Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

L.N. Karamakar Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, Indraprastha Po ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT484

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs: a. To issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, order of direction, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings. b. To award compensation of Rs. 10.00 lakhs as monetary relief to the petitioner of infringement of the Fundamental Rights, Violation of Principles of Natural Justice, Bias and malafide action by the defacto authorities and stepping on his fundamental right to live (dignity, peace, health, work, etc.). c. To kindly pass an order to quash the illegal enquiry in the interest of natural justice as ti was being held fruitlessly to divert the mind from the reality and to create terror and fear on the mind of the petitioner. The petitioner be awarded for his honesty and to save government money which is being digested by the defendants from last 7 years by giving subsidy for 2300 workers whe...

Madan Lal Vs. Government of Nct and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT408

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition assails the order dated 1.10.2002, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, dismissing his OA No. 1132 of 2001 as also orders dated 27.1.1998, 6.9.2000 and 5.3.2001 of the Disciplinary Authority. By the said orders the Disciplinary Authority imposed upon the petitioner, punishment of reduction of rank from Head Constable to Constable, till he is found fit by the Competent Authority to be restored to the higher rank. A Corrigendum was issued on 6.9.2000, whereby the said order was modified and the period of reduction in rank was mentioned to be five years, clarifying that the punishment will take effect from 27.1.1998, i.e. the date of the order of punishment. Petitioner's appeal was also rejected on 5.3.2001.2. The facts culminating in filing of the present petition are:Petitioner, a Head Constable with Delhi Police, was serving at Police Station Anand Parbat. On 1.5.1995 at about 12:35 P.M., Petiti...

J.B. Kumar Vs. Brijesh Sethi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT665; [2007(113)FLR405]; (2007)2LLJ882Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 26.4.2001 passed by Labour Court whereby the reference was answered against the workman/petitioner.2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Steward with the respondent No. 2 i.e. M/s The Oberoi, on monthly emoluments of Rs. 3108/-. On 28.2.1995, he met with a road side accident and started absenting. The management was informed about the accident and the injuries suffered by the workman. The management waited for the petitioner for about one year and four month so that the petitioner may recover from the accident injuries and join the duty. However, the petitioner failed to inform the management about this state of health and progress of recovery till the management asked him vide letter dated 2.7.1996 as to when he would resume his duties. The workman vide letter dated 6.7.1996, asked the management to wait for another six months which was the pe...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Leo Electronics and Allied Industries and Sh. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)BC237; 137(2007)DLT43; 2007(94)DRJ483

J.M. Malik, J.1. At the centre of the controversy is the question whether the appellant offered sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing application under Order 9 Rule 9 within the leeway granted by law. This is the first appeal filed against the order of the Learned Additional District Judge dated 28.01.2004, wherein the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were dismissed. The sequence and genesis of the instant case is this. A suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 4,88,714.09/- by the then New Bank of India, which ultimately merged with Punjab National Bank against the respondents before this Court in the year 1987. Vide order dated 04.11.1996, the case was transferred to the court of learned Additional District Judge due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court. The suit was dismissed in default vide order dated 03.03.1997.2. The plaintiff/appellant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. on 24.09.1997. T...

S.K. Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Director General of Income-tax (inv.)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Del)466; 139(2007)DLT22; [2007]290ITR359(Delhi)

1. Writ Petition CWP 13236/2006 was filed on 22.8.2006 challenging the legal propriety of the Search conducted sixteen months earlier, on 16.2.2005, on the ground (a) for the non-existent reasons to believe on the lines stated in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 132(1) of the Act; (b) that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act ('the Act' for short) pursuant to the Search are illegal. The Petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the Warrant of Authorisation and the said Search and for the quashing of Notice dated 10.7.2006 issued under Section 153A of the Act. The Petition has been signed and verified by an affidavit of one of its Directors, Shri G.L. Jain, son of Late G.D. Jain, resident of 11/2A, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110 005. However, the shareholding of the Petitioner company has not been disclosed in the Petition. CWP 15824/2006 was filed on 5.10.2006 by Shri S.K. Jain (brother of Shri G.L. Jain and resident a...

Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The duty demand of Rs. 10 crores, and equal amount of penalty, is in regard to Polyester Staple Fiber used in export (yarn) production. The fact of converting the polyester staple fiber to yarn and exporting the resultant yarn is not being disputed.3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 specifically allows removal of excisable goods without payment of duty for export production. The submission is that the demand is contrary to stated legal provision and is not sustainable.4. Learned DR has a faint contention that the said removal was without the approval of the Commissioner. It is also being pointed out that Staple Fibre consignments were removed without sale, purchase and payment.5. We are not able to find merit in the contentions of the revenue. All the removals without payment of duty were with the approval of jurisdictional excise authorities. There was, thus, approval of the non-duty paid removals. There is n...

Shriram Holographics Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ70CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The stay application is in relation to service tax demand of Rs. 2 lakhs and penalty imposed under the impugned order. The demand is for the period 30^th June, 2001 to 16^th August, 2003. The contention of the appellant is that, during the relevant period, the levy service tax on consulting engineer service was limited to qualified engineers or engineering from only. It is being pointed out that the appellant is a manufacturing company and is not an engineering company and the levy is not attracted at all. Reliance is being placed on the decision of this Tribunal in final order No. 282-83/06-ST dated 03/07/06 in the case of Shakumbari Sugar & Allied Ind. Ltd. v. CCE Meerut-I & vice-versa, wherein this Tribunal accepted the appellant's contention that levy during the relevant period is limits to professionally qualified Engineer or Engineering Firm and not to other firms which incidentally provided engineering consultancy.2. We find merit in the appellant's contention. The r...

ind-swift Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The duty has been made by classifying "Strontium Chloride Medicated Toothpaste" and "Potassium Niterate Gel" as preparations for oral or dental hygiene.2. The contention of the appellant is that these are medicaments manufactured under drug licence and delivered through the medium of toothpaste. It is being pointed out that the active agent is classified as drug in the British Pharmacopoeia.3. The appellant has a prima facie case and accordingly requirement for pre-deposit is waived and recovery stayed till disposal of the appeal....

Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant claimed refund of light house charges amounting to about Rs. 13 lakhs, paid during the period August to October 2002, in regard to coastal run vessels. The claim was filed on 4-2-2003 before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Kakinada. The ground taken was that there was an exemption from light house charges in favour of coastal run vessels from 1st October, 2001. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that it had been filed late (the claim for refund of excess payments is required to be made during six months from date of each payment). Section 19 of the Light House Act 27 which relates to refund of excess payment stipulates that "no claim for refund of such excess payment shall be admissible, unless it is made within six months from the date of each payment". Since the claims were made beyond the stipulated period of six months they were rejected.That order was confirmed in appeal by Commissioner (Appeals). The present appeal is directed...

Smt. G. Lalita W/O Shri G.V.S.S. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Challenge is made to order dated 25th July, 2006 whereby applicant has been transferred to Kolkata along with the post.2. Factual matrix is that applicant appointed as 'Computer' in the Central Statistical Organization (hereinafter referred as CSO) vide order dated 12.07.1990, promoted as Junior Investigator in 1995, was further promoted as Senior Investigator on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 01.02.2001. Based on 5th CPC recommendations, a Subordinate Statistical S ervice was constituted and she opted to be part of said service. 4 officials, including applicant filed OA No. 2137/2002 seeking regularization and counting of ad hoc service in said grade, was disposed of vide order dated 29.05.2003 with direction to consider her claim in accordance with law whenever regular vacancy arises and further that applicant shall not be reverted unless someone promoted on ad hoc basis to Grade IV of ISS is reverted. Vide impugned order dated 25.07.2006, applicant on the sanctioned strength of N...