Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

S.K. Zaman Vs. Ministry of Urban Development and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT758; 2008(3)SLJ529(Delhi)

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this common order and judgment we propose to dispose of Writ Petition Nos. 1206/2006 and 1185/2006 filed against the order dated 13.9.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby the O.A. No. 2093/2004 (preferred by Shri S.K. Zaman, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1206/2006), was disposed of by holding that Respondent No. 3 Shri Rajeev Malhotra was illegible, having the requisite qualification and experience prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for being appointed to the post of Chief Regional Planner in the NCR Planning Board and with the directions to treat the appointment of Shri Rajeev Malhotra, (the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1185/2006) to the post of Chief Regional Planner in the NCR Planning Board as on deputation with effect from 25.11.2003 for a specific term, and the same was directed not to be treated as an appointment by way of promotion. The claim of the Petitioner Shri S.K. Zaman, that Shri Rajeev Malhotra, ...

Cce Vs. Sunshine Steel Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(124)ECC195

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby penalty imposed under Rule 96ZP(3) of Central Excise Rules was set aside as time-barred.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of hot re-rolled products and they opted to pay duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The annual capacity of the mill was determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise and respondents were required to pay the duty determined the appellant liable to pay duty of a particular month by 10th day of each month.3. Show-cause notice was issued for imposition of penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) of Central Excise Rules. The adjudicating authority imposed penalty of equal amount to the amount of duty not deposited within the stipulated time period. The Commissioner (Appeals) on appeal filed by the respondent set aside the imposition of penalty as time-barred. I have carefully examined the case records including the appellants submissions made in writing and at t...

The Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(126)ECC149

1. Common issue involved in these appeals and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of V.P. Sugar and molasses classifiable under heading No. 17.01 and 17.03 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In this case, credits are denied on various capital goods, as the same are not capital goods within the definition of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The admissibility of the credit on the said items are discussed herein below: The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that these items used for packing of streamline etc. for prevention of leakage and they have nothing to do with the manufacture of final product. The appellant contented that it is used as mechanical use for the heat, liquid etc. attached to the machine. The Tribunal in the case of Titawi Sugar Complex v. CCE, Meerut reported in 2006 (195) ELT 243 (Tri-Del.) held that asbestos packing eligible for modvat credit. Further, th...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Rama Fibres Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)141CompCas423NULL

1. This is an appeal by the Punjab National 1 Bank against the order dated September 25, 2002, passed by the DRT, Chandigarh, rejecting its application purportedly made under Section 19(25) read with Section 26(2) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993, for the amendment of recovery certificate made in pursuance of a decree in O.A. No. 144 of 1998 passed by the DRT, Jaipur.2. The facts are that O. A. No. 144 of 1998, in question was decided by the DRT, Jaipur, by judgment dated October 27, 1999. It was decreed against the concerned defendants/respondents for recovery of Rs. 4,44,60,002.08. Recovery certificate was drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer, DRT, Jaipur. The bank made an application, the order passed whereupon has given rise to this appeal, praying for suitable amendment in the recovery certificate along with the amendment of relief clause of the judgment and the order passed by the DRT.According to the bank, there was clerical error in the recovery certificate as the same was not in c...

Satya Chit Funds (P) Ltd. Vs. Prakash Khattar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ305

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for impugning the common order dated 19.09.2006 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in respect of four complaints filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the respondent herein whereby all the four complaints were disposed of as having been compounded. Since the order under challenge is same one in all these petitions and the point involved is also common the same were heard together and now I shall also be disposing of the four petitions by a common order.2. Factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the present petitions is that the petitioner complainant is engaged in the business of Chit Funds. Respondent became member of some Chit Groups and towards discharge of his liability in respect of those Chits he issued several cheques of the total val...

Ashok Kumar Pathak, A.C. Fitter Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The peculiar facts of the present case, coupled with nature of relief, as asked for by the applicant, have necessitated decision of this O.A. by Full Bench, which need to be noted at the very outset.Applicant, Ashok Kumar Pathak, who has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as the 1985 Act), was initially appointed as Khalasi on 9.4.1985 in Air Condition (AC) department and subsequently, after trade tests conducted by the Genral Manager, Northern Railway, respondent No.1, from time to time, was promoted to the grade of Helper Khalasi w.e.f. 1.1.1986, A.C. Fitter Grade-III w.e.f. 1.5.1994, and Highly Skilled A.C. Fitter Grade-II w.e.f. 26.5.1997 -which post he was holding at the time of filing of the present Application. Shri Bijender Singh, the third respondent herein, was initially appointed as Khalasi on 26.5.1988 in Moulding Section, and after trade tests conducted by the first respondent from time...

Mukh Ram Singh S/O Shri Ram Roop Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant was Senior Booking Clerk in the Northern Railway, and on 23.03.1995, had been working jointly with the Parcel Supervisor. At the conclusion of his duty at 2030 hrs, he left for his residence.After his departure, a Vigilance Inspector had inspected the office at about 10 P.M. Duly a charge sheet had been issued to him, alleging connivance with Mr. R.C. Gupta as it was found that there was shortage of an amount in the chest in respect of parcel booking. It is averred that charge sheet had been substituted/modified, and inquiry proceedings had been initiated. The inquiry officer had submitted a report finding that the charges against the applicant were not proved.The proceedings had continued for 4 years, as the report is dated 20.7.1999.2. The disciplinary authority issued a letter disagreeing with the report and a penalty order had been issued on 13.09.1999. On rejection of the appeal filed, the applicant had filed OA 2123/2002. This Tribunal had found that there was p...

Doon Security Services Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ346CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The applicant filed this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In view of the reasons explained in the application as the applicant received the order on 12.3.2007, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. COD is allowed.2. The applicant also filed application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax of Rs. 11,06,333.99 and penalty of Rs. One lakh.The demand of Service Tax is confirmed on the ground that applicant is provided service of security agency. The contention of the applicant is that they are only receiving 5% supervision charges and they are providing the security to various offices of BSNL so they are liable to pay Service Tax on the commission they have received. The contention of the Revenue is that the applicants are providing security service and as per the definition of security agency any commercial concern engaged in the business of rendering services relating to the security of any property, whether movable or immovable, or of an...

Jai Bhagwan Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT46

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The menace of corruption has to be looked into proper perspective. Corruption cannot be considered as a trivial offence. When a defense Inspector, responsible for approving the quality of components of tanks, armed carrier and other vehicles deployed during war time, turns corrupt and procure inferiors quality of components, the persons who die because of this corruption are the innocent soldiers who go to the war front fighting for the nation. When an inspector, responsible for removing squatters from the roads, turns corrupt and accepts bribe/hafta from the squatters, driving and walking on the roads becomes nightmare resulting into accidental deaths and loss of lives which could be saved had the person not been corrupt. When a health inspector, responsible for the checking of food adulteration or food being sold in open, turns corrupt and accepts bribe, the person who fell prey to his corruption are those poor persons who eat unhygienic food. When ove...

Vimal Bhai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1953; 147(2008)DLT123; 2007(99)DRJ675

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. The petitioner, who is the social activist, has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers:(a) direct Respondents to get the inaction of the police officials investigated through some independent agency, to identify the erring policemen/officials and initiate disciplinary proceedings against them;(b) direct Respondent No. 2 to register an FIR of the Petitioner and to investigate the matter, identify the culprits and charge them Under Section 324 IPC or any other relevant provision of law.2. The facts as set out in the petition are as follows. The petitioner is a social activist working with the non-governmental organization, 'National Alliance for Peoples' Movement', working in the field of social reforms and communal harmony. The petitioner had actively worked with the Narmada Bachao Andolan and is at present working with Tehri Dam oustees in Uttranchal with an organization called 'Matu (Soil) Peoples' Organization'. It is the case of the petitione...