Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Shri Sai Bhakta Samaj (Regd.) Vs. Shri Durga Prasad and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT132; [2006(111)FLR814]

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of Award passed by the Labour Court No. III dated 14.10.2003.2. Briefly, the facts are that respondents Durga Prasad and Shiv Charan were working in the petitioner's society as Chowkidar and Pujari respectively. They were retired by the management at the age of 58 years after payment of all dues as applicable under law. They challenged their retirement at the age of 58 years before Conciliation Officer and the following dispute was referred for adjudication:Whether the action of the management by retiring S/Sh. Durga Prasad and Shiv Charan Tripathi from the services is illegal and/or unjustified. If so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect.3. The management took the stand that it was a religious institute registered under the Societies Registration Act. It was conducting charitable activities like running hospital, clinic, dharamshala etc. thereforee...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alcatel India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Del)574

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 30th June, 2005 passed by the Tribunal Bench T in ITA Nos. 2845 to 2849/Del/2001 relevant for the financial years 1993-94 to 1997-98. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty imposed upon the assessed under Section 271C of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessed is a company incorporated in India and it employed expatriate employees who have been seconded to the assessed by its parent company i.e. CIT Alcatel, a company incorporated in France, to work in India. The employees were receiving salary from the parent company in France and were also receiving salary from the Indian company in India.3. The dispute in this case relates to three items of salary that is hardship allowance, education allowance and ex gratia payment which, learned Counsel for the assessed has informed us, is in the nature of bonus that is paid to employees. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the assessed before the appellate authority that because n...

The Management of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Suraj Bhan and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT195; [2006(111)FLR768]

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the legality of award dated 7.4.1998 passed by Labour Court VIII whereby the Labour Court held that termination of services of the respondent/workman was illegal and he was entitled to reinstatement with continuous service and all benefits.2. Briefly, the facts are that respondent/workman was employed as a Retainer-crew-conductor on daily wages vide order dated 24.12.1985. The Retainer-crew-conductors are the employees, who are appointed temporarily till the regular recruitment is not done by the petitioner. Vide order dated 29.6.1988, services of the respondent workman were terminated along with other 30 similarly situated Retainer-crew-conductors as they were no longer required. They were paid compensation and one month's salary at the time of termination. The respondent workman sent a demand notice to the petitioner and raised a dispute about legality of his termination. Following dispute was referred by the...

Nai Dunia Urdu Weekly Newspaper, Through Its Editor Shri Shahid Siddiq ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT234

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 13.1.1995 passed by Labour Court and prayed that respondent No. 4 be directed to pay back entire amount recovered from the petitioner in execution of the award.2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent Abdul Qudoos was working with the petitioner. While the petitioner alleged that he had abandoned his services, the workman's claim was that his services were illegally terminated. Following industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court:Whether the workman Shri Abdul Qudoos abandoned his services or his services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect.3. After receipt of reference, the Labour Court sent notices to the parties. While the workman appeared, the petitioner did not appear and did not take part in the proceedings. The petitioner was proceeded e...

Hasan Ali Vs. Akbari Begum @ Akbari Hajjan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT26

J.P. Singh, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against order dated 18.10.2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi.2. I have heard Mr. V.L.Madan, Advocate learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Subodh K. Pathak, Advocate learned Counsel for the respondent on the point of admission and have gone through the impugned order and copies of the documents filed with the petition.3. Briefly the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) purchased a property situated at Joga Bai extension by means of GPA, agreement to sell, etc. The plaintiff was residing in Meerut and never personally occupied the said property. It is the case of the plaintiff that she permitted her younger brother (petitioner-defendant, hereinafter referred to as the defendant), who was in financial difficulties, to use the said property as a licensee. The defendant after taking permissive possession started a milk dairy. Later...

Goswami Vidyapitha Society and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT638

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The Petitioners claim to have established a school, in Malcha Marg, which is recognised by the NDMC and caters to 300 students of the weaker sections of the society. The Petitioners had approached the Respondent-DDA for allotment of a suitable plot. Reliance has been placed upon letters dated 12.7.03, 1.8.03, 29.9.03 and 10.11.03, addressed to the Respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The latter by its communication dated 8.12.03 indicated the terms on which the request for allotment could be considered.2. As per the existing norms applicants seeking allotment of primary school plot had to be a society and a no profit making organization. It was also required to produce certain documents including a sponsorship certificate issued by the appropriate Government, income tax clearance etc. The Petitioners submitted the application as per the format indicated, apparently with necessary documents sometime in early 2004. They kept reminding to the Respondent-DDA...

Orient Crafts Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Del)262; (2007)9VST43(Delhi)

ORDER1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Finance Act, 2006 reads as follows:(1) Where any service specified in Clause (105) of Section 65 is,-(a) provided or to be provided by a person who has established a business or has a fixed establishment from which the service is provided or to be provided or has his permanent address or usual place of residence, in a country other than India, and(b) received by a person (hereinafter referred to as the recipient) who has his place of business, fixed establishment, permanent address or usual place of residence, in India,such service shall, for the purposes of this section, be taxable service, and such taxable service shall be treated as if the recipient had himself provided the service in India, and accordingly all the provisions of this Chapter shall apply:Provided that where the recipient of the service is an indivi...

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Vs. Ashok Kumar Garg

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR368(Delhi); 2006(91)DRJ591

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Admit.2. At the request of learned Counsel for parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.3. An arbitration proceeding is pending between the parties. During the course of the arbitration proceedings, in order to prove its case, the petitioner moved an application seeking approval of the arbitrator in taking assistance of the court to summon four witnesses. The arbitral tribunal by its order dated 01.10.2003 allowed the same.4. The petitioner thereafter filed the application under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') which was, however, rejected in terms of the impugned order dated 25.02.2004 which has given rise to the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Additional District Judge has rejected the application on the ground that the arbitral tribunal had to pass a reasoned order setting out circumstanc...

Colt International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This stay application is directed against the confirmation of demand of Rs. 1,25,710/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Ten only). Since the issue involved in this case is regarding the remission application having not been decided, the stay is granted and appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the factory of the appellant was burgled somewhere on the night of 16/17-10-2001. The appellant filed First Information Report (FIR) with the police on 17-10-2001 and intimated the Range Superintendent on 19-10-2001 about the burglary. The officers of the Range visited the factory and took physical verification of the goods lying in the factory and found that there was a shortage of finished goods on which the excise duty works out to Rs. 1,25,710/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Ten only). The appellant filed an application seeking permission for non-reversal excise duty on the burgled stoc...

M.P. Iron and Steel Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC469

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods like billets, wire rods etc. They are also eligible for input (Modvat) credit in respect of excise duty paid on the inputs utilized in the production of billets, wire rods etc. - One of the inputs was refractory material.Dispute arose, when the appellant took credit of duty on the refractory materials received in May, 1992 as to whether refractory materials were entitled to Modvat credit On 3-6-1992, Supdt. of Central Excise wrote to the appellant informing him that no Modvat credit was available for refractory material. The appellant protested, but stopped taking credit for the subsequent receipts of the refractory material. Proceedings were initiated against the assessee by the Revenue for the recovery of credit amount to Rs. 20 lakhs, taken in May 1992 and utilized for discharging Central Excise duty on final products. This dispute was finally settled in favour of the appellant by the Final Order of this Tribunal in Appeal No.E/...