Delhi Court October 2006 Judgments

Shri Ashok Kumar Matta Vs. Smt. Indira Gulati and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ65

Gita Mittal, J.1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking leave to incorporate an alternative prayer in the suit for specific performance. In order to appreciate the issues raised in the application, it is necessary to examine the plaint as laid and certain orders which have a bearing on the matter. 2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 5th December, 1995. The plaint as laid contains specific averments laying the foundation for a claim in alternative inasmuch as the plaintiff in the plaint has stated thus:14. It is, thereforee submitted under the above circumstances:a) That the defendants are liable to be retrained by way of permanent injunction from disposing of or renting out or parting with possession of the said shop and from in any way creating any encumbrances, agreements, transfers, conveyance/sale of the said shop in favor of any third party till ...

Phoola Ram Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals are directed against order in appeal dated 13th July, 2004 that upheld the order in original vide which the foreign gold biscuits were absolutely confiscated and currency was also confiscated besides imposition of penalties on all the appellants.Appeal No. Name of the Appellant Penalty imposed1) C/725/04 Phoola Ram S/o Shiv Lal Bishnoi Rs. 5,000/-2) C/726/04 Shiv Ratan Soni S/o Gopi Ram Soni Rs. 1,00,000/-3) C/727/04Shiv Ratan Soni S/o Mohan Lal Soni Rs. 1,00,000/-4) C/728/04 Satya Narain Soni S/o Mohan Lal Rs. 1,00,000/-5) C/729/04 Manak Chand S/o Badri Ram Soni Rs. 5,000/- The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the Customs authorities while conducting road patrolling during the intervening night of 22/23-10-1997 intercepted a jeep carrying about 15 passengers.The Customs authorities recognizing appellant No. 2', asked him to present himself for search, which he informed the authorities that he is carrying some valuables in his canvas bag and hence he sho...

Alert Engineering Enterprises Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC561

1. These two appeals are filed by the same appellant raise common issues and therefore are heard and disposed of together. In both these appeals, the appellant has challenged the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 23.8.2004, dismissing both the appeals and upholding the order-in-original dated 15.10.2003, by which refund claims of the appellant were rejected.2. By show cause notice dated 20.8.2003, the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why the claim of refund of Rs. 39,050/- made on 02.04.2003, on the ground that the amount was paid by mistake of the clerk on the basis of supplementary invoice Nos. 54, 55 and 56, all dated 31.5.2002, should not be recovered.3. By show cause notice dated 17.6.2003, the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why its claim for refund of Rs. 29,584/- made on 02.04.2003 on the ground that their clerk by mistake debited that amount on the basis of supplementary invoice No. 57 dated 31.5.2002, should not be rejected.4. As regards ...

Vashisht Ispat Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC262

1. This appeal has been preferred against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30.8.2004, dismissing the two appeals which were preferred against the order in original confirming the demand for Rs. 2,193/- along with interest of Rs. 1,14,471/-, and the demand for Rs. 1,53,803/- along with interest of Rs. 1,30,866/- raised under the two show cause notices dated 27.8.2002 and 24.9.1998 and directing interest to be paid at the rate of 18% on the delayed payments of duty under Rule 96ZP.2. The appellant was holding a licence for manufacture of hot rolled products of non-alloy steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. With the coming into force of the provisions of Section 3A of the Act and the rules made thereunder, the appellant had opted to avail the compounded levy scheme as described in Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for full and final discharge of central excise duty liability for the manufactu...

Shri P.R. Narayanan and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Retires in Railways, who have completed 20 years of service and to whom on relaxation the pro-rata benefits have been granted, seek extension of benefit of complimentary passes as well as medical facilities. This has been turned down by the respondents on the ground that as per the decision of the Apex Court in CA-8327/97 in Union of India and Anr. v. Dr. S. Baliar Singh, it is ruled that if one does not complete 20 years of railways, complimentary passes would not be admissible. Accordingly, it is contended that the relaxation, which has been accorded would also good for pro-rata pension and in the wake of statutory rules, applicants not being eligible cannot be accorded the benefits.2. Learned Counsel for applicants placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Welfare Association of Absorbed Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. contended that it is ruled that erstwhile government servant on absorption in public undertakings...

Shri Rajender Singh S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Finding the present issue as an important question of law, the matter has been transferred to Division Bench vide order dated 20.9.2006.3. By virtue of this OA, applicant impugns his inter-divisional transfer from Panipat to Ambala Division effected vide order dated 11.11.2005.4. At the outset, there are two sets of decisions; one delivered by the High Court of Judicature of U.P. at Allahabad and the second by the High Court of Delhi. It is trite that as per the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. , which decision of two different High Courts is binding on the Tribunal is the decision of the High Court under whose jurisdiction the Tribunal is functioning.5. In such view of the matter, if we are pitted with two different judgments, one which is rendered by the High Court of Delhi, shall prevail under the doctrine of precedent, which is not disputed at all.6. Shri Amit Anand, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant contende...

Dhakan, Keyman, Under Sr. Section Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this O.A., the applicant has challenged imposition of major penalty of withholding of increment for a period of three years.2. Applicant, who was working as Keyman, has been proceeded against for a major penalty on the allegations that in May, 1994, a derailment had caused due to his negligence. An earlier enquiry proceeded against the applicant culminated into penalty of removal. The said order of removal was challenged by the applicant before this Tribunal by filing OA No.517/1997. The Tribunal vide its order dated 01.12.1998 set aside the punishment with liberty to the respondents to proceed with a fresh enquiry, if they so desire.3. On reinstatement, an enquiry was proceeded against the applicant and the Enquiry Officer held the applicant partially responsible for derailment. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a major punishment.Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant preferred an appeal, which has not been paid any heed. Therefore, the prese...

Jitesh Kumar Modi Vs. Staff Selection Commission,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Denial of selection of the applicant for the post of Assistant/Inspector in Central Excise, in pursuance of having qualified in Combined Graduate Level Examination 2003, is the grievance of the applicant. Applicant also assails an order passed by the respondents on 25.1.2005 whereby he has been directed to show cause as to why his candidature for the post should not be rejected being overage on the ground that having been employed in the office of Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioners, which is not a Central Government office, the applicant cannot be treated as a departmental candidate. Accordingly, age relaxation given to him is not permissible as the applicant on the cut off date in the advertisement i.e. 1.8.2003, was beyond the prescribed age limit of 27 years. As such he is not eligible to be considered for appointment to the post in question.3. The brief facts, which are relevant to be highlighted, transpire that applicant had qualified Lower Division Clerks Grade Examinati...

Maharaj Singh, Ram Kumar, Chottey Vs. Shri H. Rajender Prashad, Deputy

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. In the light of the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , what has been protected and permissible for the Tribunal or the Court in the matter of regularization of casual labours is a direction, which has attained finality as the ratio is prospective. Where the order passed by the Tribunal having attained finality, the decision of the Apex Court in Umadevi case (supra) has no application. The present OA comes into same category.3. The applicant, who has been working on casual basis with the respondents, preferred OA 3110/2003 wherein the respondents took the plea that four vacant posts have occurred because of the retirement/death of the incumbents of the posts and selection process has been initiated by calling the names through Employment Exchange, in the above view of the matter, OA was disposed of vide order dated 5.8.2004 with the directions to the respondents not to insist on applicants' names being spo...

Shri Iklash HussaIn Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ749

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This LPA challenges the order dated 11th August, 2006 of the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge in an application filed by the appellant under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directed the appellant to state on affidavit how he was surviving, his source of livelihood, how many children he had, whether and where his wife was employed and what was her salary. For ready reference the order is reproduced hereunder:Reply to the application has been filed today. Copy given. Registry to place reply on record. I have perused the affidavit filed by the applicant. In the affidavit he has simply stated that he is unemployed and he has not been able to get employment. He has not stated as to what is his source of livelihood, how many children he has, how he was surviving, whether his wife is unemployed and where she was employed and what was her salary. Let a proper affidavit be filed giving all details within t...