Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ349

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 6th November, 2003 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Principal Bench), Delhi dismissing the claim application of the appellant. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant booked a wagon No. SR 35545 containing furnace oil with the railways against Railway Receipt No. 846183 dated 28th September, 1989 from Bajwa for transportation to Shakurbasti (SSB). The wagon contained 22,040 litres of Furnace Oil. At destination station, it was, however, discovered that the said wagon was totally empty. On a joint verification carried out by the concerned railway staff and the officials of appellant, it was noticed that the top and bottom seals of the wagon were missing. The wagon was also found even without internal valve rod. The appellant served a claim notice on the railways for an amount of Rs. 67,365/- being value of the contents of wagon. However, the respondent rejected its claim necessitating filing of a claim application b...

N.P.C.C. Vs. Rajdhani Builders

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR219(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The respondent-contractor was awarded the construction work at the PETS complex, Faridabad, Haryana by the petitioner in pursuance of the agreement dated 26.04.1991. The stipulated date of completion of work was 17.06.1992, but the work was actually completed on 21.08.1993 with the delay of about one year and two months. The terms and conditions agreed to between the parties contained arbitration clause and since disputes arose between the parties, the matter was referred to arbitration. The earlier arbitrator passed away and subsequently Mr.M.M.Kapoor was appointed as the sole arbitrator who made and published his award dated 30.04.2001. The petitioner aggrieved by the same has filed the present objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the 'said Act') 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the inception of the hearing drew the attention of this Court to the judgment in Oil and Natural Gas Corporat...

Vikas Gupta Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT126

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The Petitioner in these proceedings claims appropriate directions to the Respondents to ensure that he is permitted to report to duties in the Phool Chand Vaish Sr. Secondary School (hereafter 'the Respondent school').2. The facts so far as they are not in dispute are that the Petitioner was appointed as Peon in the Respondent school on 1.1.1990; his services were regularized on 19.12.1990.3. The society managing the school, by Resolution dated 8.5.2003 decided that the school will run in single shift instead of existing double shifts. This was informed by the Education Officer on 19.6.2003 and an intimation was also given that the Petitioner would be rendered surplus. Apparently this proposal had the approval of the Directorate; the Petitioner was accordingly relieved from services on 19.7.2003. He applied to the Department of Education, reporting for duties on 8.8.2003.4. Interestingly the Education Officer on 11.9.2003 informed the school that in super-session...

Airport Authority of India Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC463

1. The dispute in this appeal of M/s Airport Authority of India, Mumbai is the correct classification of aerobridges imported by it at Mumbai in 1997. The Airport Authority claimed their classification under Chapter Heading 8428 of Customs Tariff. The Customs authorities disagreed and classified the item under heading 7308. Thus, the subject matter of this appeal is as to which of these classifications is correct.Structures (excluding prefabricated buildings of heading No. 94.06) and parts of structures (for example, bridges and bridge-Section, lock gates, towers, lattice masts, roofs roofing frameworks, doors and windows and their frames and thresholds pillars and columns), of iron or steel, plates, rods, angles, shapes, sections, tubes and the like prepared for use in structures of iron or steel.Other lifting, handling, loading Or unloading machinery (for example, lifts, escalators, conveyors, teleferics 3. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is that aerobridge functions like ...

Tejwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicant filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Tejwant Singh, proprietor of M/s. Unicorn Industries made export of 26 consignments of cordless microphones. The samples were taken and the goods were allowed to be exported on provisional basis thereafter the final assessments were made. The exporter declared the value of the cordless microphones @ US $ 39.85 per piece. Subsequently investigation was conducted and information was obtained from the US Customs where the cordless microphones exported by M/s. Unicorn Industries were cleared or transshipped to Dubai and the importer declared the price @ US $ 1.38. On the basis of value declared by the applicant, the DGFT under the DEPB Scheme issued 9 import licences to M/s. Unicorn Industries and M/s Unicorn Industries subsequently sold these licences to different persons who made import of goods without payment of duty under these licences. On receipt of i...

Ramesh Chandra S/O Lt. Shyam Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicants have filed this Original Application for a direction to the respondents to re-fix the first financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short ACPS') in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- (in lieu of the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- already granted), with effect from the respective dates on completion of 12 years of service by them and with consequential benefits arising therefrom.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants entered into government service as Punch Card Operators in the then Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, New Delhi, during 1989.Consequent upon rationalization of Electronic Data Processing Posts, the applicants were designated as Data Entry Operator (Grade `A'). Upon revision of pay scales on the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the applicants were initially placed in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-, but subsequently reduced to normal replacement scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-. Thereupon, ...

Kanchan Kapoor and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the respondents on MA No. 865/2006 for interim relief prayed for.2. Arguments are restrained only to dispose of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the applicants seeking a stay of order passed by Senior Administrative Officer for Station Director, All India Radio, New Delhi as well as and an interim order directing the respondents to maintain status quo as regards the services of the applicants in All India Radio, till the final disposal of the Original Application.3. The applicants were appointed as Casual Production Assistants/Artists on contract basis between 1987 and 1990 by All India Radio. They have been seeking regularization of their services as Production Assistants, later re-designated as Transmission Executives (TREX for short) in All India Radio. In compliance of order dated 18.09.1992 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 822/1991, All India Radio prepared and implemented a Scheme for Regularization of Casual Production a...

Jamal Ajmal Saidi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT470; 2006(90)DRJ120

ORDER FOR IMPOUNDING OF PASSPORTS UNDER SECTION 37 OF FEMA, 1999 READ WITH SECTION 131(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961Consequent to the Volcker Committee Report on Oil-For-Food Programme of the United Nations in Iraq, investigations have been initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999. During the course of investigation, passports of the following persons were summoned by the Directorate, as detailed below, for the purposes of investigation:----------------------------------------------------------------------------SL.No. PASSPORT No. NAME OF THE HOLDER----------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Z 1378210 and cancelled Shri Suman Sehgal passport No. B 50798662. Z 1378677 Shri Zamil Ajmal Saidi3. E 1927688 Shri Vijay Dhar4. Z 1175514 Shri Mohammad Asad Khan5. D 1106465 and cancelled Kanwar Jagat Singh passport No. B 5151256----------------------------------------------------------...

Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asianet Satellite Communications

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ193

Vikramajit Sen, J.W.P.(C) 7445/20061. Mindful of the fact that these proceedings do not partake of an appellate nature the facts require to be stated in brevity. Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be justified if the impugned Orders are shown to suffer from perversity, or have come to existence by an infraction of any of the principles of natural justice, or is unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. 2. The parties had entered into an Agreement in the year 2003 on a monthly subscription fee of Rs. 83.40 lacs and a subscriber base of 2.78 lacs. Disputes arose in respect of that contract which were eventually came before the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). Petition No. 39(C) of 2004 was decided by detailed Orders dated 3.3.2006. TDSAT declined to interfere in the contractual terms up to 31.12.2003. For subsequent periods it was found that no contract had been executed; that Asianet Satellite Communications Pvt. Ltd.(ASIANET) kept ins...

P.K. Bajaj Vs. Reminiscent India Television Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR361(Delhi)

Manju Goel, J.1. This application captioned as under Section 5 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeks dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs. The prayer is made on the following premises: There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff P.K. Bajaj and the defendant. In fact there was some transaction between the defendant and one Aman Bajaj as proprietor of Bajaj Studios and Apsons. As per the agreement with Aman Bajaj the jurisdiction would lie in Mumbai. Further there is an arbitration clause in the agreements between the defendant and Aman Bajaj, Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act bars the jurisdiction of this Court in intervening in any matter in dispute and, thereforee, the suit is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The application is opposed on the ground that the plaintiff is the proprietor of Bajaj Studios and Apsons and that any agreement between the defendant an...