Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

Cce Vs. Vma Enterprises (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 19/03/2004 which allowed respondent modvat credit.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are respondent availed modvat credit of input on 24/03/2000. The authorities during the checking came to the conclusion that the respondent have availed the modvat credit without filing the declaration and therefore the credit was reversed on 08/04/2000. The authorities later on while scrutinizing the quarterly RT 12 Return filed by the respondent, found that the respondent had availed the modvat credit of the same input on 31^st August, 2000. The authorities issued show cause notice to the respondent for reversal of modvat credit so availed by them, on an allegation that they had re-credited the amount subsequently after the change of modvat/cenvat credit rules and illegally showing that the inputs were received after 01/04/2000. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty. On an appeal, Commissioner (App...

Shri DIn Dayal Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT641; [2006(111)FLR101]; (2007)ILLJ147Del

Manju Goel, J. 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent Delhi Transport Corporation. He was posted as a conductor. On 10.4.1998 he met with an accident at his residence and got burns on his face and eyes. On 25.4.1998 he was certified to have fully recovered. The petitioner thereafter reported for duty. He was asked to appear before the medical board. The medical board declared the petitioner unfit for the post of conductor. The petitioner was then served with the impugned order dated 6.1.1999. By virtue of this order the petitioner was retired prematurely from the service of the respondent Corporation with effect from 17.12.1998 under Clause 10 of DATA (Condition of appointment and service) Regulation, 1952. The petitioner is seeking relief under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995) which is as under:47. Non-discrimination in Government employment,-(1) No establishment shall dispense with, o...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT194; 2006(90)DRJ593

S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This writ petition by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the award dated 08.05.2004, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (District South West, Delhi) (LAC) in relation to three plots of land admeasuring 1 bigha 5 bids was forming part of Khasra Nos. 114-116/32, 114-116/47 and 114-116/48 in village Mohd. Pur Munirka, Delhi. Background facts:2. The background to the filing of the present writ petition may be briefly recounted. On 10.12.2001, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (Act) read with Section 17 hereof for acquiring three plots of land (as mentioned hereinabove) located in Nos. 32, 47 and 48, Sunlight Estate, New Delhi (in the Khasra Nos. mentioned above admeasuring 9 biswas, 8 bids was and 8 bids was respectively) for the purpose of the Bhikaji Cama Place District Centre.3. In respect of plot No. 32, Sunlight Estate, Smt. Krishna Kumari Uppal (respondent No. 5 herein), filed ...

K.D. Mathpal Vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ574

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. This writ petition (Crl.) has been filed by the petitioner for directions to respondents No. 2 & 4 to a register FIR against respondents No. 5 & 6 for the commission of cognizable and non-bailable offence under appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code inter-alia being under Section 338/452 IPC.2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are as follows:The petitioner had purchased a plot of land measuring 150 sq. yds. bearing No. 113-A, New Ashok Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi on 19.08.1986. This purchase was made by him on the basis of General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and other related documents. The construction over this plot was done around the year 1990. The aforesaid property of the petitioner has ground floor and first floor.3. The petitioner has two sons. Respondent No. 5 is his younger son. Respondent No. 6 is the wife of respondent No. 5 and daughter-in-law of the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 retired from Army Service on 1.10....

D.A.M. Prabhu and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT397; 2006(90)DRJ435

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioners, namely, D.A.M. Prabhu and Vijay Kumar Malhotra, have impugned the order dated 11.02.1994 passed by the Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The brief facts are that on 23.01.1988, a complaint was lodged by the Enforcement Inspector with the Station House Officer of Police Station Moti Nagar, New Delhi alleging that Swatantar Bharat Mills had, by declaring and stamping wrong fibre compositions for the cloth, contravened the provisions of the Textile Commissioner's notification dated 23.11.1981 and clause 17 of the Textile (Control) Order, 1986 rendering themselves liable for penal action for violation of the order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 punishable under Section 7 thereof. On 11.02.1988, an FIR was registered on the basis of the said complaint. On 06.05.1988, the chargesheet was filed in court, but there was only one accused, namely, A.K. Rohatgi, who was s...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Renu JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)ACC418; 2008ACJ329

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner, United India Insurance Company, has filed the present petition impugning the order of the Motor Accidents' Tribunal determining the compensation on account of the demise of late Dr. Vinod Sharma. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are wife, daughter and son of the deceased, who were claimants before the Tribunal, while respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are father and mother of the deceased, who were imp leaded before the Tribunal as proforma respondent Nos. 4 and 5.2. The question raised in the present proceedings is in respect of the formula to be applied in respect of the income of the deceased. The deceased was an MBBS Doctor and had a Diploma in Ophthalmic Medicine and Surgery. At the time of death, the deceased was of 46 years of age. The annual income of the deceased was found to be Rs. 1,12,992/-.3. While taking into consideration the future prospects of increase of income of the deceased, the multiplier of 3 was applied. It is this aspect which is sought to b...

A.K. Arora and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ571

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. These are two bail applications filed by the real brothers - A.K. Arora and J.K. Arora. They seek anticipatory bail in case registered against them vide FIR No. 58/2003 dated 7.4.2003 under Section 403/409/415/420/467/468/471/503/506/120-B/34 IPC, Police Station Naraina. This FIR was registered on the complaint of Shri S.N. Virmani, one of the partners of M/s. Jai Mata Di Enterprises, Mr. Lalit Malhotra, Mr. Arvind Bhasin and Mr. Sanjeev Datta were the other partners of the firm M/s. Jai Mata Di Enterprises.2. The petitioners at the relevant time were Joint Managing Director and Managing Director in M/s.Som Distilleries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'SDL') and M/s. Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'SDBL'). The Companies M/s. SDL and M/s. SDBL were dealing in the business of manufacturing and sale of country-made liquor and also Indian : Made Foreign Liquor. They had their business dealings with M/s. Rash Enterprises since 1997. At th...

S.M. JaIn Modern Senior Secondary School Vs. Ram Dulari Devi (Since De ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ589

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.Allowed subject to just exceptions.1. The petitioner is a tenant in the suit property. An eviction petition was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') on account of non-payment of rent The petitioner was found in default and an order was passed under Section 15(1) of the said Act giving time of 30 days to the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent in order to avail of the statutory benefits under Section 14(2) of the said Act. The deficient rent was not deposited with the result that an eviction order was passed on 06.10.2005. However, considering that the petitioner was running a school in the suit property, time was given up to March, 2006 to vacate the property.2. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal before the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Tribunal'), which has be...

Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(2)SLJ315CAT

1. Applicant, by virtue of this O.A., has impugned respondents' order dated 29.01.2004 whereby his services have been dispensed with. An order passed in appeal on 8.11.2004 is also being assailed.2. A brief factual matrix transpires that the applicant, who had been working elsewhere, on resignation, in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the respondents calling applicants for the post of TGT (S.St.), applied for the same. On being selected, applicant was offered appointment with the terms and conditions contained in the Memorandum dated 28.8.2003, which, inter alia, incorporates appointment of temporary post on a probation for a period of two years, which is extendable and the confirmation would be dependent on availability of permanent vacancies. A stipulation in the order confers a right to the respondents to terminate the services by giving one month's notice on either side or in lieu of a sum equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of notice. The other conditions a...

Wipro Limited Vs. Beckman Coulter International S.A.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR118(Delhi); 2006(2)CTLJ57(Del); 131(2006)DLT681

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. In this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), the petitioner is seeking directions and/or orders restraining the respondent from employing any person who is, or has been employed with the petitioner, during the pendency of arbitral proceedings. This prayer emanates from the Canvassing Representative Agreement said to have been entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent in January, 2002. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is that of a distributor and principal and has subsisted for almost 17 years which has been renewed from time to time. The last of the documents delineating the relationship between the parties is said to be the Canvassing Representative Agreement entered into in January, 2002. This agreement is said to have taken effect on 01.01.2002 and was to operate till 31.12.2002. It is alleged by the petitioner that subsequently, by v...