Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments

Smt. Kanta (Deceased) Through Lrs. Vs. Mtnl

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(83)DRJ598; (2006)ILLJ573Del

B.C. Patel, C.J. CM No. 10177/20051. Notice. Mr. Ravi Sikri, counsel for the respondent accepts notice.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the application is allowed.LPA No. 1624-1626/20053. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1995/2000 allowing the writ petition filed by the Management against the order dated 17th August, 1999 of the Labour Court. In terms of the award the appellant was directed to be reinstated with back wages and continuity of service.4. The appellant had been appointed against leave vacancy and the working days calculated in respect of her are 193 days up to the date of her termination on 11th February, 1988. The Management supported its case by contending that the appellant had worked only for 193 days and that she could not avail the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The plea of the appella...

The Managing Committee of Geeta Bal Bharti Senior Secondary School and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT89; 2005(83)DRJ541

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. 'Education' is the substratum for development of any civilization. Progress of education requires discipline both amongst the teachers and taught. The absence in a large measure of both has been impediment in our country at least for the last couple of decades. This has resulted in both statutory enactments and judicial pronouncements setting the norms for the manner in which education both at school and higher levels is to be imparted.2. The Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') and the Rules enacted there under being The Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Rules') came into being as a step in this direction. The preamble to the said Act states as under:'An Act to provide for better organization and development of school education in the Union Territory of Delhi and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.'3. The Apex Court has had many occasions to deal wit...

Globe Confectionery Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT239TriDel

1. The dispute is about classification of two products, namely, Rasgulla and Peda manufactured by the appellant. The assessee claimed classification under Heading 21.08, which is for "Edible preparations, not elsewhere specified or included". Under the impugned order, it has been held that correct classification would be under Heading 1704.90 which is for "Sugar confectionery (including white chocolate), not containing cocoa".2. The claim of the appellant was based on Note No. 10 to Chapter 21.That note reads as under :- "10. Sub-heading Nos. 2108.90 and 2108.99 include sweet meats commonly known as 'Misthans ' or 'mithai' or by any other name. They also include products commonly known as 'namkeens' 'mixtures', 'bhujia', 'chabena' or by any other name. Such products "remain classified in these sub-headings irrespective of the nature of their ingredients".During the hearing of the case, learned Counsel submitted that the purpose of this note is to place all 'mithai' and 'namkeens' unde...

Subhash Project and Marketing Vs. Rural Electrification

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: IV(2005)BC86

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal in I.A. 660 of 2004 on 18.8.2001.2. Heard Mr. Vivek Sharma, Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mukul Chandra, Counsel for the 1st respondent Bank.3. From the narration of the facts by the learned Counsel for the appellant it would appear that the appellant filed I.A. 660/2004 under Section 22(c) of the DRT Act seeking dismissal of the O.A. on the premise that the evidence filed by way of affidavit is not in tune with Order 19 Rule 3 for the CPC and that it has not been duly attested. The matter was contested, and the Tribunal on coming to the conclusion that the application is devoid of any merits dismissed the application, against which the present appeal has been filed.4. The only grievance made out by Mr. Vivek Sharma, the finding recorded by the Tribunal in para 8 of the order that, so far as the prayer of the defendants regarding declaring that the affidavit is bad in law and cannot be looked into, is beyond the p...

Bhagwati Kaur Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT182; II(2005)DMC415; 2005(83)DRJ32

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Crl.M.A. 8002/2004 (for delay)For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.Application is allowed and disposed of.2. Crl.Rev.P. 567/2004 :This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 25th May, 2004, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 64/2003, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused of all charges, namely, under Section 498-A/304-B IPC.3. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are as under :'The case was registered on the complaint of Smt.Bhagwati Kaur, wife of Shri Such Singh. She stated before the SDM that her daughter Anita Kaur performed marriage with accused Pradeep Kumar out of her own will on 9.2.01. No dowry was given in the marriage. After the marriage, the couple started living at Alwar in Rajasthan. The mother told the SDM that after one month of the marriage, she received the telephoned call of her daughter at her neighbour's house. T...

Smt. Ganeshi Bai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT140; 2005(83)DRJ1

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. 'Be you never so high, the law is above you' is an acclaimed oft quoted aphorism of over three centuries vintage. In Regina vs. Woodley the Chief Justice had remarked that - 'the law is for protection of the weak more than the strong 'Regretfully the manner in which the procedural protection and requirements have been scattered in the storm is reminiscent of Oliver Goldsmith words in the Traveller - 'Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law.' The Petitioner is a Safai Karamchari who had to simultaneously suffer the death of her husband, and face eviction from her home without even an opportunity to present her defense. In little more than a fortnight she lost her husband and her home. The proceedings conducted by the Respondents betray a callousness which is seldom encountered.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. On 5.6.2003 officials of the Military Engineering Department visited the premises allotted and occupied by the Petitioner, who is employed ...

M.S. Gupta Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006(107)FLR568]

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings a show-cause notice dated 18.6.2003 and orders dated 30.6.2003 and 3.7.2003 have been impugned. These imposed certain penalties upon the petitioner, a superannuated official of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'DTC'). The petitioner has assailed these orders as being without jurisdiction and also on the grounds of mala fides.2. The petitioner was, at the relevant time-working as Assistant Traffic Superintendent. He was later posted as Traffic Superintendent. During the course of his duties, on 7.10.1991 he passed an order withdrawing an order of suspension, of one Jagjit Singh. The petitioner was thereafter placed under suspension on the ground that the order withdrawing suspension of Jagjit Singh was wrongful. He was also issued a charge-sheet.3. Apprehending unilateral reversion and high-handed action, the petitioner approached the civil Court, seeking an injunction restraining the DTC from reverting him to his substantive post. A...

Bee Electronic Machines Ltd. Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. By this appeal the appellant has challenged the Adjudication Order No. ADJ/55-56/B/SDE/SKP/2004/1187, dated 19-2-2004 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,06,70,000 on the appellant company for alleged violation of provisions of section 8(3) read with 8(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for the reason of not submitting proof of import of goods against remittance of foreign exchange. 2. The appellant has filed certificate dated 8-4-2004 from Canara Bank who is the authorized banker and also letter dated 22-9-2004 issued by Reserve Bank of India granting waiver. As the question raised in this appeal is short so the appeal is taken up for hearing on merits and final disposal. The appellant has taken four remittance of foreign exchange for import of goods against which it is legally obliged under section 8(3) read with 8(4) of FERA, 1973 to import goods within 6 months. These remittances are described in the adjudication order. The ap...

Chhattisgarh Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal which has been filed against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit to the appellants on the empty bottles and crown corks.2. The credit has been sought to be denied to the appellants on the above said items on the ground that these are durable and returnable to the appellants by their dealers to whom supply aerated water after filling in those bottles and that appellants are also charging container hire charges from the dealers. But in my view, none of these grounds is legally sustainable for denying the credit to the appellants. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated after under the brand name of Pepsi being the franchise holder. The empty bottles are used by them for filling that water and crown corks are used on those bottles. The value of both these items is included by them in the assessable value of the final product and duty is accordingly discharged by them. There is nothing on record to suggest that ...

Vibhuthi Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(194)ELT195TriDel

1. These eight appeals are filed by the appellants against the orders of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai and Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur. The issue involved in all these appeals is common, therefore, these have been taken up together for decision.2. The facts, in brief, are that M/s. Vibhuti Exports, Jaipur obtained seven advance licences under quantity based DEEC Scheme for duty free imports of waste lubricating oil with obligation to export reclaimed refined lubricating oil after refining the imported waste oil equal to 30% of the imported quantity. All the advance licences were registered with Mumbai Custom Port as port of registration and M/s. Rajasthan Lube Jaipur was indicated as manufacturer of the reclaimed lubricating oil.M/s. Vibhuti Exports is merchant-exporter and it is a proprietory concern of M/s. Anjana Jagetia. Her father Shri Gulab Chand Jagetia was Chief Executive of M/s. Vibhuti Exports looking after the work of the import and export of the firm.On the basis...