Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Shri R.B. Chauhan Vs. Food Corporation of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ654

ORDERWhereas the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Punjab Region, Chandigarh is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so:- Now, thereforee, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause(2) of Regulation 22 of the Food Corporation of India, Staff Regulations, 1971, the Sr. Regional Manager hereby retired Shri R.B. Chauhan, Asstt. Grade-I(Depot) with immediate effect, he having already attained the age of 50/55 years, by giving him 90 days pay in lieu of the notice after deduction of Income Tax dues. Shri R.B. Chauhan, Assistant Grade-I(Depot) is being paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for a period of three months calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing then immediately before his retirement. An account payee cheque bearing No. 725121 dated 27-1288 for a sum of Rs.6530-50 P (Rs. Six thousand five hundred thirty and fifty paise drawn on SBI in favor of Shri R.B. Chauhan is accordingly enclosed.15. The relevant pro...

Kalu Ram Ahuja and anr. Vs. D.D.A. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT325

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.2005.2. 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. The petitioner had participated in a bid for auction of land held by the DDA and he has alleged that his bid was highest and he paid 25% of the bid amount. However, the bid was not confirmed by the competent authority (The Vice-chairman of DDA) who has communicated his decision to the petitioner by letter dated 25.8.1988.5. It is alleged in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that no reason at all was communicated to the petitioner as to why the auction has been cancelled, and subsequent enquiries made by the petitioner revealed that Mr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Ex-Municipal Councilor had written a letter to the Vice-Chairman of the DDA informing him...

Kohinoor Rubber Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT412; 2006(88)DRJ459

ORDER SHEET15.3.82Shri H.S. Mac, Counsel for the UOI.Shri Shiv Khorana, Counsel for the Contractor.UoI have filed an application dt. 15-3-82, wherein they stated that they have decided to make a separate reference in respect of their counter claim and that, consequently, I may not determine their counter claim in this case. Contractor has no objection for the withdrawal of the counter claim by the UOI from the present reference. Accordingly, I decided to exclude from the present reference the counter claim filed by the Union of India in the present case. Heard the parties on the claim filed by the contractor. The case is closed for making the award.Let the contractor file the requisite stamp paper.Sd/-P.C. Rao,Sole Arbitrator.4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent claim filed by the respondent on 09.07.1982 before another arbitrator would be barred by the principles of Order 2 Rule 2, CPC. It is his case that the counter-claim was withdraw...

Smt. Bimla Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007ACJ1652; AIR2006Delhi247; 129(2006)DLT318

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM(M) 329/2005 is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Ex.No. 108/2004 whereby the learned Tribunal has issued a recovery certificate against the legal representative of judgment debtor for realization of the decretal amount. 2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are as follows:.2. The facts giving rise to the present application are that claim petition was filed by Smt. Ram Pyari Under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'), seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest against respondents driver, owner and insurer of the bus No. DL-1P-2127, jointly and severally. It was the case of the claimant that due to the rash and negligent driving of the said bus by respondent No. 1, she sustained grievous injuries. The claim petition was decided vide impugned award thereby granting total compensation of ...

Ge Countrywide Consumer Financial Services Limited Vs. Surjit Singh Bh ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT393; 2006(89)DRJ73

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. Although this petition is styled as a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), in fact, it is an application under Section 11(6) thereof. This petition has come to this Court by way of transfer consequent upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 618 : 2005(3) A. LR 285 . Initially when this matter had come up before the district court, notice of the petition had been issued to the respondents on 05.10.2005. In the order sheet of 23.11.2005, which was the returnable date, it is recorded that the respondents had refused the process and were thus found to have been served. By said order dated 23.11.2005, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were, thereforee, proceeded with ex parte. This petition was continuing before the district court up to 02.03.2006 when the same was transferred to this Court as indicated above. 2. Despite the...

Shri Ram Krishan Gupta Vs. Smt. Rani Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi322; 2006(89)DRJ93

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By an order dated 18.01.2005, this Court had recorded that the entire case of the parties is based upon the will dated 13.11.1984 executed by Late Shri Murari Lal Gupta. It is further recorded in the said order that as the will has been admitted by all the parties, it should be considered whether any triable issues arise in this suit or the suit can be taken up for disposal straightway on the basis of the admitted will. The counsel for the parties have been heard on this aspect of the matter and it transpires that the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant No.3 has a different perspective and interpretation of the said will of Late Shri Murari Lal Gupta. The other parties are agreed upon their interpretation which is different from the meaning that is sought to be imputed by the defendant No.3. Accordingly, the only issue that arises for consideration is ?' what would be the shares of the parties in terms of the admitted will of Late Shri Murari Lal Gupta ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Japan Radio Company Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]286ITR682(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. Salaries paid outside India by the respondent-assessed to expatriate employees working in India were chargeable to tax in India. A deduction of tax at source in terms of Section 192 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was also essential on such payments. The respondent did not deduct the tax at source on the salaries paid to the expatriate employees outside India and thereby committed a default of its obligation under Section 192 of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(C) of the Act were initiated against the assessed which culminated in the levy of penalties for different financial years 1989-90 to 1997-98. These orders, when challenged before the CIT (Appeals), were upheld. In a further appeal before the Tribunal, the respondent-assessed contended that it had a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273(b) of the Act for not making the deductions. The Tribunal has accepted that contention and deleted the penalties holding that there indeed was a reasonable cau...

Bimla Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)ACC321

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM(M) 329/2005 is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Ex. No. 108/2004 whereby the learned Tribunal has issued a recovery certificate against the legal representative of judgment debtor for realization of the decrial amount.2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the learned Judge, Motor Accident g Claims Tribunal are as follows:.2. The facts giving rise to the present application are that claim petition was filed by Smt. Ram Pyari under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'), seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest against respondents driver, owner and insurer of the bus No. DL-1P-2127, jointly and severally. It was the case of the claimant that due to the rash and negligent driving of the said bus by respondent No. 1, .he sustained grievous injuries. The claim petition was decided vide impugned award thereby granting total compensation o...

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In all these three appeals the orders earlier made by the Tribunal were set aside by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the matters were remanded for a fresh adjudication keeping in view the legal position indicated in the judgement and order rendered by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5412/99 (with Civil Appeal Nos.5836/99 and 5209/01).2. The controversy centers around the dispute whether benefit of the notification No. 281/86 dated 24.04.86 was available to the parts of locomotive and rolling stock, which were manufactured by the appellant in its growth shop unit (Appeal No. E/3802/90). There is no dispute over the fact that even this growth shop unit is owned by the appellant in the two other appeals.2.1 Appeal No. 3745/89 is on the question of rejection of the request to issue licence in respect of the spare parts manufactured in the growth shop which were intended for use of locomotive/rolling stock which according to the appellant, was machinery installed inside ...

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Delta Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. Revenue filed this application for stay of operation of the impugned order.2. Respondents made import of as part of Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CHC). Commissioner in the impugned order held that anti-dumping duty was leviable in respect of CFC with Choke or without Choke. The goods in question which are imported by the respondent are only one part of CFC and it cannot be said to be a CFC with or without choke. In view of this finding, we find no merit in this application. The same is dismissed....