Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

Ratti Ram Meena S/O Sita Ram Meena Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. MA No. 1097/2006 for joining together under Rule 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is allowed. Vide MA 2117/2006 applicants seek direction to Respondents to produce records of DPC. Respondents did produce minutes of DPC held on 6th January, 2006, which had been the basis of impugned order dated 01.05.2006.2. 12 Applicants working as PGT Teachers in various Schools of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in this OA, seek following relief: i) to disclose before this Hon'ble Tribunal the total number of posts under PGT/Lecturers under the respondents and total number of posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates & to produce the relevant records of DPC proceedings separately showing the action/efforts of the respondents to fill up posts of Vice-Principal in regard to Scheduled Tribes. declare the impugned order dated 1.5.2006 as arbitrary, unconstitutional, invalid and illegal to the extent no Scheduled Tribes Candidate was promoted to the Post of Vice-Princ...

Nihal Khan Vs. the State (Govt of Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ2074

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These petitions are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as they raise a common question. The issue involved in these petitions is whether in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') a direction can be given for the sending of a second sample for testing after taking the same from the remaining case property.2. The parameters of the aforesaid issue would be clearly understood if the factual context of one of the cases is taken into consideration. For this purpose, I take up the case of Nihal Khan (Crl Rev. P.653/2006). The facts as per the prosecution in this case are that on 16.09.2002, a secret information was received by the police station Narcotics Branch, Kamla Market that a boy named Nihal Khan of Bareilly (U.P.) used to supply heroin in Delhi from Bareilly and that on 16.09.2002 itself between 6.00 and 7.00 p.m., he would supply heroin to someone at th...

Harpal Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Vi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)IIILLJ57Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 15th December, 1998 passed by the Labour Court No. VI, Delhi in ID NO. 28 of 1995 whereby the Tribunal upheld the termination of the services of the petitioner. 2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was employed by the respondent with effect from 1.7.1985 as a Beldar on daily wages/muster roll employee. He had given a school leaving certificate at the time of his employment that he was 5th class pass and his date of birth was 27th July, 1965. It seems that for considering regularization or absorption of the petitioner, the respondent got verified the certificate submitted by him from the school. On verification, the respondent learnt that the petitioner had submitted a forged certificate about his qualifications and date of birth at the time of his appointment. His actual date of birth was 27.7.1969 and he was studied up to 3rd Class when he left the school. After making ...

S. Avtar Singh and ors. Vs. S. Gurbachan Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT515

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This appeal challenges the order dated 2nd December, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 filed by the appellant No.1 Shri Avtar Singh (defendant in original suit) for an interim injunction restraining the respondents (plaintiffs in original suit) from transferring, alienating, mortgaging, encumbering the suit property in any manner or creating third party interest.2.The case of the appellant as set up in the present appeal is as under:(a) The Suit Property is situated at No.12, Curzon Road, New Delhi and belonged to the late Sardar Bahadur Mohan Singh (66%) and Sardar Ujjal Singh (34%). After the death of Sardar Bahadur Mohan Singh, his share in the suit property devolved equally on his three sons, Gurbachan Singh (Respondent No.1), the late Jatinder Singh and the late Tajinder Singh (who is being represented by Respondents 2 and 3, his son and wife respectively), while after the death of Sardar Ujjal Singh...

Dharamveer Sharma Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT657

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue Rule. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Advocates waive notice of Rule.2. Large tracts of lands were acquired for development of the city of Delhi. One such acquisition, for the planned development of Delhi, initiated in 1962, notified the lands of Sh. Kanwar Lal. He was owner of some agricultural lands. Sh. Amir Singh was the son of Kanwar Lal and the petitioner, his son. It is claimed that Kanwar Lal had applied for allotment of an alternative plot pursuant to a public notice issued by the erstwhile Delhi Administration on 21/23.11.1963. That notice had invited applications by interested landlords on or before 10th December, 1963.3. Kanwar Lal died in 1975. It is claimed that the petitioner's father Amir Singh and his uncle, the other son of Kanwar Lal, Raghunath Singh initiated the request for allotment of alternative plot. That request was acceded to by the Delhi Administrative on 28.1.1980, which recommended allotment of an alternative plot...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Tej Pal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ16

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of order of the Industrial Tribunal-II, Delhi dated 9.8.2002 whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was dismissed.2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent was working as a conductor. He was on duty at Bus No. DEP 9949 on 15.8.1989. His bus was checked by the checking staff at Uchana while the passengers were getting down from the bus. Ten passengers were found getting down from the bus without tickets. When they were asked why they were without ticket, they reported that they had paid a fare of Rs. 2/- each to the conductor, but the conductor did not issue ticket. They were confronted with the conductor and the conductor admitted his guilt and gave 10 unpunched tickets to the checking staff. The checking staff recorded the statement of passengers and asked the conductor to countersign but he did not countersign the statement of passeng...

Indian Hydraulic Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kishan Devi and Bhagwati Dev ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ31; (2007)IIILLJ55Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 24.9.2001 passed by the Labour Court-VIII, Karkardooma, Delhi directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondents with continuity of service and 50% back wages.2, Briefly the facts are that the respondents Kishan Devi and Bhagwati Devi raised an industrial dispute against the petitioner to the following effect:Whether the services of Smt. Kishan Devi and Smt. Bhagwati Devi have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect.3. While the contention of the respondents was that they were working as helpers with the petitioner management at a monthly salary of Rs. 750/- p.m. each, the stand of management was that there was no woman helper in their factory and both the respondents were working as part-time sweepers. They used to come for sweeping the floors only for two hours...

Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Shiv Charan Negi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Respondent purchased a two-wheeler scooter manufactured by the appellant on 18.12.2005. Right from day one it gave problem with the kick/self start system and the vehicle stopped all of sudden while moving on the road and its handle tilted to one side. Since the defects could not be rectified by the appellant, the respondent filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum for replacement of the vehicle or refund of cost of the vehicle. 2. By way of interim order dated 14.9.2006, the District Forum directed the appellant to rectify the defects pointed out by the respondent within a week. However, the appellant could not rectify within the given time but collected the vehicle for repair on 29.9.2006 and returned the same to the respondent after so-called repair on 30.9.2006. 3. Since the defects continued as the appellant could not rectify the defects, the District Forum vide order dated 5.10.20...

Lml Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC478

This appeal is before us on remand by Hon'ble Supreme Court under order dt. 3.8.06 in Civil Appeal No. 895/01.3. The appellant/assessee is a manufacturer of scooters. The differential duty demand and penalty under the impugned order have arisen on account of dispute about the correct assessable value for scooters manufactured and sold by the appellant after payment of duty.The period of dispute is Jan'84 to May'87. Under the impugned order, the Commissioner has found that the cost realizations in respect of nine items were required to form part of the assessable value of scooters and on account of the exclusion of these items, non-payment of duty of about Rs. 30 lakhs took place. We may read the Commissioner's findings: In view of the above facts the various demands confirmed on different grounds are summarized below: 4. During the hearing, we have been taken through the accounts and record relating to these items and detailed arguments have also been advanced by both sides on each of...

Basant Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC372

1. Common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, are being taken up together.2. The appellant filed these appeals against impugned order whereby demand was confirmed after denying the small scale exemption notification and penalties were imposed.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of CI castings, ingots, railway wagon components, D.E. parts, generating set, A.C.generator and diesel engine. The appellants were availing the benefit of small scale exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE in respect of certain goods and were cleared without payment of duty simultaneously availing credit in respect of duty paid on inputs and clearing the goods on payment of duty. The Revenue was of the view that the appellant cannot availed simultaneously exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE on same goods and Modvat facility on other goods and pay duty. I find that this issue is now covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Ramesh Food Products favour of the ...