Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Vardan Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Au ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT278

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The petitioner, a Co-operative Group Housing Society, duly registered under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 challenges the letter dated 17.12.1992 written by DDA demanding composition fee in sum of Rs. 1,85,457.80 and penalty in sum of Rs. 2,500.00 for execution of lease deed, on the ground that the society was responsible for the delay caused in the execution of the lease deed and was responsible for delay in construction of the flats. Composition fee has been charged in order to extend the time for completion of construction by the petitioner of the Group Housing flats till 28.03.1992.2. Due to subsequent developments during the pendency of the writ petition, an amended writ petition was permitted to be filed to include in it, challenge to a further sum of Rs. 3,07,703.00 which was paid by the petitioner to the respondent.3. Petitioner applied to DDA for allotment of a plot of land so that it could construct residential flats for its members. Plot N...

A.R.S. Steel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 3,20,692/- and penalty of equal amount. In this case, the demand is confirmed on the ground that the appellant had manufactured the goods and cleared them without payment of duty and even if this clearance is taken into consideration while calculating the aggregate value of the goods under small scale exemption notification, then the applicants cross the limit prescribed under the notification and consequential demand of duty of Rs. 3,13,810/- and penalty of equal amount was also imposed as consequential demand treating the clearance over and above the limit under small scale exemption.2. The contention of the applicant is that there is no evidence that applicants had manufactured and cleared the goods clandestinely. The contention is that a statement was recorded from the partner of the applicant firm and in his statement he disclosed that approximately they are manufacturing 6 MT per day. Some slips of Dharmka...

Rockwell Automation India Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 58,73,564/- and penalty of Rs. 68,73,564/-. The contention of the applicant is that they are manufacturing and clearing Integrated Control Automation Monitoring System. The applicants are paying the duty in respect of system. However, some of their customers are also asking for assistance in installation of system or supervision of installation or training of their employees to operate the system. The Revenue is asking for excise duty in respect of the amounts paid by the customers which relate to installation, provision of installation and training. The contention is that applicants are paying service tax in respect of these services. The appellants are relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Thermax Ltd. v. CCE wherein the Supreme Court held that installation, erection and commissioning charges for equipment installed at customer's premises not includible in assessable value of the equipme...

Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Wipro Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT265; 2006(32)PTC677(Del)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. is No. 608/2006 is an application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in which it has prayed for an injunction restraining the Defendant from telecasting the impugned 'Wipro Sanjivani Honey' TV commercial during the pendency of the suit.2. By an ad interim ex parte order dated 19th January, 2006, the injunction as prayed, was granted.3. The Defendant has since filed is No.2042/2002 for vacating the ad interim ex parte injunction. Both these applications are being disposed of by a common order.4. The Plaintiff is a manufacturer of a wide range of pharmaceuticals, toiletries and medicinal preparations including Ayurvedic medicines and formulations. The products of the Plaintiff are marketed under its registered trade mark 'Dabur'. 5. One of the products manufactured by the Plaintiff is Dabur Honey. According to the Plaintiff it has an annual turn over of about Rs. 50 crores in respect of this product and promotional expenses in this rega...

Sumit Gahlot Vs. D.D.A.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT194

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. 91 bigha and 19 biswa of land owned by the petitioner in village Nangli Syed were acquired vide award No. 2202 dated 10.2.1969. Post acquisition, lands were placed at the disposal of DDA for the purposes of planned development of Delhi.2. In consultation with the Union of India, Delhi Development Authority had framed a policy as per which persons whose lands were acquired for purposes of planned development of Delhi could apply for allotment of a shop at a reserve price to be determined by DDA.3. Vide Resolution No. 118 dated 22.9.1980 DDA decided that allotment of shops to a person would in the same area/zone where the land has been acquired.4. Somewhere in the month of November-December 2000, DDA issued a public notice inviting applications from the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, ex- service men, physically handicapped, freedom fighter and those who were eligible under the category of land acquired persons. It was notified that applications could be su...

Prof. R.C. Sharma Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ491

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The Writ Petitioner, in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks directions to the first respondent university, its employer (hereafter referred to as JNU) to count his period of service between 03.12.58 and 3.3.1971 rendered with the third respondent (hereafter called Allahabad University), for pension and pensionary benefit purposes. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner joined the Allahabad University, on 3.12.1958 as an ad hoc Assistant Professor of Geography. He continued in that capacity till 22.5.1970, when he was appointed as a direct recruit, pursuant to selection by a properly constituted committee. He was kept on probation. Soon thereafter, JNU advertised for the post of Reader in the International Politics and organization, in its school of International Studies. The Petitioner applied and was offered appointment after due selection. He accepted the offer and joined duties after securing one years 'leave without pay'...

Pradeep Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ243

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In the S.C. Prabhakar and Pradeep Kumar cases the Petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ of prohibition or any other writ, order or direction in that nature restraining the Respondents, and particularly Respondent No.3, Uttariya Railway Mazdoor Union (URMU), from acting on the List of Central Council Members circulated vide Communication dated 24.5.2005; that directions be issued for the enforcement of the Rules for regulation of Association of Non Gazetted Railway Servants framed by Respondent No.1; it has also been prayed that Communication dated 24.5.2005 of the Respondent No.1 be quashed. In the Praveen Kumar case a prayer has been made for the issuance of a writ of prohibition or any other similar and appropriate writ or order calling for the records pertaining to the meeting of the Central Council/Working Committee held on 03/04.06.2005 and for restraining the Respondents from taking any further steps pursuant to the decisions on 03/04.06.2005 as ...

Ms. Neema Tiwari and ors. Vs. Mcd and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006(110)FLR367]

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue Notice. Mr. Shivinder Chopra and Ms. Ruchita accept notice on behalf of respondents and state that the matter can be heard and finally disposed off.2. All the petitioners are claiming the relief of regularization as Primary Teachers. They also seek release of regular pay scales and benefits as per the Rules and Regulations applicable to permanent teachers in the Schools of the Respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi.3. The petitioners claimed to be working in the various schools of the Respondent No.1 (hereafter referred to as 'MCD'). They were engaged as Primary/Nursery/Drawing/Music and PET Teachers on various dates in 2001 and thereafter. It is averred and contended on their behalf that all the petitioners responded to advertisements issued by MCD calling for applications for the posts; they were holding the requisite qualifications. After having successfully participated in the process, they were selected and eventually appointed.4. Learned counsel co...

State Vs. Mohd. Akhtar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006CriLJ2560; 131(2006)DLT234; 2006(88)DRJ627

Manju Goel, J.1. On 29.5.1981 dead body of a young man was found lying in Gali Mandir Wali in front of house No.459, Katra Dhanpat Rai, Azadpur at a distance of 1-1/2 furlong towards east from the police station Adarsh Nagar. The information regarding this dead body lying there was received at the police station at 10.30 p.m. The FIR was registered on the same day on the statement of Sahira w/o Mirajuddin and on the basis of the statement the case was booked under Section 147/148/149/302/322/324 & 34 IPC. Twelve persons were named in the statement. Incidentally except Khachera the rest of the accused are closely related to each other. In the incident apart from one person being killed two others were seriously injured. 12 persons were sent up for trial. Despite the testimony of the complainant Sahira and that of two injured eye-witnesses the trial court acquitted all the 12 vide the impugned judgment dated 10.10.1983. The state has challenged the judgment of acquittal in the present ap...

Colonel Narendar Singh (ic 25828k) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ535

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. By filing this writ petition the petitioner has sought for an order for quashing and setting aside confidential reports of the petitioner for the period June 1990 to May 1991 and May 1993 to September, 1993 as also the proceedings of the Selection Boards held in 2000, 2001 and 2002 for promotion to the rank of Brigadier.2. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It was submitted that this writ petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches as challenge is made to annual confidential reports of the petitioner given for the period June 1990 to May 1991 and May 1993 to September 1993 after a lapse of more than 12 years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. It is also submitted that even the statutory complaint assailing the said confidential reports was filed after a delay of about four years. Whereas the order rejecting the statutory complaint was passed o...