Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT314; 2006(87)DRJ264

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The Petition filed by Larsen & Toubro Limited (L & T Ltd.) assails the Order dated 10.7.2003 of the Revisional Authority/Central Government under Section 30 of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, directing the State of Orissa (Respondents 2 to 4) to consider the application for the notified area filed by L & T Ltd., along with all the other prospective lessees. Admittedly, the Applicant, Neepaz Metaliks Limited (Neepaz for short) is not one of those applicants. 2. Neepaz has preferred the two applications seeking impleadment in the pending Writ Petition; and, clarification/modification of the Orders dated 25.8.2003 and 8.7.2004 by which the impugned revisional decision has been stayed. 3. Briefly stated, the salient facts are that approximately 1000 hectares were allocated to L & T Ltd. in Orissa, whose submission is that due to breaches of covenants and commitments on the part of State of ...

Amit Kumar Juneja Vs. Niit Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order dated 6.3.2000 whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation of Rupees one lac for deficiency in service in not providing a well qualified faculty for a computer course equivalent to MCA, the appellant has directed this appeal. Complaint was dismissed by the District Forum mainly on the premise that course of 2 years could not have been completed in 7 months and, therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant. For having wasted a precious period of his career he had sought compensation of Rupees one lac. 2. Appellant was a topper of Delhi University. He topped in BSc 1st, 2nd and 3rd year. Pursuant to an advertisement by the respondent GNIIT who runs computer course that candidates obtaining 60% marks and above in graduation would be granted 100% scholarship for three years course at GNIIT, the appellant applied and was declared successful and deposited admission fee of Rs. 2,800. When he ...

Hc Shri Bhagwan Vs. Commissioner of Police, Jt.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. On a joint departmental proceedings and being aggrieved by a common penalty order dated 11.11.2003 imposing major penalty as well as a common appellate order dated 31.8.2004, these OAs are being disposed of by this common order.2. Applicant in A No. 2704, an Assistant Sub Inspector, and applicant in OA No. 2706/2004, a Constable, being proceeded against in a common proceedings on the allegations that while posted at Traffic Branch of Central District on 14.11.2002 in the wake of PRG Team conducting a vigilance check, illegal entry fee was recovered from Home Guard Constable who fled from the spot, by alleging that instead of restraining the subordinates from illegal activities applicants allegedly having been found actively involved in such illegal activities of collection of illegal entry money.3. In an enquiry held concluded the charge against the applicants on which a major penalty of forfeiture of five years approved service with cumulative effect was imposed and the same was u...

Shri Het Ram and anr. Vs. Shri Ram Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT509; 2006(87)DRJ215

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Respondent No.1 was the recorded bhoomidar of lands bearing Rect.No.13 Kila No.24 (3-0), 25(4-16), Rect.No.14 Kila No.21(4-16), Rect.No.26 Kila No.3(2-9), 4(4-16), 5(4-16), 6(4-16) and 7(4-16) of Village Kulakpur, Delhi. 2. Claiming to be in adverse cultivatory possession for a period of 3 continuous years prior to 23.3.1990, petitioner filed a petition under Section 85 of Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954 praying that since the period within which the respondent No.1 could eject him from the land had expired, petitioner was entitled to be declared as bhoomidar of the land in question. 3. After attempting to serve the respondent by ordinary process and registered post and on noticing that service could not be effected, Revenue Assistant directed service of the respondent by publication. After publication was effected, vide order dated 21.8.1990, respondent was proceeded ex-parte.4. Petitioner led ex-parte evidence. Vide order dated 25.9.1990, Revenue Assistant declare...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Babu Rao and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT504; 2006(88)DRJ73

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge dated 5.5.2000. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. Petitioner No. 1 in the writ petition, Babu Rao alleged in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that he had filed an application dated 4.1.1982 vide Annexure P-7 to the writ petition claiming freedom fighters pension. However, by order dated 15.11.1988, the petitioner was informed by the Central Government that the Government of India regretted its inability to consider his case in view of the fact that it had not been recommended by the Special Screening Committee set up to scrutinize such cases vide Annexure P-2.3. Thereafter it appears that petitioner filed an affidavit dated 9.12.1993 giving details about his alleged participation in the freedom struggle vide Annexure P-3 and he submitted a formal application dated 9.12.1993 vide Annexure P-5.4. As regards petitioner No. 2, his application ...

Pradeep Kumar and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT753; 2006(87)DRJ250; 2006(3)SLJ136(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 10.9.2005 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed WP(C) No. 1636/2000 2. Heard learned 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 them here except where necessary.4. The writ petitioners (appellants herein) claimed that they have completed four years Diploma Course in Unani Medicine (DUM) from an Institute in Saharanpur and passed this examination in 1995 and thereafter they claimed to have registered with the Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad,UP. . 5. In para 7 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioners submitted their forms duly filled with money order receipts vide Annexure P-1 to the writ petition and sent them to respondent No.2, the Registrar, Board of Ayurvedic & Unani Systems of Medicine, New Delhi in May 1999 to get registered under schedule 5, but the ...

Delhi Cantonment Board Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT610; 2006(88)DRJ75; (2006)IIILLJ752Del

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.2.2003 by which the writ petition has been dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.3. The respondents 2 and 3 in this appeal were employed by the appellant. As held by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A.Rajappa and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 538, they have to be held as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. Against the termination of their services they raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal which held that there was violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents were on probation and hence their services could be terminated without enquiry. In our...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Singhai Sushil Kumar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 13-12-2004 that allowed the appeal of the assessee.2. The issue involved in this case is that the respondent is a Chartered Accountant and got himself registered with the Service Tax authorities. The respondent paid the Service Tax liability but failed to furnish the half yearly returns as required. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent for imposing penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority on adjudication imposed penalty under Sections 76 and 77. On an appeal the appellate authority set aside the penalties imposed, hence this appeal by revenue.3. None appeared for the respondent despite notice. Heard the learned DR and perused the records. It is the DR's submission that the Commissioner Appeals should not have set aside the penalties relying upon the Circular dated 23-9-2004, as this circular is for the assessees who had failed to register under Service Tax and ...

Cce Vs. Thyrocare Services

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC366

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal dt.23.12.04 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalties imposed on the respondents.2. The brief facts that arise for consideration are the respondents are engaged in providing Business Auxillary Services to the Principal M/s.Thyrocare Technologies, Mumbai. The respondents failed to take any Service Tax Registration and did not file any returns. A SCN was issued to the respondent and demand of service tax was raised for the period 1.7.03 to 31.3.04 alongwith interest and various penalties as provided under law. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Service Tax and also imposed penalties alongwith interest of the Service Tax which was confirmed. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of Service Tax and interest thereof but set aside the penalties imposed on the respondent. Hence this appeal.3. None appeared for the respondent but there is a request for adjo...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. R.K. Electronic Cable Network

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC69

1. The Revenue has filed all these appeals against the orders-in-appeal wherein the penalties on all the respondents were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Heard both sides and perused the record. The Revenue is aggrieved with the orders-in-appeal wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed on all the respondents, who had been registered with the De-partment but had failed to discharge their duty liability towards service tax and interest within time. The Department initiated the action for imposition of pen-alty. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has relied upon the scheme of Voluntary Disclosure Scheme known as Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme which was circulated vide letter dated 20th September, 2004 by the Min-istry of Finance, Department of Revenue, which gave immunity from penal ac-tion to those service providers who had not made declaration or not registered, provided they pay the service tax along with interest within the specif...