Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments

Nirmal Verma Vs. Mcd and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT665; 2006(1)SLJ243(Delhi)

ORDERReference to your application dated 01.04.2002, requesting for withdrawal of resignation from the post of H.M.In this regard, it is inform you that your request of withdrawal of resignation has been turned down by competent authority. Because your's resignation was accepted for your participation in politics. Due to this participation in politics you become ineligible for job under Rule 5 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules.This issues with prior approval of the competent authority.Sd/- 31.5.02Asst. Education officer (Admn)3. The representation made thereafter, seeking reconsideration of the petitioner's case was also of no avail and was not entertained, as communicated by Annexure P-2.4. Petitioner assails the impugned order. Respondents have declined the petitioner's request for withdrawal of the resignation on the solitary ground that she had participated in politics and as such she became ineligible for the job under Rule 5 of CCS (Conduct) Rules. Rule 5 with Explanationn is reproduced...

Pearey Lal and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dabur India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT479; 2005(81)DRJ20

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Factual backdrop leading to filing of the two captioned contempt petitions being the same, the two are being disposed of by a common order.2. Being the land-lord of a building known as Harsha Bhawan in Connaught Place, applicant had let out certain portion thereof on the second floor as also on the third floor to the respondent under two separate agreements. There being certain disputes between the parties, applicant sought eviction and mesne profits against the respondent pertaining to the two tenanted portions. Suit No.87/2000 filed by the applicant related to the tenanted premises on the third floor. Suit No.88/2000 related to the tenanted premises on the second floor. In both the suits, on 18.7.2000, counsel for the respondent undertook to pay the last paid rent w.e.f. 15.5.2000. This was recorded in order dated 18.7.2000 passed in Suit No.87/2000 as well as Suit No.88/2000.3. Applicant had filed interim applications in both the suits seeking past rent which...

Dsa Engineers (Bombay) Vs. National Building Construction Corporation ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR94(Delhi); 2005(81)DRJ327

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Present proceedings reflect a sorry state of affair in the administration of justice. With a little care and appropriate proceedings at the relevant time could have saved the parties trauma of unnecessary and useless litigation. Counsel for the petitioner has to share major part of the burden for rendering inappropriate legal advice to the client. A dispute between the parties which surfaced in the year 1993 continues to be embroiled in controversial preliminary issues. Contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause. Parties had hoped that their dispute, if any, would be settled with promptness. Unfortunately, their hopes lie belied and shattered in the files of this Court.2. It all started in the year 1992 when respondent NBCC obtained a contract from HUDCO for construction of HUDCO Bazaar at plot No.25, Bikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi. Petitioner was the sub-contractor under NBCC. Vide contract agreement dated 9.7.1992, petitioner was to execute ce...

irfan Khan Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT208; 2005(81)DRJ744

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a contractor undertaking small building repair works, particularly in the field of whitewashing and painting. A notice inviting tender was issued by the complainant (Department of Social Welfare) for, inter alia, whitewashing and painting of several buildings. The petitioner submitted his tender and was found to be the lowest one insofar as whitewashing was concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the opening of the tender, the petitioner, having been found to be the lowest one, was asked to do certain trial work and on completion of that work, the entire work was awarded to the petitioner. The order was placed on 03.05.2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner not only completed the trial work but also the entire work and thereafter he requested for payment sometime in June 2003. As the petitioner was not paid, he made a further reque...

Pushpa Kerketta and ors. Vs. Radha Krishna

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT579

O.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.1.2003, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Delhi, awarding total sum of Rs. 7,11,010/- as compensation to the appellants for the death of Sh. Dalip Prakash Kerketta who died in an accident on 30.3.98 at 10.30 p.m. The deceased was returning from ITO on his two-wheeler scooter No. DL-1SJ-7526. When he reached at Monkey Bridge, Ring Road within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kotwali at about 10.35 p.m. a Maruti Car No. DL-8CD-1726 came at a very fast speed being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter of the deceased from behind. The car was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. After framing of proper issues and considering material on record, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased received fatal injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the car by respondent No. 1. Learned Tribunal further held that from the evidence...

MartIn and Harris Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT421TriDel

1. In this appeal, challenge has been made by the appellants to the impugned order-in-original dated 25-10-2004 vide which the adjudicating authority (Commissioner of Central Excise) has confirmed the duty demand with penalty, as detailed therein, for the period 1998-99 to 2001-02, against them.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Patent or Proprietary Medicaments other than those medicaments which are exclusively Ayurvedic, Unani etc. They had been paying duty @ 16% ad valorem by classifying their products under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10 of the CETA. The duty had been confirmed against them for the years 1997-98 to 2001-02 on the ground that production of the medicines, such as, Tablets, Capsules & Syrup shown in the balance sheets of all these years was much more than as reflected in the RT-12 returns. Before confirming the demand, they were served with a show cause notice wherein this ground was alleged and suppression of production was attributed to them. The ...

J and J Enterprises Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT189TriDel

1. The appeal is directed against. the finding that the appellant is rendering "cargo handling services" to M/s lafarge India Pvt. Limited In regard to cement manufactured by M/s lafarge india at its cement plant at Gopal Nagar and that service tax is required to be paid on the amounts received for rendering the said cargo handling services.Present appeal describes the service rendered as under:- "The appellants provide labour for managing various points in the mechanized process of packing and loading of cement bags. lafarge India has Installed machines for packing of cement in HDPE bags and for automatically loading of these bags into trucks and wagons through a conveyer system. The labourers provided by the appellants simply stand at different places in the mechanized packing process. One person feeds cement bags onto the machine which captures these bags and pours cement into bags and the bags get sealed automatically. After this, the bags fall onto the conveyer system which takes...

Triveni Engg. and Indus. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Rajesh Chibber, ld. Advocate pleaded that the appellants are receiving the proof machined forged shaft for use in Mill Roller as item of capital goods and took credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The department has raised objection that before shafts are used as part of Mill Roller, some refining/finishing process was required to be undertaken on these and denied credit on these goods. He stated that for fitting the shafts in the machines some process was required, which was done by the appellants and on this ground, credit cannot be denied to the appellants. He relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Meerut v. U.P. Stage Sugar Corporation where in identical situation, credit was allowed. He also relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad-III where it was held that H.M. Plates used for manufacture of machinery/spares in the factory are entitled for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of erstwhile Central Excise R...

Associated Cement Cos. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC344

1. Shri S.K. Bansal, Ld. C.A., pleaded that the appellants have utilized the disputed items in the mines and as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in case of jaypee Rewa Cement v. CCE, 2001 (133) ELT 3 (SC), they were entitled for the credit on the disputed items and they had no intention to evade payment of duty. Therefore, penalty is not imposable on them.2. Shri P.M. Rao, Ld. JDR pleaded that now the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd., 2004 (171) ELT 289 (SC) have held that inputs must be used within the factory of the production. Explosives for blasting mines to excavate limestone used in manufacture of cement are not eligible for credit as these are not used within the factory of production. Therefore, the credit was disallowed to the appellants as per the order of the Supreme Court. However, he has left open the issue of penalty.CCE v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. (supra) have held that Cenvat Credit is allowable only when the inputs are used wi...

Samsar Begum and ors. Vs. Suresh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)ACC356; 2006ACJ1994; 118(2005)DLT762; 2005(81)DRJ713

Mukul Mudgal, J.CM. No. 3866/05(exemption)Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Filing of the certified copies stands exempted.CM stands allowed and disposed of.CM(M) No. 430/051. Rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up today for final hearing.2. The petitioner/applicant, who is a widow and the legal heirs of the deceased in a motor accident had sought the release of the amount of Rs. 2,02,500/- kept in a fixed deposit with Punjab National Bank, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi by the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the `MACT') in a Claim Petition No. 252/04. The applicant has sought for release of the said deposited amount on the ground that the applicant being a widow, intended to buy a house and had already given Rs. 5,000/- as advance amount pursuant to an agreement to sell dated 15th February, 2005 and urgent release was necessary so that the purchase could fructify. The MACT has dismissed this applica...