Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

Pasupati Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(123)ECC294; 2007(149)LC294(Delhi)

ORDERMadan B. Lokur and Dr. S. Muralidhar, JJ.CM Nos. 6177/2007 & 6178/2007Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.CM No. 6176/2007For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned.The application stands disposed of.CUS. A.C. 9/20071. The assessed is aggrieved by an order dated 26th May, 2006 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('CESTAT') in Customs Appeal No. 199 of 2006.2. According to the assessed an incorrect assessment of customs duty was made in relation to a Bill of Entry dated 20th January, 2005 in respect of the import of a consignment of core polyester sewing threads (hereinafter called the goods). The assessed claims that under a bonafide mistake, it accepted the assessment and paid the customs duty in the sum of Rs. 6,08,892/- instead of Rs. 3,87,250.98.3. A few days later, on 18th March 2005, the assessed filed an application for refund of the excess customs duty said to h...

State Vs. Kaptan Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1458

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 11.1.1988 at around 8:10 A.M., master Anubhav Khanna, a student of Air Force Senior Secondary School, Subhroto Park suffered an untimely death when he was hit by a motor vehicle. The young boy was a student of Class III and was aged 8 years. Prosecution alleged that the respondent who was driving bus No. DEP - 8474 under management of DTC and had caused the accident when, plying on route No. 773, the bus was on the road and had reached Air Force Senior Secondary School.2. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate who conducted the trial has held that offence under Section 279 and Section 304 IPC was not established against the respondent. In so holding, learned Trial Judge has held that there are material discrepancies in the testimony of PW-2 & PW-3 which casts a doubt whether PW-2 had witnessed the accident. Further, learned Trial Judge has drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution from the fact that vide DD Entry Ex.PW-9/A recorded at 9:05 A.M. no particula...

indraprastha Power Generation Company Ltd. Vs. Ishwari Devi (Widow of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(99)DRJ485

Hima Kohli, J.1. The petitioner management has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by an order dated 19th January, 2005 passed by the Labour Court on an application filed by the respondent workman under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid application by the respondent workman are that on 11th August, 1973, an agreement of Wage Revision was entered into by the petitioner management with its workers' union. However, certain points of dispute were referred for decision to the Sole Arbitrator, Sh. G. Venkata Swamy on 18th October, 1973. The arbitrator gave an interim award on 24th October, 1973 which was implemented by the petitioner management. The arbitrator gave his final award on 21st March, 1977 but the same was not implemented by the petitioner management. As a result, the workers' union raised a dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the appropriat...

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Madan Stores Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR191(Delhi); 146(2008)DLT543; 2007(99)DRJ420

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Indian Petrochemical Corporation Ltd (for short, IPCL) entered into a distributorship agreement (hereinafter referred to as the 'said agreement') with the respondent on 13.01.1991 for the execution of which the respondent/distributor maintained a depot in Varanasi where it traded various goods produced by IPCL. The said agreement was renewed on a yearly basis. It is stated that in 1997, certain loopholes arose in the said agreement due to failure in exercising of due control on financial management by the petitioner in relation to various customers. Certain sale proceeds which were to be recovered by IPCL were not recovered by them in time but goods continued to be supplied to such customers. It is claimed that IPCL passed on its liabilities to the respondent. 2. It is stated that there were certain categories of consignment from IPCL which were handled by the respondent and IPCL had dispatched material to customers falling within the said categories and that w...

Nemi Chand JaIn @ Chandraswami Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT641; 2007(99)DRJ440

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that this Court should issue directions to the respondent not to prevent petitioner from going abroad and also for directing the respondent No. 2 to release the passport of the petitioner and not to obstruct/restrain the petitioner from exercising his fundamental rights to move freely and to go abroad. 2. The petitioner is involved in several cases under FERA and is on bail in these cases. While granting bail to the petitioner under FERA, conditions were put and one of the condition was that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and if he even desires to go out of Delhi he shall give prior intimation to the Enforcement Department about his programme and intimate the addresses and places where he could be contacted. In one of the cases where the bail was granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court...

Tele Tech Communications Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ401CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. By adjudication order dated 7 March 2006, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise appropriated the tax as already paid by the appellant and also imposed penalty under Section 77 and Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the said adjudication order. By Order-in-Appeal dated 31 August 2006, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.Then the appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal before the Tribunal. By final order No. 1049/07-SM (BR) dated 4 June 2007, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The relevant portions of order of the Tribunal are reproduced below: 4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the lower authorities were in error in imposing the penalty in as much as the scheme made no distinction between parties who sought registration on their own and the parties who took registration in the light of pending proceedings. 5. The scheme has been ext...

Malti Devi W/O Late Sh. Muneshwar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The above two applications are being disposed of by a common order and we make it clear that we are not going into the merits of the contentions excepting as dealt with in Paragraph 9, as of now.2. The applicant is a Group `D' staff working under the jurisdiction of the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi. She had secured appointment as a Peon on compassionate grounds and had been regularized in the course of time on 24.12.1996 as temporary Khalasi.It appears that she had grievances far too much than an average employee, as could be seen from the representations filed and the Original Applications prepared. We note that there was an observation made by this Tribunal in O.A.2100/1999 as following: I do not appreciate filing this O.A. seeking to interfere with the day to day administration in the office. Being a khalasi, she is expected to work wherever she is posted. In the face of clear allegations of disobedience and refusal to do work, I am not prepared to int...

D.K. Aggarwal S/O Shri M.S. Vs. Shri Sanjeev Mishra, Secretary,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The present application had been filed by the applicants, inviting the attention of the Tribunal to the circumstance that the order passed by the Deputy Director in the Ministry of Small Scale Industries dated 11/14 May, 2007 amounted to Contempt of Court and, therefore, appropriate action was required to be taken. In OA No. 2057/2005, applicants, who were Assistant Directors Grade-II challenged the order passed by the respondent organization on 06.05.2005. The applicants submit that the order as above had been set aside and the eligibility of the applicants for grant of scale of pay which had been made available to their counterparts in the Department were consequently to be extended to them to the full extent, without curtailment. By the impugned order, the representatives of the Technical Officer Associations had been advised that as per the recruitment rules as approved by the Government, the claim was not sustainable. The applicants point out that while disposing of the applic...

S.B. Movers and Lifters (P) Ltd. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008BusLR46(Del)

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. This petition arises out of a decision taken by the first respondent Steel Authority of India (SAIL) to reject all tenders, including that of the petitioner, and to call for fresh tenders, for the award of a materials handling contract at its warehouse in Guldhar at Ghaziabad.2. The petitioner is a Pvt. Limited Company, engaged in the work of handling contractors. It has approached this Court seeking the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It prays that the decision of the respondent No.1, Steel Authority of India, (hereinafter referred to as SAIL) to reject the petitioner's tender of 26th November, 2005, be quashed and set aside, and that SAIL be directed to consider the petitioner's offer made under the said tender, on the ground that the petitioner was admittedly the lowest tenderer amongst the three shortlisted by the Technical Evaluation Committee of SAIL. It has also sought directions to the respondents not to ...

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Sh. Manoj Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ461

J.M. Malik, J.1. The main question which falls for consideration in this case is whether an aggrieved person/plaintiff is liable to pay the court fees on a bill which is prima facie not legal or where the court comes to the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the licensee i.e. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited is not correct.2. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the order of this Court, in Sarjiwan Singh v. Delhi Vidyut Board : 110(2004)DLT633 puts the case of the petitioner in an impregnable position. Its relevant para is reproduced as hereunder:7. In these circumstances the Order dated 25.9.1997 in Suit No. 791/1997 does not disclose any error in the exercise of jurisdiction; CR No. 1186/1997 is accordingly dismissed. Reference Nos. 1/1998, 2/1998, 3/1998, 4/1998, 5/1998 and 6/1998 are disposed of by holding that where a bill has been raised by the Electricity Department, which is prima facie legal, a declaration must be prayed for to the effect that the bill is incorrect or illega...