Delhi Court April 2006 Judgments

insp. Prem Chand Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT817

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition filed by an Inspector of Delhi Police challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'CAT'), Delhi dated 15th February, 2005. The petitioner was charged with the following allegations:It is alleged that you Inspector Prem Chand, No. D-I/413 while posted in A.C. Branch was detailed as raid officer on 10-10-97 on complaint of Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Gupta s/o shri Prabhu Dayal Gupta R/o WZ-71-B, Gali No.7, Lajwanti Garden, Delhi. The complainant brought the bribe money to the A.C. Branch, phenolphthalein powder was applied on these currency notes in the presence of panch witness Shri Devender Singh S/o Sh. Sukhir Singh, LDC E-III, Education Department, Old Sectt., Delhi. You, Inspr. Prem Chand, No. D-1/413 organized a raid on Sh. Preet Pal Bansal, Inspector Malaria, CLZ, MCD for demanding Rs. 3000/- as bribe. He got ca...

Girdhari Lal Vs. D.T.C. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT318

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The writ petitioner claimed several reliefs in these proceedings under Article 226, but at the time of hearing, the principal grievances agitated were in respect of the withholding of pension, by the respondent Corporation (hereafter referred to as 'the DTC'), and denial of promotion. Directions were sought to the DTC, in that regard. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Fitter by the DTC in 1956. He was later promoted as Mechanic in 1959 and subsequently promoted as Assistant Foreman in 1967. His services were terminated by recourse to Regulation 9 (b) framed by the DTC by mere issuance of a notice. That provision was challenged, in writ proceedings namely, CW 245/1978. That Regulation was declared void, by a Division Bench of this Court. The judgment setting aside the Regulation was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision reported as DTC Mazdoor Congress v. Union of India : (1991)ILLJ395SC . 3. By judgment and order dated 29.9.1998 this Court allowed the peti...

Neo Sack Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The stay applications are in relation to the duty demand of over Rs. 24 lakhs and penalties.2. The appellant manufacturer has already deposited Rs. 5 lakhs. About the remaining duty demand, the submission of the learned counsel is that about Rs. 12 lakhs relate to the exported goods. It is being pointed out that revenue has made an error in treating the invoices issued to the merchant exporter, in whose account exports were made directly from the factory were different supplies. A perusal of the record shows that the export invoices gave the name of the merchant exporter also. The same correlation is found in the invoices issued to the merchant exporter also. The appellants' explanations, prima facie, has merit.3. In regard to the remaining amount of demand, the submission is that by an error, computer generated duplicate invoices. It is being pointed out that in all particulars, the two sets of invoices tally. The submission of the learned counsel is that buyers in these transacti...

Hindustan Auto House (P) Ltd. Vs. Cst

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants have filed this application for waiver of penalty.The appellants have paid the service tax alongwith interest. Therefore, pre-deposit of penalty is waived for hearing the appeal. The stay petition is allowed....

Hindustan Copper Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC115

1. True to name, the appellant is a leading manufacturer of copper. The said manufacture is from copper concentrate (input). Basically, the process of manufacture is smelting the concentrate in a smelter. During that process of smelting, sulphur dioxide gets released. That di-oxide is further converted by the appellant into sulphuric acid (by-product).Part of sulphuric acid so produced is removed on payment of central excise duty and the remaining is supplied to industrial manufacturers (without payment of duty) under Chapter X procedure. While this is the disposal of the sulphuric acid (by-product), copper produced is smelted into copper cathode (final product) and is cleared on payment of duty.The appellant had taken modvat credit on copper concentrate and was using that credit for the purpose of discharging central excise duty on copper cathode as well as sulphuric acid.2. Under the impugned order, it has been held that Rule 57CC is attracted in regard to supply of sulphuric acid u...

Mangal Wardhini Travels Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ167CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 9,13,625/- and penalties. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the appellant is providing service as tourist operator. The contention of appellant is that they are having six buses and in respect of two buses, they are having stage carriage permits. During search, record of ticket booking for stage carriage were recovered. The contention of appellants is that they are not providing service as tour operator therefore; they are not liable for service tax and confirming the demand, the lower authorities have not excluded the income earned from the stage carriage.2. We find that in the case, the appellants are having both types of permits, stage carriage and tourist permit. This is evident from the record recovered from the premises. In these circumstances, the appellants have a strong case and pre-deposit of service tax is waived.Registry is directed to fix the appeal in the fi...

Ranutrol Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC332

1. This is an application for restoration of the appeal on the ground that the applicant had not received the intimation"of hecring on the fresh address which was supplied to the registry and that though the registry was requested to sent all future communications on the new address it had sent the intimation of the Order of dismissal on the old address. It is also submitted that the Tribunal ought not to dismiss the appeal for default in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rishi Nandan Pandit v. State of Bihar 2. It appears from the record that on 9th May 2005, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was not cmnteqted. Thereafter, the appellant made application being restoration of appeal No. 177 of 2005 which came to be dismissed on 21-12-2005 in the absence of the applicants on the ground that the applicants have not explained the reason for non-appearance before the Tribunal on 9th May, 2005.3. It appears from the record that application for restoration od...

Neha BhasIn Vs. Anand Raj Anand and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT196; 2006(32)PTC779(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The plaintiff (Neha Bhasin), a singer, claims that her voice has been used by the defendants for the three versions1 of the song 'ek look ek look' in the forthcoming hindi feature film 'Aryan ' unbreakable' produced by the defendant No. 2 (Poonam Khubani). What is more, the plaintiff alleges, the defendant No. 2, in connivance with the music director (defendant No. 1-Anand Raaj Anand), has shown herself to be the singer Along with the defendant No. 2. The plaintiff has been shown as a backup vocalist in all the three versions of 'ek look ek look'. The credits for the three versions are apparent from the jacket/inlay card of the audio compact disc of 'Aryan unbreakable' and are as under:3. EK LOOK EK LOOK Remix Version Poonam Khubani & Anand Raaj AnandBackup Vocals : Earl / Neha / Praful / DeveshRemix By : Praful Karlekar 6. EK LOOK EK LOOK Poonam Khubani & Anand Raaj AnandBackup Vocals : Earl D'Souza / Neha Basin 9. EK LOOK EK LOOK Dhol Mix Poonam Khubani & Ana...

The Scotch Whisky Association, Vs. Golden Bottling Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT423; 2006(32)PTC656(Del)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Plaintiffs have filed this suit for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant and those acting under the Defendant from dealing, in any manner, with whisky under the name 'Red Scot' or any other name containing the word 'Scot' or any word similar thereto so that the Defendant cannot pass off its whisky as Scotch whisky. 2. On 22nd April, 2004, summons were issued in the suit and the Defendant was restrained from dealing in any whisky containing the word 'Scot'. Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of the Defendant. Accordingly, by an order dated 10th December, 2004, the Defendant was proceeded against ex parte. 3. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed an affidavit in evidence dated 18th August, 2005. The contents of this affidavit have not been denied by the Defendant and are, thereforee, deemed to be admitted. 4. Plaintiff No. 1 is an association, which is registered as a company in the United Kingdom. Plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 are members of the associa...

Food Corporation of India Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT387

Gita Mittal, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has impugned an order dated 19th April, 2004 issued by the Ministry of Labour of the Government of India making a reference of an industrial dispute to the National Industrial Tribunal in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section 1A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is contended that the Government of India in the order of reference has presumed that the workmen, who had made a grievance and had agitated claims before the authorities, were employees of the petitioner in the preamble of the impugned order while in the schedule thereto, wherein the dispute has been set out setting out the terms of reference, these persons have been referred to as 'contract workers'. The principal ground of challenge on behalf of the petitioner is on the ground that the order dated 19th April, 2004 has completely ignored the objections of the petitioner and by virtue of the manner in which the order has been passed, would...