Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Cce Vs. Bhawani Shanakar Catings Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These stay applications have been filed by the Revenue for staying the operation of the order of Commissioner (Appeals). It was argued for the Revenue that M/s Tata Steels Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh are a registered dealer and have a stock yard at Mandi Gobindgarh. M/s Adhunik Steels Pvt Ltd have been appointed as consignment agent by M/s Tata Steels Ltd, Mandi Gobindgarh. M/s Tata Steels Ltd are dealing with various items of iron and steel like Tandish Jam, Pooled Iron, Bloom Butt Clear, Hot Strip Mill, HSM Coil Box Co, Rejected scrap ingots etc.2. On the basis of an information that M/s TISCO, Mandi Gobindgarh are issuing invoices but the goods are not being transported under such invoices and on the basis of such invoices, the purchaser is taking CEVAT credit, investigation was carried out. On investigation, it was found that in a number of invoices, the vehicles numbers shown for transport of the goods cleared under the invoices were the registration number of Scooters, Motor Cycle...

Narmada Sugars Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals have been filed against the order of the Commisioner imposing penalty of Rs. One lac on the company and Rs. One lac on the Managing Director of the company. The present applicants seek waiver of pre-deposit of the redemption fine of Rs. One lac for the goods confiscated described by the applicants in the prayer clause as 4868 quintals of 'khandsari' (though in the impugned order the goods confiscated are sugar weighing 4868 quintals), and waiver of penalty of Rs. One lacs.2. At the outset, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants stated that the first prayer regarding waiver of pre-deposit of redemption fine of Rs, One lac is not pressed. He confined his contentions only to the prayer for waiver of penalty amount of Rs. One lac.3. According to the revenue, on the basis of an intelligence report received to the effect that applicant company was evading the Central Excise duty by mis-declaring the goods manufactured in its factory as 'khandsari sugar' falling un...

Shri Raghubir Singh S/O Shri Sheo Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. By virtue of the present OA, the applicant, who was working as Registrar (Outlying Benches) and presently on deputation as Registrar to Ravi & Beas Waters Tribunal, Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi, has sought disposal of his representation dated 20.4.2006 wherein apart from correcting the date of his promotion as Registrar w.e.f.22.2.2000, which has been shown in the seniority list issued on 17.2.2005 as 22.2.2002, he has claimed by virtue of having been worked on an equivalent post of Joint Registrar, i.e., in the rank of CSO w.e.f. 1.7.1982. Counting of the seniority in the grade in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in SI Rooplal and Ors. v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Ors. wherein it has been held that any rule, which takes of the seniority in the equivalent grade, is void abinitio.3. Learned counsel would also contend that being apprehensive of an adverse action to the detriment of the applicant, he made his request/representation on 20....

Shri L.R. Meena S/O Late Shri G.L. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Two Applicants in this OA challenge communication dated 21.04.2003 rejecting their representation requesting consideration for promotion to the next higher post of Superintendent. They also seek extension of benefit of order dated 10.12.1998 in OA No. 386 of 1997 P.K.G. Kurup and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. with connected matters of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal. Applicants also seek direction to Respondents to consider them for promotion to the aforementioned post 'by counting the ad hoc service as regular' with consequential benefits and costs.2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant No. 1 was initially appointed as UDC on 13.08.1987, promoted as Tax Assistant in August, 1991 and as an Inspector vide order dated 31.03.1992 joined w.e.f. 01.05.1992. Applicant No. 2 was appointed as LDC on 11.10.1982, promoted as UDC on 23.4.1987, Tax Assistant in August 1991 and as an Inspector vide order dated 31.03.1992, joined on 10.04.1992. The said promotion as Inspecto...

Shri Mahesh Yadav S/O Deceased Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA legal heirs of the deceased government servant has sought compassionate appointment. Applicant's father while serving in Government died on 27.10.1999. By an order dated 31.5.2002 on an application for compassionate appointment the claim was turned down on the ground that the family received around Rs. 2,46,000/- as terminal benefits and getting a family pension of Rs. 2135/- per month and owns a house, worth rupees five lacs. It is also observed that for non-availability of sufficient number of vacancies within 5% quota it is not possible to give any employment assistance to the family.2. Shri V.P.S. Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for applicant contended that vide OM dated 5.5.2003 the earlier limit laid down of ceiling of 5% quota has been done away with on substitution and in deserving cases one more opportunity is to be accorded for consideration for compassionate appointment. As applicant's case was turned down in 2002 and after decision of the Governmen...

Surinder Kumar Boveja Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Del)173; 2006(89)DRJ240; [2006]287ITR52(Delhi)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The assessed in this case was assessed to wealth tax by the Wealth Tax Officer (herein after referred as the `WTO'). The assessed was holder of a ticket of Delhi Stock Exchange. The WTO valued the tickets at Rs. 25 lakhs for the year 1991-92 and Rs. 40 lakhs for the year 1992-93. The assessed preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax and vide an order dated 28.3.2000, the appeal was partly allowed. WTO was directed to adopt valuation of Rs. 15 lakhs for the assessment year 1991-92 and Rs. 20 lakhs for the assessment year 1992-93. The assessed felt contended with the relief granted and did not prefer an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax. Revenue, however, preferred an appeal against the order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the appeal was disposed of vide order dated 23.9.2004 The Appellate Tribunal while rejecting the appeal of the Revenue observed that the order of CIT regarding valuation of the ticket wa...

Akshay Kapur and ors. Vs. Rishav Kapur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ790

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Plaintiffs have filed a suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that the Report of the Valuation of Kapur Family Group as at 31st March, 2002 (circulated in January, 2003) is invalid and/or void. The Plaintiffs have also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from taking any steps pursuant to the impugned report. Quite a few applications have been filed in the suit (by both sides) and by this order, I propose of decide those applications, the main one being for continuing the ex parte ad interim injunction granted on 13th January, 2003.2. The family tree of the Kapur family is of some relevance. Janki Das Kapur had three sons, namely, B.D. Kapur, Jai Dev Kapur and Jagdish Kapur. 3. B.D. Kapur had three sons, namely, Arun Kapur, Vikram Kapur and Rajiv Kapur.4. The Plaintiffs are Arun Kapur and his two sons Akshay and Ashwat. The Defendants are his two brothers Vikram Kapur, Rajiv Kapur and their children; Jai Dev Kapur (his...

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Durjan Mehto

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT282; 2008(1)SLJ117(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The present writ petition challenges the order dated 6-7-04 passed by the CAT. The core issue arising in the present petition is the applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors., : AIR1995SC94 where on the issue of social status certificate and cancellation of appointment of a Government employee the following guidelines were laid down:1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the officer, Taluk or Mandal level.2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non- gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribes, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, th...

Desh Raj Vs. Delhi Jal Board

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT183; 2006(89)DRJ330; 2007(2)SLJ508(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue Rule. In these writ proceedings, common question of facts of law arise for consideration. In W.P.(C) 15935/2004, the petitioner has raised an additional issue which would be considered later during the course of the judgment. With consent of learned Counsel for parties, the above writ petitions were heard finally, today.2. All the petitioners in these cases were appointed to various posts such as Pump Drivers/Assistant Pump Drivers/Fitters/Sewer Cleaning Machine Driver etc. They were initially appointed by the erstwhile Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Board which was under the statutory and administrative control of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Subsequently, with enactment of the Delhi Water Board Act, 1998, a Board by the name of Delhi Jal Board (DJB) was created. The petitioners' services were transferred to the Board which is the common respondent in all these proceedings.3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they were all recru...

Engineering Development Corp. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2006)BC455; 130(2006)DLT645

Manju Goel, J.1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking an order of restraint against the respondent namely, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, from invoking the bank guarantee No. 40630 dated 22.7.2005. The facts briefly stated in the petition are as under:The petitioner, M/s. Engineering Development Corporation, is a class-I contractor who obtained a work order for construction of Outfall drain for disposal of storm water/waste water of Devli village in south zone to be constructed at an estimated cost of Rs. 3,44,60,000/-. The work was to start on 9.10.2005 and was to be completed within six months thereof, i.e., by 8.4.2006. The petitioner was required to give a performance guarantee for a sum of Rs. 7,80,000/- and accordingly the petitioner submitted the unconditional and irrevocable bank guarantee No. BG-40630 dated 22.7.2005 valid for a year. The petitioner made its preparation to start the work but was physically prevented by the res...