Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments

Shri R.K. Madan and anr. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT542; 2005(81)DRJ458; [2006(106)FLR705]

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. The petitioners were employed by the respondent No.3, M/s Hoechst, a pharmaceutical company as Medical Representatives. The respondent No.1 is the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, through Secretary(Labour), Delhi and respondent No.2 is the Assistant Labour Commissioner (South Distt), Kalkaji, New Delhi. The respondents 4 to 10 are management executives of the respondent No.3 Company. The petitioners' services were terminated pursuant to what according to them was an unfair ex-parte enquiry deliberately conducted at Bombay and not at Delhi by the respondent No.3. This led to the seeking of a reference from the respondent No.2, who declined the reference by the impugned order dated 2nd September, 1998. 3. This writ petition has two facets of challenge. The first challenge is to the Order of 2nd September, 1998 which reads as follows:...

Press Trust of India Employees Vs. Press Trust of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT266; (2005)IIILLJ22Del

B.A. Khan, J.CM.10780/20041. Appellants have filed this application for condensation of delay in filing this appeal. We find that the appeal is directed against two orders dated 23.6.2003 and 26.7.2004. Appeal has been filed sometime in August, 2004. However, considering that order dated 23.6.2003 which had merged with the order dated 26.7.2004, we do not propose to examine whether this appeal was time barred against the first order. The delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned.FAO(OS) 154/20042. Appellants are defendants in Suit No. 241/2002 filed by respondent for restraining them from holding any demonstration, blockade or effecting the ingress and egress of plaintiff's, their executives, journalists, other employees, visitors, guests etc in any manner whatsoever. Along with this suit, respondent (plaintiff) also filed is No. 1092/2002 and obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining appellants (defendants), their members, friends, agents from holding any demonst...

State Vs. Tika Ram

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT353; 2005(81)DRJ73

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Lohri is a famous festival of Hindus. It is celebrated every year on 13th January. Like many other Hindu festivals, it also has religious fervour and traces to Hindu mythology. On 13th January, 1996, people in Delhi celebrated Lohri in the traditional way by burning heaps of woods and putting flames. However, before these flames could even die down, it became pyre (symbolically) of innocent family of Sharmas who were living in C-1/1396, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Same night, all four members of this family along with their servant were brutally murdered. The family consisted of Sh. S.P. Sharma, his wife Mrs. Shobha, two young children in their youth, namely, daughter Ms. Charu, aged 20 years and son Punit, aged about 15 years. The servant Dinesh was an adolescent boy aged about 9-10 years. In fact the family was having two servants. The name of other servant is Tika Ram. When the gruesome killings were discovered after breaking open the flat of Sharmas, Tika Ram was nowhe...

Dharmamveer Singh Vs. Cbi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT603

Manju Goel, J.1. The petitioner along with Surender Singh was charged with offence u/s 120B read with section 7 and section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) by the Court of Sessions Judge vide order dated 19.5.2004. The petitioner has come up in revision against this order. 2. The complainant a work contractor of the Municipal Corporation Delhi (MCD) submitted bills of payment which were lying with Surender Singh, Section Officer. Surender Singh is the principal accused in this case who demanded bribe for himself as well as for the petitioner, Deputy Director of Horticulture (DDH) for clearing those bills. The complaint is that when the complainant went to the petitioner and told him that Surender Singh had demanded a bribe on his behalf also, the petitioner stated that the complainant should go by the advise of Surender Singh because he was the person to pass the bills as he was the SO. Eventually the case RCNo.2(A)/2003/CBI/ACU-II was regi...

R.P.G. Transmission Ltd. Vs. Sakura Seimitsu (i) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005CriLJ2862; 119(2005)DLT393

Manju Goel, J.1. These revision petitions are directed against the order dated 18.11.2000 passed by Shri V.K.Goyal, M.M., New Delhi in complaint case Nos. 1114/98 & 1528/98 whereby he discharged the accused No. 2 (respondent No. 2 herein) in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The orders were passed on applications of accused No. 2 for recalling the summoning order. The plea taken by respondent No. 2 was that before the impugned cheque was issued he had resigned from the directorship of the company accused in the petition and was, thereforee, not liable to be prosecuted being not a person responsible for the affairs of the company at the relevant point of time. The learned Magistrate took into consideration Form 32 which was placed before him and observed that since Form 32 was not being disputed it was clear that respondent No. 2 had resigned from the company on 5.6.1998 whereas the cheques in both cases were dated 27.6.1998 & 27.9.1998 and, thereforee, not liabl...

Kala Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1 .The appellant is Cooperative Group Housing Society. The respondent is one of its members and paid Rs. 100/- as share money for membership. Every Cooperative Society is supposed to issue share certificate to its members symbolizing that the said person is a member of the Society and is entitled for allotment of a flat as and when constructed and made available for allotment. 2. Admittedly the respondent applied for membership of the Society in the year 1982 against share money paid by him on 1.5.1982. His request for issue of share certificate was not accepted for his failure to produce the income tax clearance-certificate. 3. Vide impugned order dated 19.11.1997 appellant has been directed to issue share certificate within one month in terms of Rule 12(b) of the Bye-laws of the appellant-Society. The impugned order has been assailed through this appeal mainly on the premise that in the absence of any income tax clearance certificate, the respondent was not en...

Rajesh Strips Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT422TriDel

1. These appeals have been directed against the common order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the duty demand and penalty on the appellants, as detailed therein.2. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. The learned Counsel has contended that the confiscation of the goods has been wrongly ordered and so also the imposition of penalties on the appellants as there was no deliberate mis-description of the product by them. He has also contended that the redemption fine and the penalty imposed are exorbitant. But we are unable to subscribe to these contentions of the learned Counsel. The perusal of the record shows that the appellants during the period in dispute i.e. 10-1-2001 onwards were engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Steel ingots, Iron Castings, Hot Rolled Products of Iron & Steel. They were manufacturing non-alloy Steel ingots and were required to discharge the duty on t...

Bahubali Plastics P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT85TriDel

1. This is an application by M/s. Bahubali Plastics Pvt. Ltd. for restoration of their appeal which was dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 vide Final Order No. 413/2004/NB(C), dated 9-6-2004.2. Shri V. Raheja, learned Advocate, submitted that the applicants were directed vide Stay Order No. 183/2004/NB(C), dated 20-4-2004 to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- within six weeks and compliance was to be reported on 9-6-2004; that due to financial difficulties, they could not deposit Rs. 15,000/-; that now they have deposited the said sum on 1-11-2004 and, therefore, their appeal may be restored, Mrs. N.L.Butalia, learned SDR opposed the prayer by submitting that they had not complied with the stay order within the time limit specified by the Tribunal; that they have deposited the amount after 5 months and, therefore, this cannot be treated as due compliance.3. We agree with the submissions of the learned SDR; that the compliance of ...

Modi Xerox Financial Services Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT457TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by Modi Xeros Financial Services Ltd., is whether MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on inputs is available to them on the basis of invoices which are not complete in all respects.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured developers and availed benefit of MODVAT Credit; that they received two consignments of coated carrier from M/s.Modi Xerox Ltd. under invoices dated 16.11.1994 and 15.12.1994; that the impugned inputs had been imported by M/s. Xerox Ltd. and they had issued the importers' invoice to the appellants for the purpose of availing the MODVAT Credit; that the MODVAT Credit has been disallowed to them on the ground that in respect of invoice dated 16.11.1994, the goods had been despatched on 20.10.1994 and as such, the invoice dated 16.11.1994 is not valid for MODVAT Credit; that, further, the invoice did not contain the registration number of the consigner, mode of transport, vehicle number,...

Gupta Pigments and Chemicals Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT53TriDel

1. Shri Rupesh Kumar, learned Advocate submitted that M/s. Gupta Pigments and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. has deposited the entire amount of duty of Rs. 17,74,732/- and entire amount of penalty of Rs. 18,81,320 + Rs. One lakh; that the department is still insisting for payment of interest on the amount of duty which may be stayed. Ms. Neeta Lal Butalia, learned Senior Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that under the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act only the pre-deposit of duty and penalty is required and the Tribunal may stay the recovery of only the duty and penalty and not of the interest.2. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Section 35F of the Act only speaks of pre-deposit of duty and penalty by an Appellant.Proviso to Section 35F empowers the Tribunal to dispense with such deposit if it is of the opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to the Appellants. The law is silent about the in...