Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Gunvinder Kaur Bhatia Vs. Amity Business School

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of misrepresentation to the prospective students that the course known as Post Graduate Diploma in International Business (PGDIB for short) was duly recognised by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE for short), the respondent has been found guilty for unfair trade practice by the District Forum vide its order dated 22.3.2006 and directed the respondent to stop this practice and also advertise in two national dailies that its PGDIB course is not recognised by the All India Council for Technical Education. At the same time it has been directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the appellant for mental agony suffered by her and the consequential disadvantages she suffered. 2. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. As regards the allegation of unfair trade practice by way of misrepresenting to the prospective students that its course is recognised by AICTE, there is no scope for interferen...

National Cargo Services Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC290

2. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby Customs House Agent licence was suspended under the provisions of Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.3. The main contention of the appellant is that no notice was issued to the proprietor Shri Ranbir Singh Rana of M/s National Cargo Service.The contention is that the licence was suspended on the ground that one of the employees (G. Cardholder) Shri Anup Joshi has committed some irregularity. The appellant relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Agarwal v. UOI and in the case of Jeena & Co. v. C.C. 1987 (28) ELT 223 to submit that where the proprietor of Customs House Agent (CHA) was not put to notice before suspension of licence, the suspension is invalid.4. The contention of the appellant is that in the present case, the proprietor of CHA was not put to notice nor any enquiry was conduct...

Ajanta Tubes Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(207)ELT97TriDel

1. The appeal is directed against the demand of central excise duty of over Rs. 3 lakhs with equivalent amount of penalty and demand for interest under Section 11AB. The appellant is a manufacturer of pipes and tubes, which attracted duty at different rates, depending upon whether they were made from imported iron and steel or indigenously produced iron & steel. During the period from June to August 1988, the appellant removed its produce after paying duty at the rates applicable to pipes and tubes produced from indigenously manufactured iron and steel. A show cause notice was issued on 2.7.93 alleging that the record of the assessee showed that it had been receiving imported iron & steel and the pipes attracted higher rate of duty as they were produced from imported materials. The appellant resisted that demand but failed in adjudication. When that matter came up in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant did not contest the demand. It only contested the demand on...

Shri Onkar Singh S/O Shri Tek Chand Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Throu ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Grievance of applicant in this case is that he retired as class IV on 31.7.2004 and was granted provisional pension for a period of six months w.e.f. 1.8.2004 to 31.1.2005 vide order dated 17.11.2004 ( page 9) but thereafter in spite of his repeated representations till date neither he has been given provisional pension nor any orders have been passed thereon. It is submitted by the applicant that other retiral benefits have also not been paid to him till date. Therefore, he had no other option but to file the present OA.2. Respondents, on the other hand, have stated that Shri Onkar Singh who had retired as TBOP Mailman SRO RMS SH Division Meerut Cantt.joined the Department on 31.01.1964 but he remained absent from duty w.e.f. 23.2.1977 to 29.7.1993 i.e. 16 years, 5 months and 7 days without any prior permission of the competent authority. He was allowed to resume his duty by SRO Meerut Cantt RMS vide letter dated 28.7.1993.Consequently the applicant resumed his duty on 30.7.1993. ...

Pankaj Kumar S/O Late Arun Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Ministry of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Applicant, who is an adopted son of the deceased employee, seeks compassionate appointment on the basis of adoption deed and also seeks a prayer to regularize the accommodation in which the deceased employee had been residing.3. Learned Counsel for respondents states that in view of the settled position of law, once the proceedings for eviction had been started under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.4. In the light of the fact that succession proceedings are going on and on receipt of the succession certificate, insofar as request for compassionate appointment is concerned, law shall take its own course, yet by virtue of the applicant not being an appointee, he has no right to claim either regularization of the accommodation or stay thereof.5. In the result, this OA stands disposed of with a direction that in the event the applicant produces before the respondents a copy of the succession ce...

Shri Peeru Bhawana, S/O Late Mange Vs. Govt. of Nct Delhi, Through Its ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has challenged order dated 12.6.2006 passed under Sub-section (1) of Section (5) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 by the Estate Officer of Directorate of Training & Technical Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (page 13A).2. Since the order dated 12.6.2006 has been passed by the Estate Officer under Sub-section (1) of Section (5) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, as an Estate Officer this Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to entertain this O.A. In Union of India v. Rasila Ram and Ors. , Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Eviction Act) was enacted for eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises. To attract the said provisions, it must be held that the premises was a public premises, as defined under the said Act, and the occupants must be held unauthorized occupants, as de...

Smt. Sumitra W/O Late Shri Sahab Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chi ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Heard the learned proxy counsel for the respondents. No body appeared for the applicant even after the second call. Accordingly, Rule 15 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is invoked.2. An order passed on 7.10.2002 whereby the request for compassionate appointment having been turned down was assailed before the Tribunal in OA-1154/2003, which was dismissed vide order dated 9.5.2003 for non-joinder of parties with liberty to assail in accordance with law.3. Thereafter OA-1365/2003 was preferred on the basis of DOPT OM of 5.5.2003. The said OA was disposed of on 8.7.2005 and directions had been issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant in accordance with aforesaid OM of 5.5.2003. An order dated 13.9.2004 had been passed by the respondents whereby the request of the applicant had been turned down on the ground that his claim is not in indigent circumstances on the basis of retiral benefits accorded.4. It is trite law that in the matter of compassionate appointment, ...

Shri Vinod Kumar S/O Late Shri Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Order dated 22.11.2004 rejecting the request of the applicant for compassionate appointment is being assailed in the present OA.3. Applicants father, who died in harness on 2.5.2000, being aggrieved by rejection of his request for compassionate appointment for want of vacancies, preferred OA-233/2003 wherein directions were issued on 7.11.2003 to reconsider the case in the light of DOPT OM of 5.5.2003.On such reconsideration, an order passed on 22.11.2004 turned down the request of the applicant on the ground that he has scored only 34 points on the 100 point scale and do not appear in the merit.CP-374/2004 when filed was disposed of on 10.1.2005 by according liberty to the applicant.4. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that the points score of the applicant has not been calculated as per the principles laid down and the claim of the applicant, which was meritorious, has been turned down without any reasonable basis.5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents vehem...

Air India Limited Vs. Jagesh Dutt Sharma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT93; [2006(111)FLR859]

S. Muralidhar, J.CM. No. 6181/06(for delay)For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.The application is accordingly allowed.LPA. No. 713 of 2006 and CM 6180/2006(stay)1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 16.2.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1712-1715 of 2005 filed by the respondents, against the refusal by the appropriate Government to make an order of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (`ID Act'). The learned Single Judge has directed the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, Respondent No. 6 herein, to make a reference of the dispute raised by the respondent workmen for adjudication to the industrial adjudicator within a period of 12 weeks.2. It appears that consequent upon the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, Respondent No. 6 passed an order dated 23.3.2006 making the reference of the industrial disp...

M.S. International Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007[5]STR247; [2007]8STT148

ORDER1. The grievance of the Petitioner is directed against an order dated 1st August, 2002 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in C/Stay/812/2002-C in Appeal No. C/227/2002-C.2. By the application on which the impugned order ha been passed, the Petitioner had sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to about Rs. 19.7 crores and an equal amount of penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.3. The Tribunal, after hearing the matter and considering the prima facie case as well as the financial difficulty pleaded by the Petitioner, directed the Petitioner, by an order dated 13th August, 2002 to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 crores within eight weeks. Then the matter was adjourned to 16th October, 2002 for reporting compliance. It appears that since the Petitioner did not deposit the amount, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal with liberty to the Petitioner to apply for restoration in case the amount is deposited within 30 days.4. In this writ petiti...