Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

Santosh Kumar Garg Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Customs, Excise an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT91; 2008[11]STR417

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. These three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed challenging the legality of an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appeal Tribunal dated 12.4.2006 whereby the Tribunal has directed pre deposit of a sum of rupees two crores by each one of the petitioners as a precondition for hearing the appeals against the order of Commissioner, Central Excise dated 28th October, 2005. Vide this order the Commissioner had imposed a penalty of Rs. 21 crores on petitioner Devi Das Garg, Rs. 25 crores on petitioner Rakesh Kumar Garg and Rs. 21 crores on petitioner Santosh Kumar Garg under Rules 209 and 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1994 and Rules 25 and 26 Central Excise(2) Rules, 2001 and Central Excise Rules 2002. Apart from imposing penalties on these petitioners by this order, the Commissioner had also raised a demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs.33, 20,03,239/- against M/s Amar Jyoti Packers and imposed an equivale...

Andaleeb Sehgal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT748

T.S. Thakur, J.1. Admit.2. Three precise questions fall for consideration in this writ petition. These are:(i) Is the Constitution of a fact finding inquiry commission/authority legally permissible de-hors the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952?(ii) Should resort to Section 11 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, necessarily result in the application of Sections 8B and 8C of the said Act to the proceedings before the Inquiry Authority/Commission?(iii) Is the right to demand copies of the documents and affidavits, the right to be represented by a legal practitioner and the right to cross- examine the witnesses examined by the Commission available to a noticee independent of Section 8B and 8C of the Act aforementioned before an Inquiry Authority / Commission established otherwise than under the provisions of the said Act3. Having heard Mr.Sawhney, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General, we are of the opinion that th...

Mrs. Chitra Srivastava Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT79; [2006(110)FLR1171]; (2007)ILLJ23Del

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this Review Petition, applicant-petitioner Mrs. Chitra Srivastava seeks review of the judgment and order dated 31.08.2004 by which W.P.(C) No. 7252/2003 was dismissed holding that there was an efficacious alternate remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the dispute was such that the petitioner be relegated to the same. The impugned order of transfer was stayed for a period of two months to enable the petitioner to avail of the legal remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. Notice in the Review Petition had been issued on 20.09.2004 and the interim protection granted vide judgment dated 31.08.2004 was directed to continue. 2. Petitioner, who is employed with respondent No. 3 Hamdard Wakf Laboratories as Secretary to the Head, Human Resource Development at the Head Office, had challenged in the writ petition order transferring her to Bhopal. Petitioner, who was working at the Head Office in Delhi, contended that her transfer hundreds of miles away, wa...

Dr. Anand Prakash Vs. Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Dept. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Del)125; 131(2006)DLT36; [2006]287ITR395(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner assails the validity of two separate but similar orders both dated 29th November, 1994 passed by the Appropriate Authority under Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for compulsory purchase of property owned by late Dr. Anand Prakash, comprising two commercial flats bearing No. 512 and 512-A, Hemkunt Tower, New Delhi. The petition also makes a claim for payment of damages for the alleged illegal, arbitrary and mala fide withholding of permission prayed for by the petitioner for the transfer of the said property.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition may be summarised as under:3. Late Dr. Anand Prakash was the owner of Flat Nos. 512 and 512-A, Hemkunt Tower, New Delhi. The said flats were initially leased out to a Government of India undertaking but after the tenant vacated the premises, Dr. Prakash decided to sell the same. The petitioner's case is that since he was insisting on payment of ...

Amarjeet Singh Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ606

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The appellant has assailed the Order dated 22.4.2003 passed by the Joint Registrar which records that the Appellant had not filed any Reply to the Interim Application seeking to implead the legal representative of Defendant No. 3 who had already expired prior to the filing of the Suit. The impugned Order is a cryptic one and keeping in view the circumstances of the case it is quite probable as has been strenuously contended before me that the counsel for the proposed Legal Representatives had orally raised various objections against the very maintainability of the application.2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant places reliance on the decision in Hira Lal Patni v. Sri Kali Nath : AIR 1962 Supreme Court 199, which categorically and unambiguously states that if a Suit is filed against a Defendant who was already dead on the date of the institution of the suit, it would be a nullity. This decision had been followed a Single Bench of this Court in Pratap Chand Mehta v....

Devi Dass Garg and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ456

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. These three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed challenging the legality of an order of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appeal Tribunal dated 12.4.2006 whereby the Tribunal has directed pre deposit of a sum of rupees two crores by each one of the petitioners as a precondition for hearing the appeals against the order of Commissioner, Central Excise dated 28th October, 2005. Vide this order the Commissioner had imposed a penalty of Rs. 21 crores on petitioner Devi Das Garg, Rs. 25 crores on petitioner Rakesh Kumar Garg and Rs. 21 crores on petitioner Santosh Kumar Garg under Rules 209 and 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1994 and Rules 25 and 26 Central Excise(2) Rules, 2001 and Central Excise Rules 2002. Apart from imposing penalties on these petitioners by this order, the Commissioner had also raised a demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 33,20,03,239/- against M/s Amar Jyoti Packers and imposed an equivalent...

Mrs. Arifa Nauman Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ504; 2007(1)SLJ344(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this Review Petition, applicant-petitioner Mrs. Arifa Nauman seeks review of the judgment and order dated 26.10.2004 by which W.P.(C) No. 7138/2003 was dismissed holding that there was an efficacious alternate remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the dispute was such that the petitioner be relegated to the same. The impugned order of transfer was stayed for a period of two months to enable the petitioner to avail of the legal remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. Notice in the Review Petition had been issued and the interim protection granted vide judgment dated 26.10.2004 was directed to continue. 2. The petitioner who is employed with the respondent No. 3 Hamdard Wakf Laboratories as a stenographer, had challenged in the writ petition the order dated 1.11.2003 transferring her to Aurangabad (Maharashtra). Petitioner, who was working at the head office in Delhi, contended that her transfer thousands of miles away was a mala fide one and to vic...

Alpana Das Vs. C.B.i.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT85; 2006(90)DRJ441

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order on charge dated 16.9.2002 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi as well as the formal charge drawn up on 16.9.2002 whereby the petitioner along with other co-accused have been firstly charged of committing an offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and, secondly, the petitioner Along with the other co-accused have been charged for committing offences punishable under Sections 420/511 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. Additionally, insofar as the petitioner and co-accused J.B. Khosla, inasmuch as they were public servants, are concerned, the substantive charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also drawn up. A further additional charge has been framed insofar as the accused A.K. Goenka, Ramesh Gupta, R. Roongta and Vishwanath Se...

NitIn Garg Vs. D.S.i.D.C. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT117

ORDER Sh. Nitin Garg was appointed to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil/Electrical) on a consolidated salary of Rs. 8,400/- per month purely on contract basis vide Office Memorandum No. DSIDC/II-8/Estt./2000 dated 04-10-2000. A joint Surprise Check was conducted by CBI at DSIDC, Sector-3, Bawana on 16-09-2003. It was alleged that Sh. Nitin Garg, while posted and functioning as Junior Engineer (Civil), DSIDC, Bawana, handed over the official documents in his possession to an unauthorized person. By his such acts, Sh. Nitin Garg not only failed to maintain devotion and integrity to duty but also failed to preserve/maintain the prestige of the corporation. In view of above irregularities committed by Sh. Nitin Garg and detected by CBI, the contract of engaging Sh. Nitin Garg as Junior Engineer (Civil/Electrical) on a consolidated salary of Rs. 8,400/- per month vide Office Memorandum No. DSIDC/II-8/ Estt./2000 dated 04-10-2000 is thereforee terminated with immediate effect and a bank dra...

Manish Sehgal Vs. American Express Bank Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Complainant is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s. Commercial Corporation engaged in the business of export of readymade garments. On account of deficiency in service by the O.P. Bank in not honouring the Dollar Card issued by the O.P. and its subsequent cancellation, the complainant has sought compensation of Rs. 11,85,000 on account of loss of reputation and loss of business. 2. Allegations giving rise to this complaint in brief are that the complainant obtained a Dollar Card from the O.P. in the year 1990 for M/s. Commercial Corporation for his use. Besides the Dollar Card which was to be exclusively used only outside the country for Dollar payment, he also had Rupees Card issued by the O.P. for local payments. For four years the complainant had been using the Card. In the month of February, 1994, the complainant was at Kathmandu and while he was clearing his bills by presenting the card, the Hotel people (Everest Hotel, Kathmandu) refused to honou...