Delhi Court August 2006 Judgments

Prashant Goel Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ904

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The respondent No. 2 herein had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner on the basis of dishonour of the cheque issued by him. As on the date of filing of the said complaint it was admittedly time-barred. Because of this reason, complainant had also prayed for condensation of delay. Vide order dated 8-10-2004 the learned MM condoned the delay and issued summons to the petitioner. This order is challenged in the present proceedings.2. Apart from other contentions, one of the pleas raised is that delay could not have been condoned without notice to the petitioner herein. In support of this plea, the petitioner has relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand argues that the aforesaid judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court in the case where FIR was lodged with the Police and it was a State case. Whe...

Yoginder Pal S/O Nawab Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretar ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(1)SLJ350(Delhi)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner as an employee of the respondent's bank and to regularize his services with effect from the date he had entered into the service and also to issue a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent to fix wages of the petitioner and settlement of dues with all consequential benefits. Further prayer is that a writ of mandamus be issued for abolition of contract labour. 2. Briefly the facts relevant for deciding this writ petition are that the petitioner was running a subsidized canteen in the premises provided by the bank on 'no profit no loss' basis and the bank had constituted a committee for overseeing the activities of the canteen. The bank was providing subsidy through canteen committee. The petitioner submits that he requested the canteen committee to increase the rates of eatables and subsidy but the committee did not pay any heed t...

Atul Anand Vs. Nanak Food Industries and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2006)BC513; 132(2006)DLT481

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Present order disposes of is No. 991/2004, being application filed by defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC and is No. 6906/2005 filed by defendant No. 2 under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC.2. Needless to state, said defendants seek leave to defend. 3. I would also be dealing with the request of defendants 6 to 9 to discharge the bank guarantees submitted by them pursuant to the order dated 8th January, 2004. 4. Before dealing with the 2 applications which seek leave to defend, I deal with the request of defendants 6 to 9 for release of the bank guarantees. 5. Defendants 6 to 9 have no concern with the plaintiff. Suit filed by the plaintiff was against Nanak Food Industries, a partnership firm and its 4 partners who were imp leaded as defendants 2 to 5. 6. On 24th August, 2001 defendants were restrained from alienating property No. A-10/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The defendants 6 to 9 filed an application registered as is No. 11035/2002 seeking recall ...

Allen Career Institute Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)7STT209

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax amount of Rs. 1,07,78,689/- and penalty of the equal amount. Service tax was imposed on the service of coaching centre w.e.f. 1-7-2003. The present demand is in respect of the amount received by the appellant prior to 1-7-2003. The service tax is imposed on the amount received prior to 1-7-2003 on the ground that service of coaching centre was rendered after 1-7-2003.2. The applicant submitted that in the case of competitor M/s. Career Point Ltd., the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 24-4-2006 allowed the appeal filed by the Service tax provider and set aside the demand which was raised on the same ground. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand of service tax in respect of the amount received prior to 1-7-2003. The contention of the Revenue is that Revenue is not accepting that order and contemplated to file an appeal against that order.3. In view of fact that in the case of M/s. Caree...

Medpro Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)7STT322

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby a demand of service tax was confirmed and treating the appellant as C & F Agent and penalties were imposed.3. The issue whether the appellant was providing services of clearing and forwarding agent is now settled by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 5/2006-LB, dated 23-6-2006, 2006 (3) S.T.R. 355 (Tri.-L.B.) in favour of the revenue. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, the demand of service tax is upheld. The appellant submitted that there was a decision of the Tribunal which was in favour of the appellant in the case of Kulcip Medicines Pvt. Ltd. v.C.C.E., Delhi-III [Final Order dated 29-6-2005 - 2006 (1) S.T.R. 36 (Tribunal)] and now the Larger Bench has resolved this issue and therefore, the imposition of penalty is not sustainable.4. Revenue's contention is that prior to 30-6-2001, the appellants were paying service as clearing and forward...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Adhunik Steels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard the learned SDR and none appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice of hearing.2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby a demand of service tax was set aside on the ground that respondents are not providing services as clearing and forwarding agent.3. The service tax is demanded from the respondents as C & F agent. As per the provisions of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, the definition of 'clearing and forwarding agent' means any person who is engaged in providing any service, either directly or indirectly, connected with the clearing and forwarding operations in any manner to any other person and includes a consignment agent.4. As per the agreement between Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and the respondent herein, TISCO has appointed the respondent as a consignment agents for handling rejected/scrap materials. And as per the terms of agreement, the material is to be collected by the respondent ...

R.K. Steels Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 30.9.2004 which upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty under Rule 26 of the appellant.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant in this case is brand owner of the brand 'R.K.' He supplied empty cartons to different manufacturers of iron wooden screw. These manufacturers after manufacturing iron wooden screw pack them in these boxes and sell to the appellant claiming exemption of duty as a small scale industry. Investigation carried out by the authorities concluded that the manufacturers who avail the benefit of SSI exemption were not eligible to avail the same on the ground that they are manufacturers of branded goods. Show cause notices were issued to all the three manufacturers and the current appellant was made one of the noticee in all the 3 show cause notices. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand against all the 3 manufacturers for wrong utilization of SSI benefit and impose...

Shrikant Processors (P) Ltd. and Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC528

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 30.4.2004 which upheld the order-in-original confirming the demand of duty and imposing penalties on the company as well as its Director.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the officers and Preventive staff of the Central Excise, Pali visited the factory of the appellant. During stock verification the officers found shortage of 36,949 Mtrs. of man-made fabrics than the recorded in RG-1.Show cause notice was issued demanding the duty on short found goods on an allegation that these were removed clandestinely, and also seeking to impose penalty on the company as well as on its Director. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty on the quantity found short in the appellant's factory, imposed equivalent penalty on the company and also imposed personal penalty on the Director. On an appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) also concurred with the view of the adjudicating authority. Hence, this appeal.3. Le...

Ex. Const. Praveen Kumar S/O Shri Vs. Commissioner of Police, Joint

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is seeking review of the order of this Tribunal dated 26.7.2005 passed in OA No. 2320/2004 on variety of grounds, which have been pleaded in para 5 of the application. These grounds are that that Tribunal had erred in holding in para 12 that because the police raiding party had apprehended the applicant along with others in a bank dacoity and the applicant also accepted that he was involved in 5 criminal cases, the disciplinary authority justifiably concluded that he was a person of desperate and dangerous character and may have several associates with similar dangerous criminal propensity; the Tribunal erred in holding that in OA 1515/2001 it was decided that the Tribunal would not sit in judgment over the reason like a court of appeal; the Tribunal also erred in holding that the applicant has been found acting in association with other desperate characters and appreciation that the witness would not come forward to depose against him was correct; the Tribunal had no...

N.D. Suryawanshi S/O Shri D.P. Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, who was working as Inspector in the Weights and Measures in Food and Civil Supplies Department of Government of Maharashtra, was appointed as Assistant Controller, Weights and Measures in the Government of NCT of Delhi on 22.2.2005 on deputation basis initially for a period of one year which as per terms of appointment letter was extendable depending upon the performance and results. The Government of NCT of Delhi prematurely terminated the deputation and sought his repatriation by order dated 11.11.2005. The applicant challenged this order before the Tribunal in OA No.2522/2005. He prayed that the impugned repatriation order dated 11.11.2005 be quashed and the respondents be directed to continue with his services till the expiry of the stipulated period of one year. At the preliminary stage, the Tribunal had stayed the operation of the impugned repatriation order as such the applicant continued to serve on the deputation post in the Government of NCT of Delhi. At th...