Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments

D.K. Sahni Vs. Centre for Railway Information

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT40; 2006(2)SLJ322(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. By these proceedings under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, a direction is sought to the respondent to promote the petitioner in the grade of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- with effect from 1.4.20042. The petitioner, formerly an employee of the Indian Railways, was deputed to the Centre for Railway Information Systems (the first respondent hereafter called 'CRIS'), on 16.2.1989, as a Senior Console Operator in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200/-. The petitioner had received training in Computer Operations and acquired academic qualifications/ certificate. His services were found useful and he was absorbed in CRIS. On 1.4.1997 the petitioner was promoted as Console Superintendent in the (revised) grade of Rs. 2200-4000/-. It is alleged that upon completion of three years in the grade of Console Superintendent, an employee is entitled to consideration for promotion to the next higher grade.3. The petitioner represented for consideration of his case on 25.2.2000; he sup...

O.P. Sharma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT742

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner in these proceedings seeks quashing of the order, dated 28.9.1990 issued by the respondents (hereafter called 'the DTC '), by which the petitioner, serving as a conductor, was retired prematurely from its services on ground of medical un-fitness.2. The petitioner joined the services of DTC as a Conductor on 23.12.1978. He is a qualified candidate having completed graduation in 1975. At the time of his joining the services he was physically handicapped, on account of deformity in his left leg.3. While in service, the petitioner suffered a paralytic attack, which led to severe impairment of movement, of his leg. He was ill for about five months. On 18.3.1987, the petitioner was subjected to medical test. He was subsequently referred to medical board, which examined him on 25th March, 1987 and 30th March, 1987 respectively. The Medical Board found him to be un-fit. The report of the Medical Board reads as follows:'Shri Om Prakash Sharma conductor 1283...

Babita Rani and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT97; 2005(84)DRJ393

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioners in these Petitions have prayed for regularisation of their services as TB Health Visitors/Laboratory Technicians. All of them have been working on so-called contractual terms for several years. In a few cases some of them have been engaged by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) other than the Delhi Tapedik Unmulan Samiti (DTUS), but in the aforementioned job prescription. Their consolidated salary has also been paid by the Respondents. The Prayers made in the Petitions are reproduced in juxtaposition:CW No.3568/03 and 5744-71/05CW No.6783-830/05i. Direct the respondents to treat the Petitioners at par with regular employees with all monetary consequential benefits i.e. equal pay for equal work provident fund, gratuity, seniority the benefits; andii. Direct the respondents to not terminate the Petitioners till regular appointments are made by the respondents and the Petitioners shall be given the benefit of their service in preferential treatment i...

Eureka Forbes Vs. Damyanti Vohra

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant is a manufacturer of aqua guard water purifier. A scheme was launched for sale of the filters for life long free service at its service centres all over India. The respondent availed the said scheme and purchased a water filter for Rs. 7,250 on 31.3.1999, but after the ordinary warranty period of one year, the filter developed defect. The respondent wanted the mechanic of the appellant to provide service at his residence whereas the appellant insisted him for bringing the water filter at the service centre. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached the District Forum and obtained an impugned order dated 24.10.2002 directing the appellant to provide the service at the place of installation of the water filter as and when the complaint is made and also pay Rs. 500 as cost of litigation and Rs. 500 as compensation for harassment of the complainant. 3. Through this appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on two grounds. Firstl...

Pushpender and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(91)SLJ238CAT

1. As the facts are interwoven with identical question of law, for the sake of brevity and to avoid multiplicity, these O.As. are being disposed of by this common order.2. At the outset, after allowing all the M.As. for impleadment of parties likely to be affected by the outcome of the case and on their statement to forego their right to file reply, they have been accorded an opportunity to address us orally on facts and law.3. A common challenge has been made in these O.As. to the validity of Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Income Tax Officer Group 'B' Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2005 notified on 24.3.2005 deemed to have taken effect from 21.12.2004 on the ground of having caused prejudice and vested right of consideration for promotion of Inspectors to the posts of Income Tax Officers (ITO) without qualifying the departmental test has been denied.4. In O.A.-811/2005 applicant who was appointed as an Inspector on 27.12.1994 has become eligible for consideration under t...

Ashok Behari Lal (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)513

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 11th March, 1999 of CIT(A), XII, New Delhi, relating to the asst, yr. 1994-95. The first ground of the appeal of the assessee was not pressed for adjudication at the time of hearing. Therefore, the said ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed.2. The second and third grounds of appeal of the assessee read as follows : (2) That the gross sale price of the shares of Groz Beckert Saboo Ltd. ought to have been adopted @ Rs. 358.89 per share as against the gross sale price of Rs. 400. At any rate, without prejudice, the sale price of the shares as adopted @ Rs. 400 per share is very excessive. (3) That further sale price of shares also included the price of the negative covenants given in the agreement of sale of shares and the same is claimed @ Rs. 100 per share by the appellant ought to have been treated as capital receipt not liable to capital gains tax. In other words, the sale price of the shares for purposes of capital ga...

Haryana Acrylic Manufactur Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icdn

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT238

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Rule.2. The facts are not in contest and thereforee proceed to decide the Writ Petition on merits.3. The facts of the case are that a consignment of Aluminium Scrap, Trump/TAPID/Testy/Scroli was got inspected by the Petitioner from Gulf Inspection International Company, (KSC) Kuwait, which had been notified as an authorised inspection agency by Public Notice dated 19.1.2005 issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, Government of India. It is the admitted case of the parties that it is the DGFT who is empowered to issue Public Notices of this genre and on this subject.4. The inspection was carried out on 18.6.2005. The case of the Respondent is that two days later i.e. on June 20, 2005, a Circular was issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi to all Chief Commissioners of Customs/Excise etc. to the effect that a Pre-inspection Certificate dated 15.11.2004 issued by the said inspectors, namely, Gulf Inspection Internat...

Laxmi Publications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daljit Freight Carriers

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant booked 20 bundles of printed books worth Rs. 72,207 with the respondent for transportation from Delhi to Dhanbad on 10.3.1999. Since the delivery was made to unauthorised person, a complaint was filed by the appellant before the District Forum on 11.6.2001. In view of the provision of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act whereby a consumer is required to file a complaint within two years from the date of which the cause of action had arisen, the complaint was dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.11.2002, passed by the District Forum. Feeling aggrieved appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. We have perused the impugned order and the documents placed on the record by the parties. We find that the documents from the Bank were received by the appellant in August, 1999 containing the GR and bill of the books informing that these documents are not being retired by the party of Dhanbad to whom the delivery was to be made. 3. Since last cause of ac...

Post Master General, Eastern Court, New Delhi Vs. K. Thampi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of delayed delivery of money order for Rs. 1,500 sent by the respondent at Alleppy, Kerala, the appellant Post Office has been vide impugned order dated 16.10.2000 directed to pay Rs. 2,000 as compensation and Rs. 250 as cost of litigation. 2. Through this appeal, the impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 does not saddle any employee of the Post Office with any liability due to delayed delivery or non-delivery of the money order. 3. In our view, this provision cannot come to the rescue of the appellant in so far as the interest of the consumer is concerned. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 specifically provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time-being in force. 4. Normally, the money order is sent by a person to his family member who is in need of money and it should be delivere...

Mau-aima Sahakari Katai Mills Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs. 7,00,772.45 and penalty of the equal amount. In this case, the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 was denied to the applicants on the ground that they failed to produce the necessary certificate from the authorized officers of Handloom Co-operative Society or National Handloom Development Corporation or State Government Handloom Development Corporation in respect of the yarn to the effect that the same is going to be used on handloom. The contention of the applicants is that the yarns are cleared to National Development Corporation Ltd., M/s. Hand Text Industrial Co-operative Federation Ltd. which is registered Apex Handloom Co-operative Society.Applicants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Poorvanchal Katai Mills v. C.C.E., Allahabad [Final Order No.306/2002-D, dated 10-12-2002] whereby the Tribunal took into consideration the certificate given by the actual users fo...