Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Northern Coalfields Ltd. and anr. Vs. Satya Pal Arora

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(87)DRJ788

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.04.2003.2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts of the case have been set out in detail in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. The writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal) was an employee of Coal India Limited, appellant No. 2 from 18.10.1976 and he remained in service till 12.7.2000. His service was terminated when he was working with Northern Coalfields Ltd., Singrauli, which is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. 5. The Coal India Ltd. had introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 1982 (VRS-82). VRS-82 was inoperative during the period 5.11.1998 to 4.11.1999, when a new Voluntary Retirement Scheme called Executive Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1998 (EVRS-98) was introduced. The EVRS-98 was operative during the period 5.11.1998 to 4.11.1999 and af...

Smt. Kamlesh Saini Vs. the State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT310; 2006(88)DRJ195

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, Kamlesh Saini filed this petition for Habeas Corpus seeking direction to the State to produce her minor daughter Reena Saini allegedly kidnapped by Munna @ Teanis Dass s/o Vijay Dass. Petitioner also prayed for transfer of the case from local police to the Crime Branch and directions for arrest of Munna-respondent No. 2.2. Petition came up before the court on 20th January, 2006 when counsel for the State informed that police has received a letter from Reena Saini stating that she had left with respondent No. 2 of her own accord. We, thereforee, directed that couple be produced before us and in the meantime, respondent No. 2 Munna @ Teanis Das be not arrested. Ms.Reena Saini, daughter of the petitioner and Munna @ Teanis Das, respondent No. 2 appeared before us on 23rd February, 2006. Mr.Vijay Das, father of respondent No. 2 also appeared.3. Statements of Reena Saini, Munna @ Teanis Dass, Vijay Dass, father of respondent No. 2 and petitioner were recorde...

Smt. Indrani Seth Vs. Sh. J.P. Trivedi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT345

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against order dated 26.2.2005 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, in Suit No. E-140/2003 allowing the petition of the respondent-landlord under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act.2. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner-tenant wants time to vacate the premises in question. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a lady of 90 years of age with fractured hip bone. He prays that some time be given to her to vacate the premises.3. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the tenant is 90 years old lady with physically challenged for the moment, I have been able to persuade counsel for the respondent to give thirteen months' time to vacate the premises in question. Counsel for the respondent has no objection provided the petitioner gives an undertaking to this court to the effect that she shall vacate the premises on or before 31st Ma...

Vishve Raj Saxena Vs. D.D.A. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ421

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. In the year 1981, DDA invited applications for allotment of, plots in Rohini. Applicants were informed that land had yet to be acquired. They were informed that as and when, post acquisition, land was placed at the disposal of DDA and was developed, plots would be allotted by means, of draw of lots.2. Responding to the advertisement, on 30.3.1981 petitioner sought registration in the LIG category.3. In the year 1986, a plot bearing No. 121, Pocket 8, Sector 24 was allotted to the petitioner at a premium of Rs. 75,040.4. After giving benefit of the sum deposited by the petitioner at the time of registration and interest thereon and after including some miscellaneous charges net balance to be paid by the petitioner was Rs. 70,983.85.5. Demand-cum-allotment letter having block dates 22.8.1996 to 29.8.1996 was issued to the petitioner. He was informed about the allotment of the plot. He was told to pay Rs. 70,983.85 in three installments as under:(i) Rs. 26,264.... ...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Om Khosla

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This appeal arises from the order dated 23.8.2003 passed by the District Forum directing the appellant to pay Rs. 1,59,105 towards the mediclaim policy with interest @ 12%. 2. Admittedly the respondent insured underwent angioplasty operation in Escorts Heart Institute and remained there from 12.4.1998 to 15.4.1998 and filed a claim of Rs. 1,59,105 towards the actual medical exenses incurred by him but the claim was repudiated by the appellant on the ground that the disease was pre-existing and concealment about this fact disentitled the respondent from claiming mediclaim. 3. We have perused the impugned order and find thatthe claim of the respondent was repudiated mainly on the basis of the report of its panel doctor who formed his opinion on the basis of the record of the Escort Heart Institute. There are two reports of the Escort Heart Institute. One is dated 9th March, 1998 and another is dated 15th April, 1998.According to the panel doctor both these repo...

Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs. Vivek Sinha

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Respondent is an Institute providing education and training to the students. Appellant paid a sum of Rs. 70,000 for three months training with the assurance of a high salaried job in India and America. Allegation of the appellant that the respondent-Institute did not have a qualified faculty nor the expertise and apparatus as assured in the advertisement and prospectus of the respondent and he has suffered immensely because he had to give up his job as an Accountant upon the assurance given by the respondent for a well paid job. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 6th February, 2002 on the ground that there was nothing on record to show that the respondent did not have competent faculty for providing coaching and also that the respondent had promised to provide a job after completion of the training. 2. We have perused the impugned order and find that the District Forum did ...

Mohit Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the stay application came up for consideration, I heard both sides, at length, and have perused the records. The appeal itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, after waiving the requirement for pre-deposit, I proceed to consider the appeal.2. Modvat credit on capital goods remains denied under the impugned order for the reason that the classification adopted by the seller of the invoices did not tally with the classification indicated by the appellants in their capital goods' declaration. The appellant's contention is that the difference in classification cannot be a ground for denial of credit and this position remains settled by the judgements of this Tribunal in the cases of J.B.M. Tools Ltd. and Kamakhya Steel (P) Ltd. .3. Rule 57-T which is about declaration of capital goods by a person acquiring them, stipulates that, "every manufacturer intending to take credit of the duty paid on the capital goods under Rule 57Q shall before receipt of capital goods file a declaration ...

All India Women'S Conference Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application for restoration of appeal has been filed on the ground that while deciding the appeal the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Mumbai v. Top Detective & Security Services Pvt. Ltd. which was submitted along with the paper book of stay application has not been taken into consideration for imposing penalty under Section 76. The appellants were not intimated the date of hearing.2. On behalf of the Revenue, it was stated that decision in the case of CCE Mumbai v. Top Detective & Security Services Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has already been overruled by the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of ETA Engineering Ltd. v. CCE Chennai 3. The matter was on Board since May, 2005 and if the adjournment was given at that time, it was for the appellants to keep watch on the Board when the case is coming up for hearing. We find that no case has been made out for recall of the order. The order has been correctly passed and no ground has been made out for recall...

Mahakali Processors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The Rectification of Mistake application is in regard to Tribunal's Final Order No. A/217/2005-NB(SM), dated 28-2-2005 in Appeal No.E/2219/2002-NB(SM). That appeal had arisen out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 239/CE/Chd-II/2002, dated 18-6-2002 passed by Commissioner (Appeals). The point raised in the present application is that against the same order-in-appeal of the Commissioner, Revenue had filed an appeal before the Tribunal (No. E/2238/2002-NB(SM) seeking enhancement of penalty and, prior to passing of the Final Order dated 28-2-2005, a Division Bench of the Tribunal had passed a final Order in revenue's appeal rejecting the appeal. The submission in the application is that since the earlier Order of the Tribunal had upheld the penalty already imposed, the issue of penalty remains covered by that Order and Single Bench could not have set aside the penalty under a subsequent order.3. The Id. JDR has emphasised that the order-in-appeal of the Commissioner had merged in the Division...

Shri Gajraj Singh S/O Shri Chandra Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By the present OA, applicant seeks directions to respondents to appoint him as Assistant Binder with costs etc.2. The facts as stated are that the applicant passed High School Examination of UP Board in the year 1985 and Intermediate Examination of UP Board in the year 1991. He underwent Apprenticeship Training in Book Binding from 7.10.1988 to 6.10.1990 at the Govt. of India Press, Aligarh and passed the prescribed test in November 1990. Government of India Press, Aligarh vide letter dated 4.5.1995 notified two vacancies of Assistant Binder in the scale of pay of Rs. 950-1500 out of which one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate and the other vacancy was un-reserved. The Employment Exchange, Aligarh vide letter dated 30.5.1995 sponsored names of 10 scheduled caste and 9 eligible general category candidates. Applicant's name was neither sponsored nor he was called by the concerned authorities for interview. Therefore, he filed Original Suit No. 282/1995 seeking direction...