Delhi Court August 2006 Judgments

Leela Goel and anr. Vs. Prem Sagar Sharma Deceased Through Lrs.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ683

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide order dated 9.9.1983 in Suit No, 509-A/1981 Smt. Leela Goyal and Anr. v. Shri Prem Sagar Sharma, disputes between Leela Goyal and her son Ashok Goyal as one party and Shri Prem Sagar Sharma as the other party were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Lokeshwar Prasad, son of Shri Bulati Dass. As per the order of reference learned Arbitrator was to decide 7 issues which were listed in the order of reference:2. On the issues, the award is as under:Disputes Award(a) That as to what is the nature of the The real transaction betweenreal transaction between the parties. the parties is that of sale ofIs it an agreement of sale of the plot plot No. C-697, New Friendsof land bearing No. C-697, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.Colony, New Delhi, or is it anagreement to construct simplicitor.(b) As to whether the petitioners are No.liable to pay to the respondentanything in respect of the concernedmatters respecting the said plot ofland.(c) As to whether the responde...

Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vardhman Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)CTLJ305(Del); 2007(94)DRJ762

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Suit seeks recovery of Rs. 21,00,000 (Rupees Twenty one lacs only) which the plaintiff paid to the defendant under an agreement to sell dated 19.11.1998 entered into between the parties. As per the agreement to sell (hereinafter referred to as the 'agreement'), the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the entire third floor having a super area of 3802 sq. ft. in the building constructed by the defendant on Plot No. 4, Block J, Community Center, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi for a sale consideration of Rs. 84,82,262. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the amount of Rs. 21,00,000 was paid as advance towards the sale consideration. Case of the defendant is that the sum received was by way of earnest money and as plaintiff failed to perform its obligations to pay the balance sum, the amount was forfeited.2. Under the terms of the agreement proved as Ex. D-l, which is an admitted document, the defendant was to obtain requisite no objection from the Income Tax department und...

Bishwanath Agarwal Vs. Wodrap Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2007)BC209

A.K. Sikri, J.1. By this common order I propose to dispose of these three petitions which are preferred against summoning orders dated 5.7.2005 in Complaint Case Nos. 1856/2005,1857/2005 and 1858/2005 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner is challenging the said orders on the ground that the complaints filed by the respondent here are premature and have been filed before the time limit prescribed under the Act for the service of notice had expired.2. The complaint filed by the respondent is based on the allegations that the petitioner had issued certain cheques, which were dishonoured with the Banker's endorsement 'Stop Payment' dated 12.4.2005 sent on 14.4.2005. The respondent accordingly sent legal notice under Section 138 of the Act dated 12.5.2005 and thereafter the complaint was filed on 24.5.2005. On the basis of pre-summoning evidence the learned ACMM has passed summoning orders dated 5.7.2005. Submission of th...

Rohtas Kumar Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Through Its Chairman-cum- ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)1CompLJ183(Del)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has made a prayer to the following effect:(a) to regularize the services of the Petitioner and to bring him in regular monthly rate of pay scale w.e.f. 4.11.1992, the date from which Suresh Kumar has been brought on monthly rate of pay or from any other date which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper.(b) To confirm the services of the workman.2. The petitioner has stated that he was working as a Retainer Crew Driver on daily wages w.e.f. 1.6.1989. His services were dispensed with by the respondent on 20.2.1990. He was again appointed on 21.7.1990 and successfully completed more than six months of continuous service. His services were terminated on 25.1.1993. He then raised an industrial dispute and an award was passed in his favor on 16.2.2002 against which DTC approached High Court. The petitioner was reinstated on duty on 21.8.2002 and the award was enforced. While the petitioner was being kept on daily wages, ...

Sanjay Puri Vs. Radhey Lal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)CTLJ159(Del); 2006(91)DRJ471

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 28/09/03, following issues were framed:1. Whether the document dated 16.6.2003 purporting to be receipt tantamount to an agreement to sell between the parties?2. Whether the signatures on document was obtained from the defendant under duress, undue influence as pleaded in the written statement, if so, its effects?3. Relief?2. Parties have led evidence. In light of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence led, I decide the three issues by the instant judgment. 3. Issue No. 1 requires adjudication in relation to the document dated 16.06.2003. The document is an admitted document and stands exhibited as Ex PW- 1/1. It is a hand written document. It reads as under:16th June, 2003 RECEIPTRECEIVED with thanks a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (RUPEES fifty thousand only) from Shri SANJAY PURI, S/o Late Shri P.R. PURI, R/o 3167 C-III, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-57 being the token advance towards sale of my Ground Floor flat at F5/7...

D.T.C. Vs. Jag Bhushan Lal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT384; [2007(112)FLR57]; (2007)2LLJ322Del

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 3.2.2005 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ petitions filed by the appellant assailing the award dated 6.3.2000 by the Industrial Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal, while allowing applications filed by the respondent-workmen under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the I.D. Act'), held that the dismissal of the workmen from services was illegal and granted reinstatement with full back wages.2. The facts leading to the present appeals may be recounted. The employees of the Appellant, the Delhi Transport Corporation, had been demanding revision of their pay scales on the lines of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission. Since the revision of pay-scales was not implemented in relation to all the employees, five unions of the appellant served a notice stating that if their demands were not met by 16.3.1988, the employees would go...

Allied Steels and Standard Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC245

1. These three appeals (Excise Appeal No. 5172 of 2004 and Excise Appeal No. 5216 of 2004) have been argued together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Appeal No. 5172 of 2004 and Excise Appeal No. 5216 of 2004 are directed against the order of the Commissioner made on 26.7.2004 upholding the order-in-original made by the Joint Commissioner (Audit) by which he confirmed the demand for recovery of Rs. 1,21,359/- being the amount of modvat credit wrongly availed by the noticee No. 1 i.e.Standard Electricals Limited, Jalandhar, under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposing penalty of the like amount on the said noticee under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of the Rules and further imposing penalty of the like amount also on the (Noticee No. 2) Allied Steel under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) read with Rule 209A of the said rules and charging interest from the noticee No. 1 on the amount of modvat credit.2. Appeal No. 5215 has bee...

Swastik Tubes Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC632

1. The appellant company challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) imposing the reduced penalty of Rs. 40,000/- and the Director of the appellant company also challenges the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present two appeals.2. It appears from the record that on the basis of intelligence that the appellant company (Swastik Tubes), which was engaged in the manufacture of PVC pipes and fittings falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff, was indulging in clandestine clearances of the goods and evasion of central excise duty, the officers of Central Excise Preventive Branch visited the factory premises of the assessee on 5.6.04. On conducting physical stock verification of the raw material and finished goods in the presence of panch witnesses, it was noticed that there was a shortage of finished goods to the extent of 2340 pcs of PVC Pipes (110mm*3) in comparison to the recorded balance in the RGI register. The Director of the fi...

V.P. Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(2)SLJ1CAT

1. Validity of Notification dated 22.12.2005, of the Ministry of Home Affairs, whereby earlier DPCs proceedings were reviewed and applicant's position, appointed by promotion to Junior Administrative Grade (for short JAG) of NCT of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli Civil Service (hereinafter referred to as the 'DANICS') has been changed to his detriment, is challenged in the present O.A. Direction is sought to respondents to restore his position in the JAG as reflected under Notification dated 9.8.1996. Further prayer made is to quash proceedings of Selection Committee, for promotion by induction to IAS against the vacancies for 2004 and consequently direction to respondents to hold review DPC with consequential benefits. Declaration is also sought that respondent No.5 and other similarly situated officials should not have been included in the zone of consideration by review DPC, whose recommendations culminated in impugned Notif...

Mange Ram Mittal Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 23-7-1997 against the order of the learned assessing officer being Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hissar Circle, Hissar, dated 27-6-1997 in the case of the assessee in relation to block assessment order under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act. This appeal has been assigned to us by the order of the Honble President, ITAT for disposal as well as for consideration and decision on the following question: What is the meaning and scope of phraseology, Such other materials or information as are available with the assessing officer and relatable to such evidence appearing in Section 158BB(1) of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2002 with retrospective effect from 1-7-1995." 2. In this appeal the assessee originally filed grounds of appeal running into 24 pages. As these grounds were not in accordance with Rule 8 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, the assessee was directed to file concise grounds of appeal. Finally the assessee ...