.f. 9.3.1994. On account of medical treatment of Acute Prostatitis with Abscess and Prostatic Enlargement the respondent filed a claim with the appellant which was repudiated in terms of `exclusion clause in the Insurance policy. Vide impugned order dated 24.9.2001, passed by the District Forum, it has held that the exclusion clauses were not applicable in the instant case. The appellant was directed to settle the claim within 45 days. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the respondent in brief is that he had been suffering from high fever, which was not getting controlled by any medication and it was found to be on account of urinary infection caused by Enlargement of Prostate and Abscess and as per insurance policy (Clause 2.1.13) in the first year of the policy the Insurance Company is not liabl...

Truwoods Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Sanjiv Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC62

1. These are eight appeals, filed by M/s Truwoods Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Sanjiv Agarwal against four Orders-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs by which the assessable value of the goods imported by them has been enhanced and demand of differential customs duty has been confirmed besides imposing penalties on both the Appellants.2. Shri Krishna Kant, learned Advocate mentioned that M/s. Truwoods Pvt. Ltd., Appellant No. 1, have imported 'wood veneers' of different thicknesses from M/s. Pargan Singapore (Pvt.) Ltd., Singapore during 1999 and 2000; that in respect of two Bills of Entry Nos. 100622 dated 28.9.99 and 100594 dated 21.10.99, the import of wood veneers was made by them by purchasing the goods from M/s. NCC Trading Co., Arunachal Pradesh, on high sees sale basis; that they filed declarations in terms of Rule 10(1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, alongwith Bill of Lading, Invoice Packing List, Certificate of Origin, Sales Co...

Wilway Fort Indian Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT616TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Wilway Fort India Ltd. is whether the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on Evaporation Boat is available to them during the period May, 1992 to February, 1994.2. Shri Mohan Lal, learned Advocate, submitted that Evaporation Boat (crucible) is a consumable and does not fall in the category of capital goods and as such exclusion clause of Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 does not apply; that the Appellants manufacture metallised polyster film, 'Metallised lacquered polyester film'; that metallisation process is carried out in a vacuum chamber; that a very thin layer of Aluminium gives an excellent barrier to light, water vapour, oxygen and other gases; that the process of metallising plastic film involves depositing thin uniform layer of the metal on a continuously moving web of film; that the boat is rectangular in shape, made of a ceramic material made of titanium diboride and boron nitride which ensures a certain electrical resista...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bharat Starch Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT375TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether Corn Gluten Meal is classifiable under Heading 23.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order or under heading 35.04 of the Tariff as claimed by the Revenue.2. We heard Shri A.S. Bedi, Learned S.D.R, and Sh. J. Vellapally, Sr.Advocate. We observe that both the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) have classified the impugned produce under heading 23.01 of the Tariff. The rival heading reads as under : "2301 Residue and waste from the food industries, including Bagassee, other waste of sugar manufacture and oil cakes" 35.04 peptones and their derivatives, other protein substances and their derivatives, not elsewhere specified or included; hide powder, whether or not chromed".5. The Deputy Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 1/02 dated 5.12.02 has given the manufacturing process as under : "Maize purchased from different sour...

Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT552TriDel

2. Shri P.C. Jain, learned Advocate, pleaded that the prices of PIJF Cables supplied to DOT/MTNL were provisionally approved and the same were finalized in March, 1999 and the Superintendent of Central Excise determined that the amount of Rs. 1,12,025/- has been paid extra. The appellants accordingly filed refund claim in September, 1999. The refund claim was rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that the appellants have not produced any proof that incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyers. Shri Jain pleads that the amendment in Rule 9B was made from 29.6.1999 by adding the proviso to Sub-rule 5 by which the provision of unjust enrichment were made applicable to the refund claim. He also pleads that provisional assessment was made for two months i.e., April and May, 1995 and the assessment was finalized in March, 1999 much before the amendment in Rule 9B. Therefore, the principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable in this case. He has relied on the Supreme...

Double Dot Finance Limited Vs. Goyal Mg Gases Limited and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR324(Delhi); 117(2005)DLT330; 2005(80)DRJ113; (2005)141PLR5

R.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 34 and Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called ''the Act'' only) is directed against an Award dated 29.11.2002 passed by the named Arbitrator in favor of the claimant-respondent No.1. By the said Award, the learned Arbitrator held that the respondent No.1 is entitled to recover a sum of Rs,10,92,990/- from the petitioner along with interest in the sum of Rs.27,28,450/- up to 28.11.2002 @ 3% per month with monthly rest from 12.4.1999. Future interest also was awarded from the date of the Award till the date of payment @3% per month.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the objection petition, briefly stated, are that on 27.3.1998 the petitioner had taken an Inter-Corporate Deposit of Rs.1 crore from respondent No.1 on interest @ 21.5% per annum. This loan was for a period of 90 days. The agreement provided that so long the loan amount remained unpaid after the due date of payment the petitioner would ...