Delhi Court August 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Royal Containers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the denial of credit in respect of inputs which were stolen, was set aside.2. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondent.The notice issued to the respondent was received back undelivered with the postal remarks that assessee is not available at the given address.The notice was issued on the address, which was known, to the Revenue on which the respondent received the adjudication order. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of respondent.3. In this case the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Tin Containers and they were availing the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the duty paid Tin plates used in the manufacture of their final product. The 23.524 MT inputs were stolen from their factory. The Revenue issued a show cause notice for reversal of the credit in respect of the inputs, which were stolen. The adjudicating authority con...

Gna Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT428TriDel

1. There is a duty demand of over Rs. 3 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upon the finding that the appellant had not paid duty on certain costs attributable to Royalty, Advertisement, Business Promotion, Commission etc.2. When the stay application came up for consideration, we have perused the record and heard both sides at length. We feel it appropriate to dispose of the appeal itself on merits. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the appeal after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit.3. We may read the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order :- I have carefully gone through the appeal papers and the contention of the respondents taken before the adjudicating authority. The short point to be determined in this appeal case is that whether the respondents have included the expenses incurred towards Royalty, Advertisement, Business Promotion and commission on consignment sale have been taken into consideration and included to arrive at the Transacti...

S.R. Adige Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(92)SLJ137CAT

1. By virtue of the present Original Application, applicant, who retired as Vice Chairman from the Central Administrative Tribunal, has assailed respondents' order dated 18.02.2005 whereby his request for payment of gratuity as per Sub clause (ii) of Sub-rule 3 of Rule 17(A) of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 has been turned down despite recommendation by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that condition of service of the High Court Judges ibid is not applicable to the applicant and as the case of the applicant is not covered under clarification letter dated 1,7.2004, he is not entitled for revision of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity.2. Applicant, on completion of 33 years of service in the Indian Administrative Service, on voluntary retirement joined as an Administrative Member in the Central Administrative Tribunal. At the time of voluntary retirement, applicant was holding the post of Member, Board of Revenue and drawing the basi...

Arrow Trading Corporation and Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2006)BC88

1. These two appeals are taken up together for consideration as the issue involved in these two appeals is one and the same, and are disposed of by the following common order : 2. On the basis of the submissions made by Mr. Joginder Sukhija, learned counsel for the appellants, it would appear that in the pending O. A. No. 9 of 2003 and O. A. No. 8 of 2003 these appellants moved I.A. No. 276 of 2004 and I. A. No. 277 of 2004 respectively seeking summoning of Dr. P. S. Chawla, a resident of Delhi for proving a case against the respondent herein. The said two applications came up for consideration before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal, by two similar orders, dismissed the said applications on the ground that no case has been made out for granting such permission. The present appeals have been filed against those orders.3. At the threshold counsel for the respondent-bank raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that all the parties have not been...

Srikrishan Gupta Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT227; 2005(84)DRJ301

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This writ petition relates to the grant of a license of a Kerosene Oil Depot (KOD) in the year 1994 for which the Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 2 were applicants and aspirants. The Petitioner was not successful and the KOD was granted to Respondent No. 2. This decision has been assailed on the ground that Respondent No. 2 was illegally treated as a physically disabled person despite the fact that the medical certification on which he had relied specifically stated that his disability was less than 40%. Secondly, it has been contended that the decision which had to be taken by the Assistant Commissioner was in fact taken by the Minister/MLA and, thereforee, there has been a dereliction of the statutory duty in the Office of the Commissioner.2. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the Petitioner has not availed of the remedy of filing an Appeal against the Order rejecting his application for grant of a...

Albatross Pharma Vs. Cipla Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT339; 2005(31)PTC551(Del)

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Instant appeal embraces in its fold an issue relating to legal implication arising out of non- compliance with requirement of proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC in regard to recording of reasons for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction.2. The appellant/defendant is aggrieved by an ex parte order dated 28th June, 2005 restraining it from manufacturing and selling etc. its pharmaceutical preparation under the trademark 'MINPECIA' or any other trademark which is identical or deceptively similar to respondent/plaintiff's trademark 'FINPECIA'. The aforesaid ex parte order was passed on a suit for permanent injunction against passing off and rendition of accounts etc. filed by the respondent/plaintiff, M/s Cipla Limited, a company incorporated under Indian Companies Act which adopted the trademark 'FINPECIA' in the year 1997 in respect of one of its pharmaceutical preparations and launched its pharmaceutical products under the said trademark in the month of June 19...

Kishan Lal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(84)DRJ588

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Petitioner is a Head Constable in Delhi Police. He has preferred the present Writ Petition against the Order and Judgment dated 3rd November, 2003 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing his Original Application No. 1165/2003. Learned Tribunal by the impugned Order has upheld the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect for a period of two years, passed in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the following charge:-'I, Inspector, Dharampal Singh charge you HC Kishan Lal No. 288/ND while posted at Security picket, New Delhi Distt. On 13.3.2002 you were called by DO/SI Ajay Bali. On asking about the whereabouts of constable, Krishan Kumar No. 597/ND your Mess Munshi you told the SI that your Munshi constable Krishan Kumar had been permitted rest by Chitha Munshi HC Brij Nandan who showed his ignorance about any such permission...

Shri Satyavir Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(84)DRJ237

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, a former employee of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) opted for voluntary retirement in May 1995; his request was accepted. His claim in these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for a direction to the DTC to release pension.2. The petitioner joined as a daily wage employee, of DTC, on 6-3-1984. He was admitted to regular/monthly wage employment in September, 1984. When he was working, the DTC sought to introduce a pension scheme for the first time, in the year, 1992, by an office order dated 27-11-1992 ('the scheme'). As per the scheme, the date of effect was to be 3-8-1991, and all employees working after that date had the option to join the pension scheme. Clause 9 of the scheme reads as follows:'if any of the employees of DTC, who does not exercise any option within the prescribed period of 30 days or quit service or dies without exercising an option or whose option is incomplete or conditional or ambiguous, he...

Karan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT163; 2005(84)DRJ574

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Issue Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner by this writ petition challenges the dismissal order passed by the Commandant 195 BN BSF dated 21st September, 1999. The order was challenged in this Court and it appears that Civil Writ Petition No. 2413/2001 was withdrawn by the petitioner and thereafter on 3rd December, 2001 the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority for his reinstatement in the service. On 1st February, 2002 the petitioner not having received any reply from the respondent in respect of the appeal preferred by him again approached this Court by way of W.P. No. 2875/2002 and on 20th August, 2002 this Court directed the respondent in W.P. No. 2875/2002 to expeditiously dispose of the petitioner's appeal within eight weeks. Pursuant to the directions of this Court on 3rd October, 2002 the impugned order was passed under Section 117(2) of the Board ...

Mrs. Usha Anand and anr. Vs. Dior International Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidat ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT619; 2005(84)DRJ89

1. This appeal contains a very interesting prayer and it will thereforee be appropriate to reproduce the same :'Set aside the impugned order dated 4th March, 2003 in CA NO. 1137 of 2001 as also the Order dated 6th March, 2003 in CA NO. 1641 of 1999 and the earlier Orders referred to therein arising out of CP NO. 60 of 1994 whereby sale by private Contract of valuable immovable property has been permitted and sanctioned and ordered to be proceeded with....'2. It will be seen from the aforesaid prayer that the appellant not only wants us to set aside the orders dated 4.3.03 and 6.3.03 but also all earlier orders which have been passed in Co. Petition No. 60/1994.3. Any appeal arising out of an order passed by the learned Company Judge has to be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. No general prayer can be maintained, wherein, on the basis of one or two impugned orders an appellant can pray for setting aside of the previous orders passed by the company court. thereforee, the ...