Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Madhurima Kumar Vs. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. in not completing the construction and handing over possession of the commercial flat, booked by the complainant, by the stipulated time, complainant has filed the instant complaint claiming refund of the amounts already paid to the O.Ps. with interest, compensation and cost of litigation. 2. Being induced by the O.Ps. the complainant, on 25.9.1995, booked one commercial flat having a tentative area of 617 sq. ft. for Rs. 13,88,250 by paying 10% as booking amount. Subsequent payments were construction linked as the commercial flat was to be constructed in a commercial complex of Plot No. 1, J-Block, Commercial Centre, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Up to 29.9.1998, the complainant made payment of Rs. 7,65,887. As per the Agreement between the parties, the construction was to be completed by 1999 and the complainant was assured that the construction would be completed by then. But inspite of his havin...

Jagdish Chandra Vs. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Unfortunately, the original complainant, Jagdish Chander, has expired during these proceedings. He was 80 years old when he filed the complaint in the year 2000. Now his wife, Smt. Kaushalya Devi, has been substituted as a complainant and because of the complainant being a widow and very old, we have taken up this case on priority basis as large number of complaints more than ten years old are pending inspite of the fact that several hundreds have already been decided. 2. Being induced by the opposite parties (in short O.P.), the complainant, on 18.9.1995, booked one commercial flat having a tentative area of 593 sq. ft. for Rs. 10,37,750 by paying 10% as booking amount. Subsequent payments were construction linked as the commercial flat was to be constructed in a commercial complex of Plot No. 1, J-Block, Commercial Centre, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Upto 30.1.1997 the complainant made payment of Rs. 6,40,099. As per the agreement between the parties, the co...

Acharya Sewa Niyas Uttaranchal Vs. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by the assessee which is a public charitable trust and it is directed against the order passed by the CIT under Section 12AA(l)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act refusing to grant registration to the assessee. The assessee is a trust. One Anil Kumar Verma of Haridwar made a declaration to form a trust on 30-11-2000 and dedicated a sum of Rs. 500 to commence the trust. A formal deed was executed. The name of the trust was Acharya Seva Niyas Uttaranchal. The working area of the trust was to be the State of Uttaranchal. According to the trust deed, the following were the objects of the trust: (1) To work for the welfare of the Aacharyas engaged in the area of expansion of education based on Indian life values. (2) To help economically to the individuals dedicated in the field of education considering their ability, capacity and duration of service provided. (3) To select such Aacharyas in whsose schools education based on India life values is provided and Indian Sanskars ...

Kiran Devi and ors. Vs. Babita and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(93)DRJ340

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. The present suit is for partition in respect of constructed property measuring 2 bighas and 13 biswas forming part of khasra bearing No. 141/27/1 situate in Village Basant, P.O. Vasant Vihar, New Delhi between the plaintiffs No. 1 to 6 and the defendants No. 1 to 6 as per their respective shares derived on the demise of their predecessors-in-interests as co-owners of the aforesaid property. A decree for permanent injunction is also prayed for in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants No. 4 to 6 from transferring or alienating/creating third party interest in the aforesaid property in any manned till the respective shares of the parties are defined by this Court.2. The facts succinctly stated are that Shri Hirday Ram and Hari Singh were the joint owners/bhumidars of the suit property having one-half undivided share in the aforesaid land. Shri Kali Ram succeeded to the estate of his deceased father Shri Hirday Ram and after his demise, defendants No. 4 t...

Man Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ200

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. In the above referred appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') common questions of law and facts arise. Therefore, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 15.11.1996 and the declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 21.11.1996. Thereafter award No. 01/97-98 was drawn by the Land Acquisition Collector. The Land Acquisition Collector placed the acquired land in two categories. The land placed in category A was assessed @Rs. 1,86,500 per bigha and the land placed in category B was assessed @ Rs. 1,61,500/- per bigha. The appellants (claimants) were not satisfied. Consequently, reference under Section 18 of/the Act came up before the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi, who enhanced the rate of land in category A to Rs. 2,41,452/- and category B to Rs. 2,01,452A. The claimants as well as the Union of India challenged the sai...

Pawan Kumar JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. There are two appeals/applications directed against the common order of the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi made on 9-11-05 ordering recovery of drawback of Rs. 17,97,108/- from M/s.Malvika Apparels and Rs. 36,04,057/-from M/s. Handloom Only, under Rules 16 and 16A of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules read with Section 75(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. In addition, recovery of interest on the aforesaid drawback was also ordered.2. From the record, it appears that based on an information received by the DRI that one consignment of the appellant M/s. Malvika Apparels destined for USA was lying uncleared at Dubai Port, the authorities found that sale proceeds in respect of the goods exported realised were not within the time allowed under the law. Action to recover such drawback was therefore, initiated. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has observed that the drawback amount paid to the exporter was to be recovered as per procedure p...

Cce Vs. Kinetic Motors Company Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC111

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 23/08/04 which set aside the order in original that confirmed the demand of the duty and imposed penalties on the respondent.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the respondent availed modvat credit on the inputs received by them during period October 1998 to November 1998 on the ground that these inputs are used for fabrication of complete painting system. The supplier of the painting system discharged the duty liability on these goods under the Chapter sub-heading No. 84.79. A show cause notice dated 21/10/03 was issued to the respondent for denial of modvat credit on these goods on the ground that the supplier's classification of the goods under heading 84.79 has been reclassified into Sub-heading No. 84.24 which is not eligible for availment of modvat credit as capital goods. The respondent resisted the show cause notice on two grounds, on time bar and on merits. The adjudicating authority confirmed the dema...

Ms. Sujata Rawat D/O Late Shri Vs. Govt. of India, Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA, applicant, who is working as Production Assistant in Doordarshan, has assailed an order passed by the respondents on 7.12.2005, whereby on cancellation of her appointment as Production Assistant she has been reverted to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC).2.A brief factual matrix transpires that father of applicant died in harness on 4.2.1990 and applicant, who was graduating at that time, was offered a post of LDC in the pay scale of 950-1500 on 27.7.1990, which was a Group 'C' post, on the assurance that she will be offered the post of Production Assistant on completion of graduation. Accordingly, on completion of graduation she applied for the post of Production Assistant and on acceptance of the conditions stipulated in memo dated 27.12.1993 on 25.1.1994 applicant was appointed as Production Assistant in Group 'C' in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 w.e.f. 27.12.1993. She had been working on the aforesaid post since then. The Director, Central Production ...

Asi Willman Dung Dung (Pis No. Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1.The applicant in this OA, who is an ASI in Delhi Police, was proceeded against in a departmental enquiry following preliminary enquiry report on charges of corruption. The departmental enquiry was initiated by order dated 13.4.2004 of the D.C.P. (Traffic), Headquarters, Delhi with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic) under Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, as recorded in the order. A summary of allegations was issued along with list of witnesses and documents. After examination of six PWs, charges were framed, which were the same as the summary of allegations. It is contended that there was no material in support thereof. The applicant submitted his defence statement following which the enquiry officer by his report of 20.12.2004 held the charges proved against the applicant. It is alleged that such conclusion was based on no evidence and without taking into account the material on record in defence of the applicant. Th...

CaptaIn P.K. Bakshi, Nautical Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the order of respondents dated 25.11.2005 whereby he was transferred and posted to Marine Engineering and Research Institute, Kolkata (MERI, for short) along with the post in public interest (Annexure A-1). He has also sought direction to the Government of India to formulate policy/guidelines for new service conditions, including promotional avenues, of Nautical Officers like the applicant, who continued to be on deemed deputation to IIMS since 2002.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.03.1999 the respondents issued an advertisement for recruitment of six Nautical Officers in Lal Bahadur Shastri College of Advanced Maritime Studies and Research (LBS CAMSAR, for short) and T.S. Chanakya (TSC, for short) under the Directorate General of Shipping, Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India. The applicant responded to the advertisement.After interview, the UPSC recommended his candidature for the post of...