Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

Sushil Dixit Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ564

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. The appellant along with his parents faced trial for the offence of murder of their neighbour Vishwanath Pandey. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, vide judgment dated 2-04-04 in Sessions case No. 86/01 convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC while his father and mother were held guilty only under Section 323/34 IPC.2. The brief facts of the case are that even though the deceased Vishwanath Pandey and the appellant and his family were neighbours in Indira gali, Mandawli, Delhi but they were not on cordial terms with each other on account of throwing of garbage by the appellant and his family in front of the house of the deceased. On 23-12-2000 at about 9.15 p.m. the appellant and his parents while standing on the chajja of their house threw a garbage bag in front of the house of the deceased. The deceased and his brother Daroga Pandey (PW-1) who was also living with the deceased came out of their house on hearing the noise of something fa...

Delhi Transport Corporation Through Its Chairman Vs. Smt. Maya,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT96

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself. The impugned order was passed as far as back on 22.1.2003 on an application moved by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval of its action to remove the respondent from service on the alleged ground of misconduct of the respondent for remaining absent from duty for about 75 days. 2. The petitioner in support of his case has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of DTC v. Sardar Singh 2004 (6) 613. The petitioner in a very casual manner in para 8 of the petition has tried to explain as to why the said order could not be challenged after lapse of more than three years. Para 8 of the petition is reproduced below:That the present case was handed over to advocate Tayab Khan to file petition before this Hon'ble Court against the order passed by Ld. Labour court. The advocate neither filed the petition nor returned the case file to the corporation...

Shri Ved Prakash Vs. Chairman/Administrator, New Delhi Municipal Counc ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT84

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of counsel appearing for the parties the matter is set for hearing.3. The petitioner has filed the present petition feeling aggrieved that although offer of appointment was given to him vide order dated 10.10.2002 but still the respondent did not permit the petitioner to join his duties. The case of the petitioner is that father of the petitioner Shri Jagdish was a regular employee of the respondent since 1972. He died on 15.8.2001 during the course of his employment. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner the deceased was survived by his widow Smt. Ram Piari, petitioner Sh. Ved Prakash besides four brothers and a sister. After the demise of his father, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds and his application for appointment was duly considered and verified by the respondent. The petitioner was called for interview which he successfully cleared and pursuant t...

Prithvi Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT488

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. Admit.2. With the consent of counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition feeling aggrieved with the orders dated 13.6.2002 and 26.7.2002 whereby the increments of the petitioner were withheld with cumulative effect. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not given adequate opportunity by the respondent and he was given just 72 hours to reply to the show cause notice dated 29.5.2002. On the other hand, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent is that the present dispute is covered by the Industrial Disputes Act and, thereforee, the remedy if at all the same lies in setting the machinery of the Industrial Disputes Act in motion. I find force in the arguments of counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 13.6.2002 and 26.7.2002 whereby his increments were withheld with cumulative effect. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a ...

Cit Vs. Herbalife International Ind.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]297ITR303(Delhi)

ORDER1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 30-8-2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' in ITA Nos. 3098 and 2664/ Del./2004 relevant for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01.2. The only issue that has been raised in this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is with regard to the date of commencement of business of the assessed.3. According to the revenue, the assessed had commenced business on15-9-1999 whereas according to the assessed, business was commenced much earlier, that is, on 9-2-1999 when it entered into an agreement with M/s. Dominion Chemical Industries Ltd. (DCIL).4.The assessed is engaged in trading of health care and nutritional products as mentioned by it in its return of income. It had declared a total loss of about Rs. 24 lakhs which had been claimed to be carried forward as business loss. The assessed had entered into an agreement dated 9-2-1999 with DCIL, who was appointed as a supplier of the assessed....

Sirmour Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC145

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant against inadmissibility of modvat credit of Rs. 33,674/- on the ground that the credit has been availed on the basis of quadruplicate copy of the invoices.2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. rounds classifiable under Chapter heading 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On scrutiny of RT-12 return for the month of May, 1995, it is revealed that the appellant availed modvat credit on the basis of the quadruplicate copy of the invoices. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty but upheld the demand of duty.3. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant drew the attention of the Bench to a certificate dated 8.1.96 issued by the supplier certifying that a mistake was occurred in the binding of the invoice book and the quadruplicate copy was stitched in the place of duplicate...

Kiranotics India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the imposition of penalty and redemption fine. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of voltage stabilizer and were availing the benefit of small-scale exemption notification. The officer of Revenue visited the factory of the appellant and certain unaccounted goods found in the factory which were seized and it was also found that certain goods were cleared to customers without the cover of any invoice or challan. No demand is raised in the show cause notice nor confirmed only the penalty was imposed on the ground that the appellants were not maintaining proper record.3. The contention of the appellant is that even after taking the value of unaccounted goods the appellants were within the limit of clearance prescribed under small-scale exemption notification. The appellants are maintaining certain private records and by comparing with the existing goods the Revenue came to the conclusion that certain goods were not accounted for. The c...

international Talkie Equipment Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC130

1. Common issue is involved in both the appeals, therefore, are being taken up together.2. The appellant filed these appeals against the impugned order whereby the amount of refund was adjusted against the demand confirmed against M/s Kinotone on the ground that the Tribunal in the case of demand held that the present appellant i.e. M/s International Talkie Equipment Co.Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Kinotone belongs to one manufacturer therefore, independently are not entitled for small scale exemption notification.Therefore, as the Tribunal held that all are one identity, therefore, sanctioned refund in favour of M/s Kinotone and M/s international Talkie Equipment Co, Pvt. Ltd., the refund of sanctioned refund in favour of M/s Kinotone and M/s international Talkie Equipment is adjusted against the demand confirmed against M/s Kinotone.3. The contention of the appellant is that they are independent units and paid these amounts independently in pursuance to the stay order, passed by the Tribunal a...

Rajesh Gupta, Superintendent, Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As common order of departmental enquiry culminates into an identical punishment, being upheld in appeal against all the three applicants, for the sake of brevity and to avoid multiplicity, OAs are being disposed of by this common order.2. Applicants, who are Superintendents in Central Excise, have assailed an order passed by the disciplinary authority (DA) on 16.9.2004, imposing upon them a minor penalty of reduction in two stages in the time scale, on non-cumulative basis. Also assailed is an order passed in appeal on 9.1.2006, upholding the punishment.3. Briefly stated, while working as Superintendents, a common enquiry alleges failure to maintain devotion to duty against applicants on the ground of their failure to assess the goods manufactured by M/s Nestle India Co. and their further failure to raise protective demands of duty, as a result of which loss of revenue has incurred to the Government.4. The Enquiry Officer (EO) on the basis of the meticulous discussion of the eviden...

K.N. Bahuguna Vs. C.S.i.R. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT110

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 27th November, 1997 disposing of OA filed by the respondent No. 2 Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) who was the applicant before the Tribunal which passed the impugned order the operative portion of which reads as follows:Under the circumstance this OA succeeds and is allowed to this extent that respondent is held to be liable to pay applicant's penal license fee for unauthorized retention of the premises in question @ Rs. 2000/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.3.90 to 10.11.1993. Applicants are permitted to adjust the aforesaid dues against the gratuity and pensionary amount admissible to respondent and release the balance to him within 1 month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any dues from respondent still remain recoverable thereafter, it will be open to applicants to recover the same in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner who appears in person sought to challenge the above order on the grou...