Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

B.L. Meena S/O Late Sohan Pal Vs. Union Of India (Uoi), Through It'S

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(a) Declare the action of the respondents as illegal, unjust and arbitrary by which the respondents have promoted the applicant to the post of HS-II wef 01/09/2005, whereas the applicant was required to be promoted to the post of HS-II from the date of his passing the Trade test i.e. 01/03/1998 as the post of HS-II against ST Quota is lying vacant since 1994 and quash and set aside the order dated 28/02/2006. Direct the respondents to consider and promote the applicant to the post of HS-II wef 01/03/1998 against the ST post and the applicant may be entitled for all consequential benefits including fixation of pay, arrears and seniority etc. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The facts as stated are that applicant was initially appointed as Labour against ST quota in the year 1984, promoted as Mate Painter in the year 1989 and further promoted as Painter (S) on 01.08.1994. He appeared for trade test of HS G...

O.P. Sharma and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. MA No. 1755/2005 under Rule 4 (5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together is allowed.2. MA No. 1756/2005 seeks condonation of delay in approaching this Tribunal belatedly stating that they approached concerned authorities regarding revision of pay scale and were informed vide communication dated 05.12.2002 that same was under consideration and had been referred to DOP&T. As and when decision is taken, it will be conveyed to all concerned. When they approached them recently, they were informed in the month of May 2005 that decision taken earlier vide order dated 27.9.2002 would hold the field and no further consideration is required. Hence the present OA.3. It is contended that cause of action is of recurring nature as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India.Moreover,State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad 2000 (2) ATJ 614, technicalities of law cannot be a ground to ignore substantive justice and undo illegalities.4. 8 applicants, Ex-Servicemen...

Om Kumari and ors. Vs. Shish Pal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT622

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The widow, parents and the younger brother and sister of the deceased Narinder Kumar Sehrawat, who was the eldest son in the family, seek enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned M.A.C. Tribunal vide award dated 6.5.1997.2. Since there are no cross-objections to the award nor has any appeal been filed by the owner, driver or the insurer of the offending vehicle, findings in the award that deceased Narinder Kumar Sehrawat died as a result of an accident involving truck No. DEL 1945 being driven by respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2 have attained finality. The finding that the death was due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the truck has also attained finality.3. Only issue which requires consideration is the compensation assessed to the widow, parents and the younger brother and sister of the deceased.4. Disbelieving the testimony of the family members that apart from earning Rs. 1,500 per month as an employee of Prime Couriers ...

Solochana Marwah Vs. Sadhu Ram

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)ACC163

ORDERPradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Amar Nath Marwah, a tax practitioner, while driving a two-wheeler was hit by a truck bearing No. RSM 9295 on Ring Road. The time was 9.15 a.m. The date was 20th November, 1977. He was born on 4th January, 1943. He was about 35 years old when the accident took place. He died on the spot.2. His widow, Sulochana Marwah, three minor children--a son and two daughters filed a claim petition impleading the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle as respondents.3. Since the award pertaining to issue No. 1 wherein issue of rashness and negligence has been decided by the Tribunal has attained finality I need not note the facts relating to the accident.4. Only issue is whether the compensation awarded is fair and reasonable.5. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,800/- per month. Appropriating Rs. 500/- as the personal expenses of the deceased, Rs. 1,300/- per month has been treated as the monthly loss to the family. Annual loss has, ...

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sarita Tyagi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007ACJ1515

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide F.A.O. No. 105 of 1989, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation challenges the award dated 13.10.1987 made by the M.A.C.T. Judge Mr. T.D. Kashav in Suit No. 53 of 1985. Vide Cross-Objection No. 2399 of 1989 filed in F.A.O. No. 105 of 1989, claimants seek enhancement of the compensation awarded.2. Notwithstanding the cross-objections filed, independent appeal registered as F.A.O. No. 130 of 1988 has also been filed by the claimants.3. The deceased Ram Kumar, aged 29 years, was proceeding on a motor cycle as a pillion rider. Number of motor cycle being DPW 601. Coming from behind, a bus owned by the appellant bearing No. USY 7163 hit the motor cycle from behind. The time was 6.10 p.m. The date was 28.3.1981. Ram Kumar died.4. He was survived by his widow Sarita Tyagi, two minor sons, Sunil and Sandeep. One minor daughter, Sangeeta and his parents Balram and Krishna. All the six jointly filed a claim petition.5. Holding that the evidence on record established ra...

Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Shri Pritam and Shri Madan Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT616

J.M. Malik, J.1. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is this. She is a tenant in respect of House No. A-215, First Floor, J.J. Colony, Wazir Pur, since 1981, under Shri Pritam, respondent No.1, who is her father-in-law at the rental of Rs.300/- per month. The respondent No.1 never issued the rent receipts. In the year 1985, the rent was enhanced to Rs.400/- per month and on 20.07.1995, it was further enhanced to Rs.600/- per month. Madan Kumar, respondent No.2/defendant No.2 is appellant's husband. The relations between husband and wife went awry because respondent No.2 used to drink and quarrel with the appellant. The respondent No.1 had taken Rs.30,000/- from the appellant to pay of the security amount deposited by another tenant and had grabbed Rs.50,000/- from the appellant.2. The respondent No.1 filed a collusive suit bearing No.241/2001 for mandatory injunction and recovery of damages/ mesne profits praying therein to direct the respondent No.2 and his family members to handover ...

Vestergaard Frandsen India (P) Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC221

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Vestergaard Frandsen India (P) Ltd. on the ground that the goods imported by them vide Bill of Entry (No.153011 dated 18.11.01 and 152929 dated 3.11.01) were Netting fabrics and therefore, rightly classified under 6002.43 and not under 58.04 as determined by the departmental authorities. Both these tariff entries are reproduced for convenience: 60.02 Other knitted or crocheted fabrics 6002.10 -Of a width not exceeding 30cm, containing by weight 5% or more of elastomeric yarn or rubber thread 6002.20 -Other, of a width not exceeding 30 cm 6002.30 -Of a width exceeding 30 cm, containing by weight 5% or more of elastomeric yarn or rubber thread" -Other fabrics, warp knit (including those made on galloon knitting machines): _______________________________________________________________________ 58.04 Tulles and other net fabrics, not including woven, knitted or crocheted fabrics; lace in the piece, in strips or in motifs, other than fabrics of Heading No...

Avery Cycles Inds. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC183

1. This appeal has come up for hearing by order of remand made by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana by setting aside the order of the Tribunal made on 24.6.04 only to the extent of reducing the penalty to Rs. 25,000/-. The case is remanded for a fresh decision on the question of penalty. While making the remand, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the only contention raised for the revenue was that the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed by the Tribunal though the penalty specified under the statute provision of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act,44 had been interpreted by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana to mean minimum penalty in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Illpea Paramount Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006 (77) RLT. 118.2. By the Order-in-Original dt. 15.11.03, the Commissioner had confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,71,829/- under Section 11A by invoking the provisions of extended period, disallowed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 27,038/-, order...

Smt. Sushila Sharma Vs. Sh. Pawan Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT529; (2007)2LLJ865Del

Hima Kohli, J.1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 2nd September, 2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court on a reference dated 29th March, 2000 made to the said court to adjudicate upon the following issue:Whether the services of Sh.Pawan Sharma 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?2. Under the impugned award, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has held that the petitioner herein has retrenched the respondent workman (hereinafter referred to as `the workman') illegally, without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short `the Act') and thus termination of the services of the workman on 27th August, 1999 is ab initio illegal and unjustified. However, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that it is not a fit case for...

B.M. Gupta and Sons (Huf) Vs. Acit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]299ITR410(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. By this common Judgment, four appeals being ITA Nos. 1184/06, 1185/06, 1186/06 and 1191/06 filed by the Appellant are disposed of, as all these appeals have common ground.2. These appeals arise out of a decision dated 24th February, 2006 passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.3. Appellant is the owner of the premises bearing Municipal No. 50/1, 1st Floor, Janpath, New Delhi which have been let out. The rent of this premises was increased retrospectively with effect from 1-4-94 by way of an agreement and as a result thereof, the appellant received a sum of Rs. 38,55,827.40/- during the financial year 1999-2000 on account of arrears of rent for the period 1-4-94 to 31-03-99. The appellant did not offer this rental income in the year relevant to the assessment year of receipt nor offered the same in the relevant assessment years.4. Appellant's case is that he received the arrears of rent during the financial year 1999-2000 on account of arrears of rent for the pe...