Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Ashwani Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ643

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner claims Pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme on the grounds that he had undergone imprisonment for a cumulative period of at least six months, in the following manner : 15.8.1942-18.9.1942 (35 days), 2.10.1942-3.1.1943 (94 days) and 20.2.1943-10.5.1943 (80 days).2. In Gurdial Singh v. Union of India : AIR2001SC3883 , in the context of veracity of evidence, it has been observed as follows:7. The standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the parties. As the object of the Scheme is to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the Scheme. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by the Scheme had suffered f...

Shri V.K. JaIn Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ749

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, two orders, dated 18.10.2000 and 24.10.2001, issued by the first respondent (hereafter called the 'Company') have been questioned.2. It is the common case of parties that pursuant to a charge sheet issued, a departmental enquiry was instituted into an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 03.07.1997, the petitioner was asked to answer to the charges. An Enquiry Officer appointed for the purpose, after hearing the parties and considering the materials, submitted his report on 10.12.1999. The petitioner was suspended from the services and later, the disciplinary authority issued the penalty of censure.3. The Enquiry Officer held that all the five charges were not proved. By the order dated 19.06.2000, the Manager of the Company, in exercise of his powers under Rule 25 of the General Insurance (CDA) Rules 1975, imposed the penalty of censure. The petitioner appealed against the order. His griev...

Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. K.R. JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ439

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This LPA has been preferred against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.11.2004 by which he allowed the miscellaneous applications of NDPL holding that NDPL was not liable to pay the dues of respondent No.1 and it was the appellants who were liable for the same.2. Shri K.R. Jain, respondent No.1 was working with Delhi Vidyut Board and had retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.1996. He filed a writ petition in 2004 bearing Number WP (C) No.2337/04 before this Court alleging that he was discriminated by the Delhi Vidyut Board and was not given higher scale to which he was entitled before his retirement under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme in terms of office order No.216 dated 16.7.1997 notified on 23.7.1997. He prayed for issuance of a Mandamus for giving him the higher scale, arrears of pay and allowances/emoluments as accrued to him along with 18 % interest and prayed that the office order dated 7.2.02 denying him b...

Asian Bus Service Vs. State Transport Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)ACC348; 129(2006)DLT115

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this Petition, a challenge has been laid to the decision of the Respondents dated 30.8.2005 informing the Petitioner that its request for allotment of inter-State Private Stage Carriage Permit has not been accepted by the Chairman (State Transport Authority)/Commissioner (Transport). Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on Section 80 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (M.V. Act in short) and stresses upon the use of the words 'a permit of any kind' employed in Sub-section (1) of that Section to contend that a permit must be granted regardless of the failure of the two concerned states to arrive at an agreement on this subject.2. The difficulty which the Petitioner encounters is that in the absence of any Agreement between the Union Territory of Delhi and the State of Haryana, its application has been turned down as mentioned above. On behalf of the Respondents reliance has been placed on Section 88 of the M.V. Act which contemplates the existence of an Agreemen...

B.K. Gupta Vs. Cantonment Board and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT184; 2006(88)DRJ672

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This petition was heard on 20th March, 2006. Submissions had been made on behalf of respondents though the order-sheet for the date does not disclose appearance of counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner has claimed a direction to the respondents to correctly calculate the provisional pension fixed. 3. The facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner joined the respondent No. 1 in its school, as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1963. He was promoted as Head Master in 2001. On 17.5.2001 the petitioner was arrested pursuant to a First Information Report. He was thereforee placed under suspension by order dated 24th September, 2001. The petitioner was admitted on bail on 19.12.2001. After he represented, the respondent Board granted subsistence allowance admissible to him on 4.1.2002. It is undisputed case of the parties that later on 6.6.2002 subsistence allowance was increased to 75% of the salary and emoluments.4. The petitioner ...

Daulat Ram JaIn Vs. Jaimala Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT134

R.S. Sodhi, J.C.M.Appl.12289/20051. For the reasons stated in the application, which appear to be sufficient, this application is allowed. RC.Rev. 528/2001 & C.M. Appl. 1139/2001 & 1410/2002 are restored to their original number and file. This application stands disposed of.RC.REV. 528/2001 & C.M. Appl. 1139/2001 & 1410/2002 2. RC. Rev. 528/2001 seeks to challenge order dated 16.2.2001 of the Rent Controller, Delhi (for short 'the Controller') in E-88/99 dismissing the application of the petitioner for extension of time for filing his leave to defend and decreed the petition under Section 14D of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act').3. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Controller are that -Petitioner in the present petition submitted inter alias that she is a widow aged more than 80 years and have three alive sons and two daughters and all are married. The elder son, Abhay Kumar Jain, has five sons an one of his sons is married and have two dau...

Janta Travels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 3,17,661/- and penalties. The applicant had already paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- at the time of hearing of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals). The demand of Service Tax is being confirmed in respect of the tickets, which were got cancelled, and adjustment was made by the applicant in pursuance to the Board's Circular dated 26-6-1997. We find that the board circular provided such adjustment in respect of the Service tax collected and in respect of the service not provided as the air tickets were subsequently cancelled. In these circumstances, the amount already deposited is sufficient for hearing of the appeal. The pre-deposit of remaining amount of Service Tax and penalties are waived. The stay petition is allowed....

Preeti Daga Vs. Commissioner of Cus., Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicant filed these applications only for waiver of penalties.The applicants are not asking for waiver of duty imposed under the impugned order.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods were imported by one M/s. Aman Traders owned by Shri Surya Naryan Mishra and the goods were ordered to be confiscated on the ground that importer has misdeclared the country of origin of ball bearings. In the Bill of entry, the country of origin is declared as Sri Lanka whereas the goods were of Chinese origin/ therefore, the goods imported are liable for anti-dumping duty and applicant is the actual person behind the import hence liable for penalty.4. The contention is that the applicants are only asking for waiver of penalty and as per Section 9A of Customs Tariff the provisions of Customs Act in respect of Finance (No. 2) Act and penalties were included with effect from 2004. The present consignment was imported in 2003, therefore, misdeclaration to avoid imposition of anti-dumping...

Amrit Foods (a Division of Amrit Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC125

1. Under Civil Appeal No. 1329 of 2003 filed by M/s Amrit Foods and C.A. No. 7275 of 2003 filed by Revenue, this appeal was remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for disposing of the classification of the products in dispute. Under the said Civil Appeal, The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the Final Order No. 262/02-D dated 13.11.2002 of the Tribunal in so far as it pertains to determination of classification of appellant's products and upheld the order of the Tribunal setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. M/s. Amrit Foods (A division of M/s.Amrit Banaspati Company Limited) are manufacturers of various dairy products. A team of Central Excise Officers visited their factory premises on 3.11.1999 and conducted inquiry about the products manufactured by them. During the inquiry, it was found that the unit is engaged in the manufacture of milk based products, namely, milk shake mix, soft serve mix, skimmed milk, toned milk, double toned mil...

Dsidc Vs. Naresh Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT777; 2006(88)DRJ604

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd September, 2005 filed by the respondents herein.2. We have perused the record and heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The writ petitions were filed by the respondents when after receiving confirmation of the allotment plots under relocation scheme framed by the Government, their eligibility was cancelled and they were not handed over the possession. The stand of the appellant is that the respondents had applied under relocation scheme pursuant to a notice issued in 1996 which was a sequel to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta case. However, later on in view of the policy decision taken by the Cabinet and communicated to the appellant by the Department of Industries, the eligibility of the respondents to have plot under relocation scheme was cancelled, since they were found ineligible under the policy approved by the Cabinet. 4. The lear...