Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments

P.A. Sales Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT77TriDel

2. These four appeals are directed against imposition of penalties under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules. It may be noted that that rule provides for imposition of penalty on any person "who acquire possession of ... any excisable goods which he knows or reason to believe are liable to confiscation". The submission of the learned Counsel in these appeals is that the appellants dealt with the offending goods in their capacity as dealer and that there is no evidence on record which is indicative of the appellants being aware that the goods supplied to them were non-duty paid and liable to confiscation for that reason. Learned Counsel, therefore, contends that imposition of penalty is without any factual basis. He has taken me through the show cause notice and findings to show that there is no material on record showing the appellant's awareness of the offending nature of the goods. As against this, the submission of the learned DR is that since appellants were dealers they would have ...

Cce Vs. J.K. White Cement Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The Revenue filed these appeals against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The respondents availed Modvat Credit in respect of the Residual Fuel Oil. The Revenue wants to deny the credit on the ground that the credit is not available in respect of Low Sulphur Heavy Stock, The contention of the Revenue is that Residual Fuel Oil and Low Sulphur Heavy are one of the same thing. Therefore, the credit in respect of Residual Fuel Oil is not admissible.4. We find that this issue is already settled by the Tribunal in the case of Camphor & Allied Products Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2002 (147) ELT 600, In this case the Tribunal after going through the evidence produced by the Revenue held that Residual fuel Oil and Low Sulphur Heavy Stock are different products, therefore, restriction imposed on Low Sulphur Heavy Stock is not applicable to Residual Fuel Oil. In view of the above decision, we find no merit in these appeals, the appeals are dismissed....

Shri Ram Singh Batra Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005CriLJ2471; 118(2005)DLT208; 2005(80)DRJ445

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He is aggrieved by the order of cancellation of bail passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 27.5.20042. The facts of the case leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:-The petitioner was arrested on 17.3.2004 in connection with FIR No. 107/2001 registered under Section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC registered at police station Connaught Place. The petitioner had moved an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before this Court. This Court by a reasoned order dated 12.5.2004 rejected the application. However, the petitioner filed an application for his release under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. as the investigation in respect of him had not been completed within the mandatory period of sixty days. The Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 21.5.2004 admitted the petitioner to bail under t...

Shri N.A. Karnik Vs. Syndicate Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT269; 2005(81)DRJ388; [2005(105)FLR821]; (2005)IILLJ884Del; 2006(1)SLJ121(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Writ Petition challenges the termination of the Petitioner services. The ground of assault is that the Report of the Enquiry Officer had not been furnished to the Petitioner.2. The Petitioner would ordinarily have retired on 30.6.1986. Five months prior to that he was Charge sheeted on 27.1.1986. A Departmental Enquiry was initiated and the Enquiry Officer submitted his reported on 20th June, 1986. The assailed dismissal order was passed on 26.6.1986. The Petitioner has himself mentioned that he was informed of this Order by Express Telegram dated 30.6.1986, received by him on 1.7.1986. The Respondents have disclosed that the Petitioner had applied for and was granted 2 days medical leave but even thereafter he did not report back for duty and in fact his whereabouts were not known. It was for this reason that the dismissal Order dated 26.6.1986 could not be served on him personally and was dispatched by post on that very day, and also eventually conveyed by t...

Ansal Buildwell Ltd. Vs. North Eastern Indira Gandhi Institute of Heal ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR431(Delhi); 118(2005)DLT274; 2005(81)DRJ147

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Present order disposes of the preliminary objection raised by the respondent to the maintainability of the present petition in this court. Objection is that this court would have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.2. Petitioner M/s. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. (referred to as ABL) had entered into a works contract with the respondent M/s. North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health and Medical Sciences, Shilong (referred to as NEIGRIHMS) pertaining to construction of dwelling units, Guest House Road and External Service of Housing Complex at Shillong. M/s. Hospital Services Consultancy Corporation (India) Ltd. (referred to as HSCCI) was the nominated consultant of NEIGRIHMS. The agreement was executed on 17.5.2000. HSCCI has signed the agreement on behalf of NEIGRIHMS, being its consultant. Said agreement was novated by an agreement dated 31.12.2003.3. ABL received certain advance payments from NEIGRIHMS towards mobilization and ...

Kishan Chand Bhatia (Thr. Lrs.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT694; 2005(81)DRJ591

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the relief claimed is a direction to set aside the order dated 18.10.1978 passed by the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereafter called the Act) and also order dated 17-4-1978 passed by the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the Act.2. One Sh. Ram Chand Bhatia migrated to India and settled in Delhi in the aftermath of partition. Being a displaced person, he was allotted property bearing No. 26/27, West Patel Nagar on 9.8.1951 on rent of Rs. 20/- per month. One of his sons, namely, Kishan Chand Bhatia (the petitioner who has since expired during pendency of these proceedings and referred to as the petitioner) was also allotted the same premises as a co-allottee. Sh. Ram Chand Bhatia died on 10.7.1957. His widow, namely, Smt. Ram Lubhai (arrayed as respondent in these proceedings during which she too passed...

Shri Prem Prakash Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT681; 2005(81)DRJ157

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner, who is the son of the brother of late Sh. Sudershan Lal, seeks probate of a Will dated 15.6.1984 alleging that the Will is the last legal and valid testament of Sh. Sudershan Lal. Opposition to the Will is by the sisters of the deceased. Admitted position between the parties is that the deceased was a bachelor. He died on 1.2.1987.2. The Will purports to be registered with the Sub-Registrar as Document No. 1975, Volume No. 399 at page No. 26; registration being after the death of Sh. Sudershan Lal. Date of registration is 8.5.1987.3. The Will, Ex.PW-1/2 purports to be witnessed by one Sh. Kulbhushan and one Sh. Pehlad.4. To prove the Will, Kulbushan has been examined as PW-2. Pehlad, having died before evidence was recorded, could obviously be not examined as a witness. However, petitioner has filed certified copies of deposition of Pehlad recorded in a civil proceeding in the court of Smt. Sunita Rani, Civil Judge, Delhi.5. Deposition of Pehlad in t...

Shri Ajit Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT265; 2005(81)DRJ66

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the action of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in refusing to hand over possession of a plot to the petitioners, for which an allotment had been made, and payment made earlier, has been assailed.2. The DDA had formulated a policy for shifting industries from non-conforming area to a conforming area, in 1969. The petitioner was held eligible, for allotment of a plot, on 7.6.1969 for the reason that it was carrying on activity in residential premises, in premises bearing 3022, Sita Ram Bazar. By letter dated 14.4.1970, DDA informed the petitioner that plot 53, Block No A, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi was allotted to it.3. There were certain disputes about the cost of the plots, and sometime in 1977, the allotment was cancelled. Subsequently, the amounts demanded were paid, and the allotment was restored. Sometime in 1983, the DDA offered Plot No B-269, in lieu of the plot allotted earli...

Sh. Prem Nath Narula Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT260; 2005(81)DRJ225; (2005)IILLJ880Del; 2006(1)SLJ117(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks a declaration that the order dated 28th October,2003 purported to have been passed under Regulation 19(1) and 19(2) of Syndicate Bank Officers Service Regulations,1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations,1979) be quashed as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and discriminatory. Petitioner also claims costs of the writ petition and consequential benefits. 2. Petitioner had joined the service of respondent Bank as Clerk on 17.7.1973. In due course, he was promoted as an officer of the respondent Bank in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I after successfully clearing competitive written examination. The petitioner served the respondent Bank in various capacities as Asstt. Manager, Manager and Branch Manager. He was promoted from the Junior Management Grade Scale-I to Middle Management Grade Scale-II, a position which he presently holds. He was posted as Manager of the Bank at Sukhdev Vihar. 3. Petitioner claims that he has dili...

Mohammad Abullas @ Abdul and anr. Vs. Mussadi Lal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT59; 2005(81)DRJ448

B.C. Patel, C.J.Admit.1. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service of notice.2. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are taking up the matter for final disposal.3. Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari, Delhi claim Petition No. RBT-393/2003 (Old No. 72 of 2002) was preferred by the petitioners, which was decided by the Tribunal on 19.5.2004.4. One Bhoop Singh, aged 32 years, a gold smith earning about Rs. 6,000/- a month met with an accident when he was on his scooter on or about 14.12.2000 at or near Nizampur Road, Jeep No. DHD-5853 which was driven rashly and negligently by the driver hit the scooterist from back side. As a result of the impact, the scooterist fell down and became unconscious and was required to be removed to the hospital where later on he succumbed to the injuries on 27.12.2000. In view of this fatal accident, the legal representatives of the deceased filed a petition for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- against resp...