Delhi Court August 2005 Judgments

Padam Chand and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(84)DRJ123

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue Rule. With consent of counsel for parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing.2. Both sets of petitions have been taken up for hearing with consent of counsel for the parties since issues arising in these proceedings are inter-related. The petitioners in the first batch of petitions namely, WP(C) No. 14780-814/04 seek an appropriate order/ direction to the respondent (MCD) to follow the recruitment rules for filling-up Class III posts from eligible Class IV posts. Other reliefs have also been claimed; however, during the course of hearing counsel did not press for consideration of such reliefs. In WP(C) No. 8890-99/05 the relief claimed is for a direction to quash a circular issued by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) by which the maximum age had been fixed, for consideration to the post of Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) sought to be filled Departmentally, from amongst Class IV employees in the MCD.3. The petitioners are Class IV employees working w...

Ashok Kumar Vs. Slum and Jj Deptt., Mcd and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT308; 2005(84)DRJ220

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution questions his non-appointment to the post of Head clerk and the selection and appointment of respondents 3 to 14.2. The petitioner joined services of the Slum and JJ Wing which was a part of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in December, 1983 as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC); he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC), on 6.6.1988. The Slum and JJ Wing was originally a part of the DDA; it was transferred to, and came under administrative control of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).3. On 18.4.2001, the MCD issued a circular calling for applications from amongst eligible UDC for filing up post of Head Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-. The circular stated that a departmental examination would be held that for the purpose. The petitioner applied in response to the circular. His candidature was provisionally accepted on 11.8.2001. He appeared in the examination. A select l...

Shri Thakur Singh Rawat and ors. Vs. K.S. Jaiswal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT232; 2005(84)DRJ142; [2005(107)FLR571]

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioners pray that action be initiated against the respondents for having committed contempt of the labour court by not implementing the award dated 28.11.2001. Needless to state, petitioners were the employees of M/s. Jagatjeet Industries Ltd. Respondents are the Vice Chairman and the Chief Officer in charge respectively of M/s. Jagatjeet Industries Ltd.2. Services of the petitioners being terminated by M/s. Jagatjeet Industries Ltd. they raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the labour court. Vide ID NO. 357/1995 award was pronounced on 28.11.2001. Termination of services was held to be illegal. Directions were issued to the management to reinstate the petitioners. Backwages were denied. Award was published on 16.5.2002. Accordingly, it became enforceable on 16.6.2002. Petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the award in so far it denied backwages. During the pendency of the writ petition an application was filed praying ...

S.P. Thukral Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT123; 2005(84)DRJ49; [2005(107)FLR386]

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 13.06.2002 by which respondent (hereafter called DDA) decided that the period of his suspension shall be counted only for pensionary benefits and that the full pay would not be admissible.2. The petitioner was an employee of the DDA. He was charged with demanding and accepting an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 28.10.97 as illegal gratification. Criminal proceedings were initiated and the petitioner stood trial for having offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The petitioner, at the relevant time was working as Deputy Director in the Housing Department of DDA.3. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.10.97. The criminal trial eventually culminated in acquittal of the petitioner; the Special Judge, by his judgment and order dated 31st day of 2001 noticed that two witnesses, namely, the complainant and the shadow witness, for the prosecution...

Delhi Book Store Vs. Shri K.S. Subramaniam, Sole Proprietor, the Coimb ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi206

Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. is No. 7418/2002 is an application filed by the defendant under Order 37 Rule 3, sub-rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') praying for grant of unconditional leave to defend the suit. The plaintiff is a registered partnership concern with its office at 5, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The firm is engaged in the business of marketing and printing books. It also is an importer of printed books. Mr. Vijay Ahuja is one of the registered partners of the partnership concern and has signed and verified the plaint and instituted the present suit on behalf of the partnership firm.2. The defendant had approached the plaintiff on 6th May, 1998 for purchase of printed books on credit-basis. After negotiations, the plaintiff agreed to supply the printed books to the defendant on credit-basis. An agreement dated 8th May, 1998 was executed between the parties. As per the agreement the defendant was to issue post-dated cheques in respect...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Didar Steel Complex (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT39TriDel

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has disputed the correctness of the impugned order. None has come present for the respondents. No request for adjournment has also been received from them. I, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the learned D.R.3. The learned D.R. has contended that the adjustment of the rebate claim could not be made by the respondents on their own while discharging the duty liability and that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly allowed them to do so. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. But, in my view, this contention of the learned DR cannot be accepted. The record shows that during the period from January to March, 2000, the respondents opted to discharge the full and final duty liability under Section 3A of the Act in terms of sub-rule (3) of c. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of rupees 7,16,667/- along with interest @ 18% against them under Rule 96ZO(3). It is also evident from the record that ...

Gillette India Ltd. and G.S. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT714TriDel

1. The appellant in these appeals is a manufacturer of razors and razor blades in India. A part of the produce is also exported to Nepal. The present case relates to export goods.2. The appellant paid excise duty on the export consignments after assessing them to duty at export sale prices. Thus, valuation of export goods was in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Razor blades are specified under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The consignments cleared for home consumption in India were being subjected to duty passed on the MRP printed on the packets, in terms of Section 4A. Under the impugned order, excise authorities have held that the consignments exported to Nepal should also be valued in terms of Section 4A, that is based on their MRP. The present appeals challenge this finding.3.The contention of the Senior Counsel for the appellant is that Section 4A is attracted only to cases where goods are statutorily required (under the provisions of Standards of Weights and...

Gail (India) Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) where by the benefit of MODVAT credit was disallowed only on the ground that invoice on the strength of which credit was taken was unauthenticated.3. The Contention of the appellants is that they received the inputs from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The goods imported and supplied to the appellants under the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The appellants availed the credit and Revenue issued a show cause notice for denial of the credit, as the invoices were unauthenticated. The contention is that as per the provisions of Rule 57G(2)(h) of the Central Excise Rules provides that in case of an invoice issued by the importer registered under the Rule 174, credit can be taken on the strength of invoices which is duly authenticated by the proper officer. The rule is amended by the Notification No. 7/99-CE (NT) dated 09.02.99 to the effect that credit shall not be denied if all the ...

Nagarjuna Impex (P.) Ltd. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order of the Appellate Tribunal has been delivered by O.P. Nahar, Chairperson. The Appeal No. 393/2005 is filed against Adjudication Order No. 7-4/8-BAN./2001, dated 4-2-2005 and Appeal No. 394/2005 filed against Adjudication Order No. T-4/3-BAN./2000 dated 4-1-2005 both passed by Additional Commissioner of Income-tax as Adjudicating Authority, for contravention of the provisions of section 18(2) read with section 18(3) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, on the reasons that reasonable steps are not taken for repatriation of the export proceeds of 10 GRIs in Appeal No. 393/2005 and 11 GRIs in Appeal No. 394/2005. Both these appeals are disposed of by this common order. 2. Learned Counsel Shri T.S. Murthy has filed two letters from RBI (1) dated 1st August, 2005; and (2) dated 2nd August, 2005, whereby extension is granted for repatriation of the export proceeds with regard to 21 GRIs till 28th January, 2006. As the question involved here is short so these appeals ar...

Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT34TriDel

1. When the matter came up for hearing the stay application, we heard both sides at length and considered the legal provisions relating to the dispute. We, therefore, propose to dispose of the appeal itself after waiver of requirement of pre-deposit.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of photo film. On 1.3.2000 they had some stock in their depot which had been removed from the factory prior to that date. On 1.3.2000 Central Excise authorities issued Notification No. 9/2000, bringing the valuation of film under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The effect of that notification was that, from that date, photo film would be valued for the purpose of Central Excise duty based on their M R P. In the present case, Since the consignments were cleared prior to 1.3.2000, the packing bore no M R P. The Central Excise authorities took the view that these stocks at the depot were required to discharge duty on the basis of the M R P.Therefore, applying the M R P marked on the goods cleared...