Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Scor Tour Impex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this stay application is regarding the stay of recovery of penalty of Rs. one lakh.2. Considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that the applicant in this case is a trader who has passed on the Modvat credit on the duty paid goods dealt by him. SCN seeking to impose penalty on the applicant under Rule 13(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was issued.The said rule can be invoked only against the person who has availed the Modvat credit and not against the person who is a Registered dealer. The applicant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of the penalty imposed on them. I waive the pre-deposit of the penalty of Rs. one lakh and recovery thereof is stayed till the disposal of the appeal.3. At this stage Ld. Consultant appearing for the applicant submits that the principal noticee in whole case i.e. M/s. Stainless Steel has also filed an appeal which is numbered as E/3667/05-SM and this appeal may be tagged along with that appeal. Considered t...

Pragati Construction Company (Partnership Firm) Through Its Partner Sh ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT199; 2006(87)DRJ163

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant was the highest bidder in an auction conducted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 1972 in respect of plots No.47 and 48, Nehru Place, New Delhi. The bid given by the Appellant was thereafter confirmed and possession of the two plots was handed over to it some time in 1973.2. One of the auction conditions related to payment of ground rent. This condition reads as follows:-GROUND RENT:(1) In addition the premium, the intending purchaser of the lease-hold rights in the plot shall have to pay a yearly ground rent. The ground rent will be at the rate of Re.1/- per plot per unit for the first three years allowed for construction purpose and thereafter, will be at the annual rate of 2-1/2% of the amount of premium. (2) The ground rent will be enhanced after every 30 years provided that the increase in the rent at each such time shall not exceed 100% of that immediately before the enhancement is due.3. The Appellant constructed a multistory building ...

Sethi Auto Service Station (a Partnership of Mr. B.R. Sethi and Mr. Ro ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT139; 2006(87)DRJ166

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Two appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent arise out of a common judgment and order dated 7th November, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing WP (C) No. 15187/2004, WP (C) No. 16196/2004 and WP (C) No. 19018/2004. Appeals have been filed only in respect of the decision rendered in WP (C) No. 15187/2004 (M/s Sethi Auto Service Station) and WP (C) No. 16196/2004 (M/s Anand Service Station). 2. Since both the appeals raise common questions of law, they have been heard together. 3. The Appellants were allotted a petrol pump in Mahipalpur near NH-8 in 1994. The Airport Authority of India made the allotment of land while Indian Oil Corporation and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. respectively allotted the petrol pumps. 4. According to the Appellants a proposal was mooted in 1999 for construction of an eight-lane highway between Delhi and Gurgaon, which included the construction of a flyover and a grid separator at Mahipalpur crossing. 5. As a result ...

Surender Kumar Sood and anr. Vs. M.C.D. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT115

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31.8.2005. 3. The prayer in the writ petition was that the MCD constructed a Dhalaon and the same created a public nuisance which should be removed. 4. It is a well settled principle of law of mandamus that before approaching the High Court for such a writ the petitioner should first approach the authority concerned for the relief he wants and only if that is not granted to him, then he can file a writ in the High Court. The party cannot directly come to the High Court for making such a grievance vide Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. etc. v. Union of India : [1975]1SCR956 in paragraph 24 of which the Supreme Court observed:-The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule...

Escorts Limited Vs. G.K. Automobile

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR346(Delhi); II(2006)BC114; 127(2006)DLT559; 2006(87)DRJ365

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 whereby the petitioner is seeking the relief of a direction being passed by this court restraining the respondent its representatives, employees, agents, attorney from selling, alienating, transferring, parting with the possession and/or creating third party interest in property bearing Nos.434, 448 and 453 situate at Jila Parishad, Janta Market, Bulandshahar (UP). Two major objections have been raised by the respondent insofar as this application is concerned. The first being that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition under Section 9. The second objection is that even if this court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, the order that is being sought by the petitioner cannot be granted inasmuch as the properties mentioned above do not belong to the ...

Rajinder Singh Bisht Vs. Dsldc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT500; 2006(3)SLJ509(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner here claims a direction to the respondent (hereafter called the 'DSIDC') for grant of overtime allowance for the period he had to work on Sundays and other holidays, and after normal working hours. 2. The petitioner, an employee of the first respondent (hereafter referred to as 'DSIDC') claims that he was asked to work in the liquor vends maintained by his employer. During such assignments, the DSIDC requires its employees to often work for beyond duty hours and also report for duty on weekly and certain other holidays. This based upon the exigencies of the work.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rule 34 of the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (Staff Service) Rules, 1978 which provides that the Corporation may grant overtime allowance to its employees in Group-C or Group-D posts who are required to work on Sundays or holidays or have put in extra hours of work on week days in connection with the Corporation'...

N.C.T. of Delhi Vs. Champa Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT611; 2006(87)DRJ598; [2006(109)FLR794]

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28th April, 20042. 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 the same, except where necessary.4. By means of the writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for a direction to the respondents directing respondent No. 3, The Principal, Govt. Girls Sr. Sec. School No. II, Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, not to terminate her service.5. It is alleged in para 2 of the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed in the Govt. Girls. Sr. Sec. School No. II, Kidwai Nagar, new Delhi, as a Class IV employee on ad hoc basis in May, 1991 as a Helper in Home Science Department. Thereafter, she was called through the Employment Exchange for interview and the Selection Committee found the petitioner suitable for the post of Home Science Helper. The petitio...

Meena Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT522; 2006(87)DRJ262

R.C. Jain, J.1. Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for a writ/direction on the respondents i.e. Police authorities to register a proper case against all the accused persons involved in the murder/conspiracy and destroying evidence in relation to the murder of her son Vikas and for handing over the investigation of the case to the CBI or some other impartial agency for further investigation.2. Briefly stating the petition has been filed with the averments and allegations that the petitioner is the unfortunate mother of a young boy named Vikas aged about 15 years who use to work at Bindi factory of a certain Ram Lal Gupta in order to earn livelihood for the family. Ram Lal Gupta has a grand daughter Jyoti of the same age as Vikas. Vikas and Jyoti developed a somewhat emotional attachment for each other which was not liked by Ram Lal Gupta and, thereforee he held a grudge against Vikas. The petition...

Northern Railways Vs. Prakash Chandra

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. It is an interesting case. The respondent was holding a valid ticket by way of reservation of four berths in Coach No. S-7, Train No. 9733 from Delhi Cantt. to Jhunjhunu. On reaching Delhi Cantt. Railway Station on 11.3.1998 to board the train at 23.25 hours, the respondent with his family approached coach No. S-7 but it was found closed from inside and the passengers did not open the doors despite personal request as the compartment was packed to the doors. Having failed to board the train, the respondent who was to reach his native place along with his family members had to travel by road and incurred extra expenses and suffered mental agony and harassment. 2. Holding the appellant guilty for deficiency in service, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 2.11.1999 directed the appellant to refund amount of the tickets amounting to Rs. 372 and Rs. 240 respectively to the respondents and Rs. 2,500 as compensation to each of the respondents totalling ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC340

1. These two appeals of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Indore are directed against the same order-in-order-appeal of Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Indore. The appeals were considered together and are disposed of under this common order.2. The material facts are that M/s. Grasim industries Limited manufactured and cleared hydrogen gas through pipeline to M/s. Goyal M.G. Gases Ltd. The quantity under removal was determined by the measurement done at the recipient's end. The duty was also paid on such quantity. This arrangement went on from November, 1995 to November, 1997.3. Subsequently, after investigation, show cause notice dated 13-5-98 was issued by the Central Excise authorities alleging that, actually a much higher quantity of hydrogen gas had been cleared from the factory by the appellant. Duty demand of Rs. 10 lakhs was raised on the purported higher quantity. This amount was confirmed in adjudication.Penalty followed.4. When the parties f...