Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

Smt. Nirmal Singh, Proof Reader Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Smt. Nirmal Singh, Proof Reader (Junior), applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to set aside the order dated 01.05.2002 (Annexure-A) vide which she was reverted to the post of Proof Reader (Junior) as also the order dated 06.05.2002 (Annexure - B) vide which her pay on reversion to the post of Proof Reader (Junior) was brought in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and fixed at Rs. 5100/-. As challenge to both the orders is beyond the period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Original Application is accompanied by a Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay. In the Misc. Application aforesaid, it has, inter alia, been pleaded that immediately on passing the impugned orders, the applicant made oral representation to the concerned higher official in the Central Hindi Directorate but she was threatened of victimization.Thereafter, she could n...

Sandeep Batra Vs. Ge Capital Services India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT323

Aruna Suresh, J.1. Present application has been filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 11, Order 2 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) for rejection of the plaint. The facts giving rise to the present case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction challenging his termination by the defendant company vide letter dated 11.8.2000 before the Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. In the said suit, declaration was sought that the said letter be declared bad in law and by way of mandatory injunction he sought direction to be issued to the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff into the services and pay entire salary and by way of permanent injunction restrained order to be issued against the defendant from carrying out any recovery of housing loan from the plaintiff. Vide judgment dated 1.10.2004, the learned trial judge was pleased to decree the suit of the plaintiff as regards his relief for decl...

Om Prakash Vs. D.T.C.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008(116)FLR1168]

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd September, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal in an application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. On the ground of commission of misconduct of collecting fare without issuing the tickets, a departmental proceeding was instituted against the appellant herein. On completion of the said inquiry, the appellant was found guilty of the charges framed against him and accordingly upon consideration of the reply filed by the appellant, a show cause notice was issued to him as to why his services should not be terminated. Disciplinary authority finally passed an order on 16th October, 1992 terminating the services of the appellant by giving him one month's wages. 3. After passing the aforesaid order and as required under the provisions of Sec...

Sunita Baliyan Vs. Director Social Welfare Department Govt. of Nct of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ551; (2008)IILLJ286Del

Hima Kohli, J. 1. The present writ petition is directed against a no relief award dated 20th March, 2006 passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 175/2000, against the petitioner, wherein the reference made by the appropriate Government as to 'whether the services of the petitioner were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief was she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect', was answered by the Labour Court as below:I accordingly, hold that she has not been terminated as yet and find myself in agreement with the Ld.AR for the management that she is absenting herself from the duties and, as such, there is no question of her illegal or unjustifiable termination from the services. However, the management is at liberty to take action as per the above referred provisions against her. The issue is accordingly decided in favor of the management and against the workman.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition ...

Biman Bangladesh Airlines Vs. Anup Mittal and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On account of wrongful cancellation of return ticket for the journey from Delhi-Bangkok-Delhi availed by the respondent-1 from the appellant-airlines and having suffered losses by way of making payment on fresh ticket from some other airlines as well as mental agony, harassment, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 30.6.2006 passed by the District Forum directed to pay a sum of Rs. 27,700 the amount incurred by the respondent for purchasing the fresh ticket of Thai Airlines amounting to Rs. 17,700 and spending Rs. 10,000 for one days additional stay including the expenditure on meals and other allied expenses and further to pay him a sum of Rs. 15,000 on account of compensation for suffering caused to him due to deficiency of service on the part of appellant for not providing seat despite confirmed ticket and for not providing him vegetarian food and to compensate him for cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred thi...

Mr. Dalveer Singh Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR491

1. Vide impugned orders, the authorities below have confirmed Service Tax of Rs. 4,27,332/- against the appellant by treating them as Cargo Handling Service Provider, alongwith confirmation of interest. In addition, personal penalty of identical amount stands imposed under Section 76 and under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 alongwith imposition of penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77.2. The appellant had entered into two different contracts with M/s Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (CFCL), Kota. As per contract No.JPR/HAND/2004-05 dated 8.4.2004, the appellant was to supply the following services to M/s CFCL: While uploading the material from railway wagons, (Unloading of Fertilizers from wagons, stacking on platform and loading into the trucks from platform), stacking the same at the Company's warehouse and destacking and loading into truck the contractor shall protect the fertilizers from damage or loss by rains, pilferage or by any other such cases or reason. The con...

Stan Auto Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case, the appellant has already paid the entire amount of Service Tax demanded from him even before the issue of show cause notice. Besides this, he has already paid the interest payable by him in addition to 25% of penalty imposed on him in the impugned order.After going through the papers and hearing both the sides, we find that no further pre-deposit is required for the purpose of hearing this appeal.2. The application stands disposed of accordingly. The appeal shall come in its own turn....

Association for Advancement of Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicants have challenged selection of Scientists made pursuant to Notification Annexure A-2 issued by the National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources (NISCAIR). The advertisement had appeared in the Employment News of May, 2004.Essential qualifications and minimum experience had been prescribed and it is pointed out that the general procedure, as gatherable from the Notification, was that there would be a written test for short listing.The selection was to be based on academic qualifications, experience and suitability as adjudged. In the process, screening, written test for short-listing the candidates and interview had been contemplated.Particular reference is made by the counsel to the Note in the advertisement which indicated that a written test will be organized to short list the candidates to be called for interview. The candidates were expected to go through Multiple Choice Questions based on a written test and details of the areas, which were...

Shri Vijay Kumar Mago S/O Shri K.L. Vs. Council of Scientific and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant has retired from service. He was a Technician Grade-VIII in the National Physical Laboratory. He had to suffer adverse orders during his career, in that on 17.05.1999, he had been compulsorily retired from service. Original Application challenging the proceedings had been rejected. A Writ Petition filed by him before the Hon'ble High Court, however, had been disposed of, on 18.10.2001 where respondents were directed to reconsider the matter after examining the case. On 15.02.2002, consequent to the above direction, Director General, CSIR had advised the applicant that a lenient view was being taken in the light of the observations of the High Court. By the said order, applicant was reinstated in service and a penalty of reduction to Grade-II (2) from Group II (3) was imposed. This was to be effective from 15.04.1999 and for a period of four years. It has also been provided that he will stand restored to his original post of Group II (3) after the period and was therea...

Tahil Ram Moolchandani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)692

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 18th Oct., 2005 of CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi relating to the block period 1st April, 1986 to 13th Feb., 1997. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad, both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated under Section 158BD of the Act against the appellant much after the framing of block assessment of the searched person is bad in the eye of law and liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no justification for initiating the proceedings under Section 158BD of the Act and as such the assessment framed thereof is null and void and liable to be declared so.3. The facts and circumstances necessary for adjudication of the aforesaid grounds are as follows. The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of commission agent of fruits. The assessee along with his sons acts as a commission agent...