Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. P.L. Girdhar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1.The facts of this case demonstrate a highly unfair, unscrupulous and uncouth practice being adopted by the educational institutions, including the University whereby they forfeit huge sums under the garb of the admission fees without providing any service of tuition or any other service. In the past we have come very heavily on such institutions and today again we are dealing with a University set up by the Delhi Government known as Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. 2. At the outset we express our anguish that the appellant-University has filed which is highly misconceived and misdirected appeal. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal need to be stated, in brief. 3. Vide impugned order dated 15.6.2005 passed by the District Forum the appellant has been directed to refund Rs. 58,500 with 9% interest and pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved it has preferred this appeal. Relevant facts lie in a narro...

Radhu Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 12.9.2003 wherein the Order-in-Original dated 15.5.2000 was upheld and Modvat Credit was denied to the appellants on capital goods and inputs for various reasons.2. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants have documentary evidence to prove that the inputs were received and consumed in the factory and the capital goods were also received and installed in the factory and all duty paying documents were in the name of their head office since the factory was at the project stage. He submits that the appellate authority has not considered any of the submissions made by them nor has he considered the case law cited before him before dismissing the appeal of the appellants.3. Learned D.R. reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority.At the same time he fairly submits that the appellate authority has not considered the detailed submissions made by the appellants.4. Considered the submissions m...

S.R. Mittal Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals are directed against the same order. They were heard together and are disposed of under common order.2. There is a duty demand of over Rs. 27 lakhs against the first appellant who is a manufacturer of craft paper. The split-up of duty demand may be noted first:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Description Quantity Value Duty involved (Rs.) Total --------------------------o. (Kgs.) (in Rs.) BED CESS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. By clearing the 1284470 10917995 873440 13647 887087 goods recorded in2. By suppressing 1919228.400 16313441 1305075 20392 1325467 the production &3. By Irregularly 360950 NA 525444 - 525444 utilizing the credit4. Modvat credit 4785 NA 1646 - 1646 irregularly availed------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 2705600 34039 2739644----------------------------------------------------------------------...

Hissar-jind Co-op. Milk Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the Order in appeal-dated 12-12-2003, which upheld the Order in original rejecting the refund claim of the appellant.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are manufacturers of ghee and milk powder. The products manufactured by the appellants were liable to excise duty from 2-6-1998. The appellant in this case paid duty and cleared the goods.The duty on the said products was withdrawn from 18-7-1998. Appellant filed a refund claim of the duty of excise paid on clearances made by them but stocks remaining unsold at different depots. Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not produced evidence to show the burden of duty was not passed on to the buyers. On appeal, the appellate authority also came to identical conclusion. Hence this appeal.3. The learned Advocate and Consultant appearing for the appellants contended that, the goods cleared by the appellants were sent to t...

The Commanding Officer and anr. Vs. Sudevi Khanna

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT762; 2006(3)SLJ142(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.2.2002.2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. It is alleged in paragraph 1 of the writ petition that the petitioner was a teacher working in a school run by an Army Unit, Army Headquarters Static Workshop (EME) Subroto Park, Delhi Cantt., in the name and style of 'Nursery School Army HQ Static Workshop (EME) Subroto Park, New Delhi' for the last 22 years. It is alleged that the petitioner requested the respondent No. 2, the Commanding Officer, Army HQ Static Workshop (EME), Subroto Park to fix her pay in the prescribed pay structure but to no avail. 5. It is alleged that the petitioner prayed for regularization of her appointment to the respondents, but this annoyed the respondents and hence she has...

Mrs. Prem Lata Bhatia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]134CompCas92(Delhi); 128(2006)DLT24; 2006(87)DRJ688; (2006)143PLR1; [2006]71SCL142(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.10.2003 by which the Writ Petition was dismissed.2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner Mrs. Prem Lata Bhatia was allotted in perpetuity Shop No. 10, Asia House, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, by the Union of India in 1975 at a monthly rent of Rs. 901/-. Consequently, the petitioner came into exclusive possession of the shop. Clause 8 of the License Deed states as under:-The Licensee (s) shall not permit the said premises or any part thereof being used by any other person for any purpose whatsoever without the previous consent in writing of the Government and in default thereof shall be liable for ejectment. The Licensee (s) shall not introduce any partner nor shall he/they transfer possession of the premises or part thereof or otherwise carry on the business in the premises with any other person or a...

Bal Kishan Chhabra Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT460; 2006(92)DRJ235

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The question that has arisen in these petitions is whether the Land & Development Office (L&DO;) is competent to reject the Petitioners' applications for conversion of their leasehold properties to freehold. This assault has not been raised for the first time and a number of decisions have already been pronounced by Single Benches and also the Division Bench of this Court. These decisions have reviewed the Policy publicised by the L&DO; itself. The paradox is that the lower staff of that Department resolutely refuse to implement the Policy of the highest echelons of the Government. The other dimension is the Respondent's repeated refusal to abide by Judgments of the High Court; it is no defense that a Special Leave Petition has been filed, since their Lordships have declined to interdict the operation of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Vinay Kumar Agarwal : AIR2005Delhi419 .2. The salient features of the policy of conversion of...

Airport Authority of India Vs. Dharm Pal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT694; (2006)IILLJ968Del

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge dated 10.3.2004 by which he has allowed the appeal. The facts have been stated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.2. The appellant is a statutory authority constituted under the International Airports of India Act which is an Act of Parliament. Respondent (writ petitioner) was given a call letter dated 1.7.1983 by the Employment Exchange requiring him to report to the appellant and thereafter he was appointed as a daily wage operator in the services of appellant. However, his services were terminated on 1.4.1984. Against this he raised an industrial dispute and his termination was set aside by the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 25.1.1990. The writ petition against the award was dismissed by this court vide Annexure VII to the writ petition. The judgment of this court in the aforesaid writ petition No...

Amar Detectives and Consultancy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2006)BC258; 2006(1)CTLJ183(Del); 2006(87)DRJ449

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus restraining the respondent No. 2, IIT Delhi from implementing the contract awarded to respondent No. 3 the M/s Security Intelligence Services, New Delhi for providing trained security guards for protecting the premises and property of respondent No. 2. Petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to award the said contract to the petitioner having offered the lowest tender.2. Petitioner has alleged that it is a professional security agency and is run and managed by Ex-servicemen. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that the Ministry of defense issued a circular dated 4.2.1994 vide annexure P1 to the writ petition by which it was requested that all public sector undertakings, autonomous bodies and all other organizations/establishments under the administrative control of the Ministries should approach the DGR for sponsoring Ex-servicemen's Security Agencies on its panel without enga...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Its Commissioner Vs. Smt. Usha ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT275

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) 3280/20042. The appeal is an example of how a citizen can be compelled to litigate due to sheer harassment by officers of the State.3. The Respondent (writ petitioner) had purchased the 2nd floor of K-1, Kailash Colony, New Delhi in 1991 through a registered sale deed. The respondent was living in a room with an asbestos cement roof, which is temporary in nature. She submitted building plans on 3rd February, 2000 to the Appellant for making a sanctioned construction. Despite several visits to the office of the Appellant, no action was taken on the application. This led the Respondent to file CW 6670/2003 in this Court, which was disposed of on 20th October, 2003 with the following direction:-Rule.With the consent of learned counsel for parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.The grievance of the petitioner is that the application submitted b...