Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 4 of about 296 results (0.042 seconds)D.D.A. Vs. Asharfi Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT689
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.2. This writ petition challenges the Award dated 30th July, 2002, passed in ID No. 74/2000 by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. 2 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') which found Smt. Asharfi Devi, the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the workman') eligible for pensionary benefits in accordance with the rule and regulations of the Horticulture Department, DDA.3. In this case since the petitioner management/DDA had not filed the written statement, it was proceeded ex parte in the matter by the Tribunal's order dated 9th July, 2001. Accordingly on 5th October, 2001, an application was moved by the petitioner DDA for setting aside the ex parte proceedings against the petitioner management before the Tribunal which was dismissed for default by the Order dated 15th January, 2002 as none appeared for ...
Tag this Judgment!Unroyal Textiles Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C. (Air Cargo)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC365
1. In this appeal filed by M/s Unroyal Textiles Industries Ltd., the issue involved is whether the appeal filed by them before the Commissioner (Appeals) was time-barred or not.2. Shri Vipul Raheja, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellant had imported software which was cleared under exemption in terms of Serial No. 206 of Notification No. 23/98 without payment of duty; that thereafter, the Show-cause Notice was issued to them for demanding customs duty on the ground that the benefit of exemption notification was not available to them; that the Deputy Commissioner under his letter dated 30.6.2000 directed them to deposit the duty demanded in the Show-cause Notice; that as this communication did not specify that it is an Order under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act and as it did not contain any preamble, the appellant bona fidely believed that same is not an adjudication Order; that they went on making a representation to grant a personal hearing to explain their position; that ...
Tag this Judgment!Nokia India P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC169
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Nokia India (P) Ltd., the issue relates to the classification of colour covers and memory cards for mobile phones imported by them. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate submitted that the covers of cellular phones have been classified by them under Heading 8529.90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act which covers "parts of cellular phones and radio trunking terminals"; that the Revenue has not challenged the classification of the products but has disallowed the benefit of Notification No.17/2001-Cus dated 1.3.2001 (Sl. No. 291) which provides concessional rate of duty in respect of parts of cellular phones and radio trunking terminals; that once the Department has not challenged the classification of the product as parts of cellular phones the benefit of the Notification should automatically be extended to them; that in any case, covers are nothing but parts of the cellular phones and these are parts suitable for use solely or principally w...
Tag this Judgment!Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority for Industria ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: III(2005)BC553; 119(2005)DLT325; 2005(80)DRJ716; [2005]64SCL535(Delhi)
Anil Kumar, J.1. Whether under Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 separate permissions were required for proceeding with the recovery suit and for execution of the decree or a composite permission could do in the facts and circumstances of the case, is the question in the present writ petition.2. The facts in brief are that disputes arose between petitioner and respondent No.3 which were referred to a sole arbitrator who made an award in favor of respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,74,341/- along with interest @ 12% from 03.01.1989 till the date of payment. Respondent no.3 thereforee filed a suit bearing no.1519-A/1995 for making arbitration award dated 26.4.1995 rule of the court and for passing money decree in terms thereof. Petitioner filed objections against the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 3. While the objections filed by the petitioner against the award were pending,...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Baroda Vs. Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: III(2005)BC345; 118(2005)DLT308; 2005(81)DRJ213; 2005(100)ECC195
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner/Bank of Baroda, assails the order dated 11th January, 2005, passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange in Appeal No.1096/04, requiring it to make a pre deposit of 50% of the penalty amount of Rs.10 lacs and submit a bank guarantee for the remaining 50% amount within 30 days, as a pre condition for hearing of the appeal in terms of Proviso to Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (in short 'FEMA').2. The present writ petition raises an interesting question, regarding interpretation to be given to the expression ''Undue hardship'', as it appears in Provisio to Section 19 of the FEMA. The said Section is reproduced for facility of reference:-''19. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal-(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), the Central Government or any person aggrieved by an order made by an Adjudicating Authority, other than those referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 17, or the Special Director (Appeals), may prefer an appeal to...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. All India Cpwd Office Staff Asso ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT457; 2005(81)DRJ204; 2006(1)SLJ235(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Tribunal insofar as it allowed the OA of the respondent to grant the benefit of the Fifth Pay Commission for the higher scale on the basis of the arbitration award, from 1st of January, 1996. Mr. Bhardwaj learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that this could not have been done in view of the order dated 14th August, 2003, which is to the following effect:-3. Now the issue of payment of benefits of higher scale of Rs. 5600-200-10500 to these 32 in all Circle Office Superintendents Gr.1 effective from 1.1.96 was under examination in consultation with the M/o UD and PA and M/o Finance and Co. Affairs. It has been advised by the M/o Finance and Co. Affairs that higher pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 could actually be extended to the concerned officials only with prospective effect and not retrospectively from 1.1.96 either on notional or on actual basis.4. The competent authority in th...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Dev Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT233; 2005(81)DRJ28
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order of reference court made on 29.10.1997 by the Additional District Judge in LAC No. 38/1981 (new LAC No. 333/93 dated 13.07.1993). The notifications under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') were issued on 15.02.1979 and the possession was taken by the authorities on 23.03.1979. After following the procedure laid down in the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector (in short `LAC') made an award being 140/79-80 on 22.03.1980 determining Rs. 7,000/- per bigha as the fair market value. 2. The claimant being aggrieved by the fixation of price by the LAC, moved an application under Section 18 of the Act. On appreciation of the evidence placed before the reference court in the aforesaid case, the reference court held that the claimant is entitled to get fair market price @ Rs. 15,225/- per bigha with consequential benefits as per the Act. It may be noted that initially before the...
Tag this Judgment!Tribhuvan Vs. Madhya Pradesh Administration
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT675; 2005(81)DRJ555; [2005(106)FLR586]
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 Award dated 26th July, 2002, passed in I.D.No.68/1995 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.VII, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the `Labour Court').3. The grievance of the petitioner/workman is that in spite of the Labour Court's recording the finding in favor of the petitioner that the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated by the management, that is the Madhya Pradesh Administration through its Deputy Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh Bhawan, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to the as the `Management') which is the respondent No.2 in the writ petition where the petitioner/workman was employed as a `Peon', the consequence of such a finding, i.e., reinstatement or compensation in lieu of reinstatement has not been granted to the petitioner/workman.4. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as follows:-'The em...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Onkar Nath Pathak and ors. Vs. I.G.N.O.U. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT565; 2005(81)DRJ462
Gita Mittal, J.1. In these writ petitions three persons have claimed that though they fall under the category of 'Wards of ex-servicemen', they have been denied admission to the B.Ed Course in the reserved category where reservation has been provided to wards of ex-servicemen by the Indira Gandhi National Open University (hereinafter abbreviated as IGNOU) arrayed as party respondent in these petitions in such category on the ground that even though they may be sons of ex-service men, however, they do not fall within the definition 'Ward' being employed sons who are not dependent on the ex-service men. This decision has been impugned on the ground of arbitrariness and illegality.2. According to the petitioners, they had purchased the prospectus and application form in May, 2004 from IGNOU on payment of Rs.5,000/- seeking admission to the B.Ed course. The duly filled up applications form were submitted well within the last date of submission on 29th July, 2004. The petitioners were issue...
Tag this Judgment!Govt. of Nct of Delhi Vs. Workmen by Delhi Prashasan Vikas Vibhag Empl ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT63
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The petitioner is the Horticulture Department of Government of NCT of Delhi. The claim was raised by the muster roll employees of the petitioner i.e. respondent/union for the minimum pay scale paid to regular employees. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sh. Niader and Ors. v. Delhi Administration and Anr. in Writ Petition No. 9609-10/1988 9609-10/1988 , the Tribunal held in favor of the respondents by granting them the minimum of the respective scale till their regular absorption. 2. This writ petition challenges the award dated 1st February, 2003 wherein by referring to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sh. Niader and Ors. v. Delhi Administration and Anr. in Writ Petition No. 9609-10/1988 9609-10/1988 , the following order was passed:-'In Niader and Another case the concerned petitioners were directed to be regularised and the employer was also directed to absorb them and also pay the wages to them till they are absorbed on t...
Tag this Judgment!