Delhi Court June 2006 Judgments

Shri J.K. Sethi S/O Shri Late M.R. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. MA No. 43/2004 seeking joining together in one OA under Rule 4(5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1985 is allowed.2. In this second round of litigation, two applicants challenge validity of order dated 26.06.2003 rejecting their representation for revision of seniority list. They also seek direction to Respondent No.1 to assign them seniority in accordance with rules particularly rule/para 302 of IREM Vol.I, placing them senior to those who had been selected under intermediate apprentice quota with consequential benefits.3. The facts which are required to be noticed are that applicants were initially appointed as Junior Draftsmen in the grade of Rs. 4,000-6,000/- in the Electrical Branch, Northern Railway HQrs. Office.The next higher post for which they were eligible for promotion is Junior Engineer-II in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-. As per Recruitment Rules, the said post is to be filled by following manner: 4. The designation of Assistant Draftsmen and Junior Draftsmen is one an...

Nepal Chand @ Doctor Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT506; 2006(90)DRJ147

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there was an alleged recovery of 1.5 kilograms in total in this case. 500 grams are said to have been recovered from the person of the petitioner and a further one kilogram is said to have been recovered from his house. According to the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, the percentage content of the diacetylmorphine in the 500 grams of substance recovered from the petitioner was 4.1 %, which, if converted in terms of actual weight, would amount to 20.5 grams of diacetylmorphine. Insofar as the sample taken from the recovery of 1 kilogram of substance from the house is concerned, the FSL Report indicates a percentage content of 5.4% of diacetylmorphine. This, if translated into weight, comes to 54 grams. thereforee, by actual weight, the total content of heroin allegedly recovered from the petitioner comes to 74.5 grams. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the decision in th...

Mahesh Pal Singh Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT463; 2006(90)DRJ60

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.08.2002. The facts as alleged by the prosecution are that on 20.07.2002 on the basis of a secret information, the petitioner alongw.ith co-accused Manoj Raj Pal Singh was apprehended and, on search, the petitioner was found to be in possession of 500 grams of a substance, described as light cream powder, which was kept in a plastic polypack. The said substance was suspected to be heroin. Samples of the recovered substance were taken and were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of NCT of Delhi for Chemical analysis. By a report dated 25.09.2002, the Forensic Science Laboratory indicated that on Chemical examination, the sample tested positive for the presence of diacetylmorphine. The sample received by the Forensic Science Laboratory was described as off white coloured powder stated to be smack weighing 5.39 grams (with polythene). During trial, on the directions of the trial court, the investigating...

Oswal Papere and Allied Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The first appellant M/s. Oswal Paper & Allied Indus, imported Second Hand Paper Machine in 1996 under EPCG Scheme. Importers of capital goods are under obligation to export finished products. However, the project failed and the appellant was neither able to set up the manufacturing plant fully, nor produce and export any goods.2. In the above said circumstances, Customs authorities proceeded to confiscate the imported machinery and impose penalty on the first appellant and second appellant (the Managing Director of the first appellant). The reason for confiscation is that goods did not meet the export condition and for that reason are liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. The present appeals are directed against that order.3. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants is that, in terms of exemption Notification No. 111/95-Cus dt. 3.6.95, under which the import was earned out, he only requirement, in the event of failure to carry out export, i...

Mccann Erickson (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The stay application is in relation to Service Tax demand on the appellant as an Advertising Agency.2. During the hearing of the case ld. Consultant took us through the relevant records to show that the appellant was discharging duty liability on the gross amount received by it from its clients. It is the Ld. Consultant's submission that under Section 67(d) gross amount charged by an advertising agency from the client for services in relation to advertisement is the measure, it is her contention that the discount granted by the media to the advertising agency is of no concern for valuation.3. We have perused the records and heard ld. DR also. Prima facie the valuation adopted by the appellant for the purpose of payment of service tax is in terms of the definition of value contained in Section 4. Stay application is allowed and recovery is stayed till the disposal of the appeal....

Kanoria Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This Rectification of Mistake application is directed against the Final Order No. 311/2006-SM(BR), dated 8th February, 2006 [2006 (3) S.T.R. 542 (T)]. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that there is an error of imposition of interest on the appellant in this case and he wants the Tribunal to rectify the same.2. Considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. I find that the appellant has deposited the service tax on 3rd February, 2004 and filed the return on 12th February, 2004. By retrospective amendment in Finance Act of 2003, Section 71A was brought in which reads as under: 71A. Filing of return by certain customers - Notwithstanding any thing contained in the provisions of Sections 69 and 70, the provisions thereof shall not apply to a person referred to in the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 68 for the filing of return in respect of service tax for the respective period and service specified therein and such person shall f...

Dr. Daya Ram Haldwani Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. By virtue of this OA an order passed on 5.1.2005 is being assailed, where the respondents on accord of reasonable opportunity of show cause notice to applicant maintained their earlier corrigendum, whereby his effective date of promotion as Associate Professor was altered from 22.2.2000 to 25.2.2001.3. A brief factual matrix suggests that on such a corrigendum OA-2738/2002 filed by applicant was disposed of on 10.12.2003 by the Tribunal, holding that if civil consequences ensue upon a government servant prior opportunity to show cause was mandated. The corrigendum having been set aside regarding recovery, it had directed that in case applicant prefers a representation, respondents would consider the same. As a result thereof, recovery, effected from applicant, i.e., pay and allowances of the higher post drawn from 22.2.2000 till corrigendum was issued, was refunded back to him.4. Learned Counsel appearing for applicant states that admittedly under the rules, as a relaxation, it is ...

Shri G.P. Sinha Son of Late Sh. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. As this OA is restricted to the adverse remarks communicated to applicant in his ACR for the period 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998, against which a representation preferred was also turned down in 2001 and also a memorial in 2004.3. Learned Counsel of applicant at the outset states that it is incumbent upon the reporting officer in case of recording adverse remarks against a government servant to accord him an opportunity to improve by way of written communication which includes advisory memos, warnings, explanations etc. in absence of which there would not be any objectivity in writing ACR and it would amount to deprivation of an opportunity to the concerned and such remarks cannot be countenanced in law.Sukhdeo v. Commr. Amravati Division (1996) SCC (L&S) 1141, has been relied upon, where the following observations have been made: 5. In view of the above remarks made by the officer, the conclusion reached is obviously incorrect and it is not in public interest. A man does not become p...

Sunil Kumar S/O Randheer Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Challenge is made to an order dated 28.5.2004 terminating applicant's service invoking Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, as well as orders dated 11.10.2004 and 10.2.2005 whereby his appeal as also revision were dismissed maintaining the aforesaid termination order.2. The necessary facts which require to be noticed are that: applicant was selected as Constable in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2002, as an OBC candidate availing age relaxation. After completing the required training etc., he was posted with 5th Bn DAP.However, his services were abruptly terminated vide order dated 28.5.2004 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, without issuing any show cause notice. The representation made to the Commissioner of Police did not yield any fruitful result. Thereafter, he submitted an appeal before the Commissioner, which was rejected vide communication dated 11.10.2004. The revision petition preferred before the Lieutenant Gov...

Harendra Upadhyay S/O Late Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. By virtue of this OA, an order of penalty dated 27.10.2003 and appellate order affirming the major punishment, are being assailed.3. Applicant - a Wireman - was proceeded against a major penalty on the inquiry report where he was exonerated. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the finding and even taking a final view in the matter proposed the punishment. On an appeal, a major punishment imposed when confirmed gives right to the present OA.4. Though several contentions are taken by the learned Counsel for applicant but at the outset it is stated that while disagreeing, the disciplinary authority has taken final stock of the matter by proposing punishment, which shows its pre-determination mind in passing the order, which cannot be countenanced in the wake of decision of the Apex Court in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharasthra and Anr. JT 1999 (6) SC 62.5. Respondents learned Counsel vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that there is no infirmity in the procedure l...