Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

Sushma Madan and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007ACJ972

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. CM. No. 8655 of 2006 : Allowed as prayed for.F.A.O. No. 28 of 1999 : The deceased Ramesh Madan, aged 46 years, died as a result of a road accident involving a motor vehicle on 21.6.1991. He was survived by his wife, two daughters and his mother.2. Since the wife and the daughters seek enhancement of the compensation granted, I need not note the facts pertaining to the accident and the findings returned as to what occasioned the accident.3. Salary certificate of the deceased, Exh. PW 1/1, evidenced the monthly income of Rs. 2,881.4. Treating Exh. PW 1/1 as the proof of income of the deceased, learned Tribunal held that 1/3rd thereof can safely be assumed to be the personal expenses of the deceased. Deducting Rs. 900, Rs. 1,900 per month was treated as loss of dependency to the family.5. Noting that deceased was 46 years of age and applying the multiplier of 12, compensation worked out was Rs. 1,900 x 12 x 12 = Rs. 2,73,000.6. Learned Counsel for the appellants co...

Ashwani Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These three miscellaneous applications have been filed by Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain, M/s Agemo Leather Components (P Ltd., & M/s Sukumar Chemicals (P) Ltd., 2. Under the adjudication order No. 13/Commr/2000 dated 10.10.2000 Commissioner of Customs had imposed penalty of Rs. 5 crores on Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain and Penalty of Rs. 1.25 crores and penalty of Rs. 75 lakhs on M/s Sukumar Chemicals (P) Ltd., and penalties of Rs. 1.75 crores and Rs. 75 lakhs on M/s Agemo Leather Components (P) Ltd., on the ground that they have attempted to export readymade garments and watches under claim of drawback by giving false description of readymade garments and over invoicing export goods for claiming undue drawback and DEPB benefits. The watches and the readymade garments which were found in the form of rags or made out of cheap old fabrics were also confiscated under the said order. All the three persons involved in the adjudication order filed appeals before the Tribunal but their appeals we...

Const. Hans Raj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(87)DRJ108

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the leading writ petitions No. 9427/05 and 4753/02 are taken up for final hearing as all these writ petitions raise a common question of law.2. The issue involved in these group of petitions is whether in an order passed under Section 117 of the Border Security Force Act(hereinafter referred to as the `BSF Act') in dealing with appeals against the orders of Security Force Court and the Summary Security Force Court and its confirmation, reasons are required to be given. Section 117 of the BSF Act reads as follows:-117. Remedy against order, finding or sentence of Security Force Court.--(1) Any person subject to this Act who considers himself aggrieved by any order passed by any Security Force Court may present a petition to the officer or authority empowered to confirm any finding or sentence of such Security Force Court, and the confirming authority may take such steps as may be considered necessary to satisfy ...

Akash Gupta Vs. Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi325; 127(2006)DLT188; 2006(88)DRJ31

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 9th November, 2004 has referred the following questions of law to be answered by a larger bench:-1. Whether an appeal would lie under Rule 4 of the Rules against any order made by the Registrar under Rule 3 on an application/matter against which no appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, Delhi High Court Act, 1966 or the Letters Patent of this Court', and2. If the answer to above question is in negative, whether Rule 4 needs to be retained in the Rules or needs to be suitably amended so as to bring the said rule in confirmity with the Code and Act2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn our attention to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Iridium India Telecom Ltd v. Motorola Inc. : AIR2005SC514 . It was submitted that in view of the said decision, appeal under Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court Rules (Original Side), 1967 was maintainable even if no appeal has been provided und...

intertoll Ics Cecons O and M Company P. Ltd. Vs. National Highways Aut ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT146

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Some disputes have arisen between the parties concerning the contract dated 8th August, 2002 entered into between them. Pending resolution of those disputes in terms of clause 10.48 of the contract which provides resolution of disputes by means of arbitration, present petition is filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for stay. The petitioner wants restraint order against the respondent from invoking and/or encashing the bank guarantees issued by the Standard Chartered Bank at the request of the petitioner in which the respondent is the beneficiary. Particulars of these bank guarantees are as under:----------------------------------------------------------Bank Guarantee No. Amount (Rs.)---------------------------------------------------------529020107226-AS 40,590,769529020107217-AS 77,799,023529020171352-AP 50,738,482---------------------------------------------------------Total 169,128,274--------------------------------------------------...

Daulat Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT99; (2006)IIILLJ176Del

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.2005.2. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners were daily wager class-IV employees in the school and their services are stated to have been terminated on 30.10.2002. It has been held in The Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A.Rajappa and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 969 that a school is also an industry. Hence, in our opinion, the appellants are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act and there is an alternative remedy of raising an industrial disputes. Hence, without going into the merits of the controversy, we are of the opinion that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of raising the Industrial Disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act. If and when the appellants raise such a dispute and it is referred to the Labour Court/Tribunal we hope and trust the same will be decided exped...

Hargobind Fashion P. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Patiala

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi187; 127(2006)DLT641; 2006(87)DRJ319

Markandeya Katju, C.J. 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of this petition petitioner challenged the impugned order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Misc. Appeal No. 329/2002. 3. The facts of the case are that OA No. 07/1995 was filed by the Respondent Bank before the DRT, New Delhi, in respect of a certain loan. Written statement was filed before the DRT by the petitioner (respondent therein) alleging non-compliance of Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993. 4. Rule 9 states as follows:-Documents to accompany the application (1) Every application shall be accompanied by a paper book containing:-(i) statement showing details of the debt due from a defendant and the circumstances under which such a debt has become due;(ii) all documents relied upon by the applicant and those mentioned in the application;(iii) details of the crossed demand draft or crossed Indian Postal Or...

Rainbow Electic Supply Co. Vs. North Delhi Power Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR283(Delhi); 129(2006)DLT528; 2006(87)DRJ307

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner was appointed as single point distributor by the Delhi Vidyut Board which is the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent (North Delhi Power Limited) (NDPL). The single point distribution connection number was K.39020161508 and pertained to Shardhanand Colony, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi. 2. The present petition has been filed as the petitioner contends that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is governed by an agreement dated 08.10.2000 which contains an arbitration clause. Disputes arose between the parties and ultimately it resulted in the termination of the agreement on 3.11.004. The disputes that have arisen between the parties are also the subject matter of the arbitration before the sole Arbitrator Mr H.C. Aggarwal and the proceedings are continuing.3. This petition has been filed seeking the relief that the respondent be restrained from ...

Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 19.2.2004. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- as pre-deposit vide the stay order of this Tribunal dated 27.7.2001. By the final order of this Tribunal, the appeal of the appellants was allowed. Since the appeal was allowed, the appellants filed refund claim before the Asstt.Commissioner of the pre-deposit of Rs. 5,50,000/-. While sanctioning the refund claim, the Asstt. Commissioner appropriated Rs. 5,07,618/- against the confirmed demand pending against them and the balance amount of Rs. 42,382/- was given to them by cheque.2. Being aggrieved by this, the appellants filed the appeal against the said order-in-original dated 6.10.2003 to the Commissioner (Appeals).The learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appropriation of adjustment of the amount due from them under Section 11 of the Act was in order.3. Being aggrieved of this order-in-appeal, th...

Om Textiles Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC27

1. The appellants, M/s Om Textiles, had received a consignment of PVC Coated Man Made Fabrics in respect of which they took modvat credit.The Department noticed that the address indicated on the invoice showed M/s Om Textiles, Mumbai, instead of the consignees address at New Delhi. A show cause notice was issued to them asking them why the credit should not be denied. The documents being invalid, both the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and the Commissioner (Appeals) have held that the document was invalid and, therefore, they denied the credit.2. Being aggrieved by the orders of the authorities below, the appellant has filed this present appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that the receipt and use of the subject goods has not been questioned by the Department, but the issue involved relates only to the validity or otherwise of the documents which bore a wrong address and which was a human mistake. He also contends that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his ...