Delhi Court December 2007 Judgments

Shree Prithvi Steels Rolling Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore both the appeals are taken up together for disposal.2. The appellants filed these appeals against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise passed under Section 14A of Central Excise Act, 1944.The learned advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that the Commissioner of Central Excise passed the order without giving any opportunity of hearing in violation of principle of natural justice. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and Ors. reported as in similar provisions under Section 142(2A) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 held that the assessees suffers civil consequences and any order passed by it would be prejudicial to him, principle of natural justice must be held to be implicit. He submits that the Commissioner appointed the special auditors without giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee which is prejudicial to them.3. The learned DR ...

Rajinderjit Singh S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has challenged order dated 18.09.2007 whereby respondents have intimated to him that after order dated 13.04.2007 was issued, the matter was examined at Army HQ and in order to correct the mistake, amendment was issued so that promotion could be done as per due date and availability of vacancy at that point of time vide letter dated 29.05.2007. Accordingly, order dated 21.07.2007 was issued amending the previous promotion order dated 13.04.2007 (page 7).The impugned order was issued pursuant to the direction given by this Tribunal in OA No. 1361/2007 decided on 07.08.2007 (page 21).2. It is stated by the applicant that vide order dated 13.04.3007, he was promoted as Assistant from UDC and in the said order it was clearly mentioned that on promotion they will be posted to the Units mentioned against their names. Applicants name figured at serial No. 20 and was to be posted in 505, ABW, Delhi Cantt (in-situ) (page 10-12). Another letter dated 26.04.2007 was wr...

Microsoft Corporation and anr. Vs. Mr. A. JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(36)PTC346(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. IA No. 14229/2007 (Under Order 9 Rule 6 CPC)is No. 14230/2007 (Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963)1. These two applications have been filed for recall of the order dated 9.10.2007 in terms whereof the right of the defendants to file the written statement stood closed. Summons were served on the defendants on 4.7.2007 and no written statement had been filed despite the lapse of ninety (90) days, such right was closed on 9.10.2007. The plaintiffs were directed to file the affidavits of examination-in-chief. The affidavits have been filed by the plaintiffs.2. The only ground stated in the application is that the defendants were not aware that the written statement had to be filed within thirty (30) days. Ignorance of law can hardly be a defense especially when the defendants are advised by an advocate. In fact, no written statement has been filed even with these applications of the defendants, which is proposed to be placed on record.3. These applications h...

Everonn Systems India Limited Vs. Directorate of Education

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR549(Delhi); 2008(100)DRJ155

Anil Kumar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole arbitrator in terms of arbitration agreement between the parties as the disputes have arisen between the parties.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of imparting computer education, maintenance and supply of computer hardware, development of computer software etc. The petition has been filed by Mr. Chandrababu, General Manager of the petitioner company, who has been authorized by a resolution dated 24th July, 2007 passed by the Board of Directors, to institute this petition.3. The contention of the petitioner is that a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) bearing No. F.DE-45/21/CEP-V/2004 was issued by the respondent for computer education project, 'CEP-V', in 267 Government/Government aided schools in the NCT of Delhi and the petitioner was selected as a successful bidder and a let...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mamta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ455

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., insurer of the offending vehicle has preferred an appeal challenging the impugned order dated 6.10.2007 passed by the learned MACT. The impugned award has arisen out of the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 against the appellant as well as against respondent Nos. 4 & 5 claiming compensation for the death of Shri Gopal Singh Negi.2. The brief facts which are necessary for deciding the present appeal inter alias are that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of deceased Shri Gopal Singh Negi who died on 16.11.2006 on the way to the hospital from the accident spot. On 16.11.2006 at about 9:15 am when the deceased was in the process of boarding a DTC bus bearing registration No. DL 1PB 2499 at Bye-pass bus stand, Outer Ring Road, Burari, Timarpur, when the driver, Sh. Attar Singh, rashly and negligently started the said bus with a sudden jerk and hit another bus bearing registration No. DL 1PB 6874. The...

Smt. Uma Kumari Widow of Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

8.1 to allow the O.A. and quash the impugned order dated 14.2.2002 (A-1) and order dated 3.8.2006 (A-II) and consequently; 8.2 to direct the respondents to grant family pension and to refund the GIS installments so recovered from pay bills of the deceased, and also to treat him temporary status railway employee on completion of 120 days in terms of Rule 206, IREM-II, 1990, with interest payable from 1.4.2000 @ 18% p.a. 8.3 to direct the respondents to grant and release compassionate appointment in Group D post in favor of the applicant.However, at the time of arguments, he submitted he would be pressing only the claim of family pension.2. It is stated by the applicant that her husband, Late Shri Udai Pratap Singh, was engaged as casual laborer on 13.1.1982. He was appointed as Mobile Booking Clerk in the grade of Rs. 975-1540/- w.e.f.24.5.1986 at Railway Station Tundla under DRM, Allahabad. He continued to work for more than 14 years as Mobile Booking Clerk. Ultimately, he died on 19....

A.K. Singh (ips) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. A. K. Singh (IPS), applicant herein, joined the Goa Police Service in the year 1983 as Grade-II Officer. He became eligible to be considered for promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS) in April 1991, for which, however, the vacancy only occurred in 1995. Selection committee for consideration of the applicant for promotion to IPS was held only in 1997, and the applicant was allotted 1993 as the year of allotment. The only question raised in the present Application is that if the selection committee which has to meet every year or at least in the year when the vacancy occurs but could not meet for no fault on the part of the applicant, whether the year of his allotment to IPS should be calculated from the year the vacancy became available or when the selection committee actually met and favorably considered him for promotion to IPS.2. Brief facts giving rise to the present Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 reveal that the applicant was select...

ito Vs. Amrit Kumar Patel

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by the revenue against the order dated 5/12/2006 of the learned. Commissioner (Appeals)-XXIV, New Delhi, relating to the assessment year 1998-99.2. I have gone through the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue and I find that the tax effect in the instant appeal is less than Rs. 2 lakhs. In view of CBDT Instructions No. 2 dated 24-10-2005, the department should not have filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, in the above circular had asked all officers of the Income-tax department under their control not to file appeals before the Appellate Tribunal in cases where the tax effect involved in appeal did not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs. These instructions in question are binding on all departmental authorities and they could not be by passed and treated as of no consequence on the pretext that these were private only, and the authorities are bound to follow, comply with and see that the policies laid down by the Board achieve their objective...

Bpl Limited Vs. Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR325(Delhi); 2008(101)DRJ188

Aruna Suresh, J.1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') assailing the order of the arbitrator dated 12.7.2007 passed in the arbitration proceedings between the parties whereby the appellant was restrained from selling or disposing off, encumbering any of its business or properties, investment in shares etc. Appellant and respondents No. 1 & 2 entered into agreements dated 27.12.2002 and 11.6.2003. The agreement dated 27.12.2002 contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose inter se the parties and respondent No. 1 invoked the arbitration clause. It appointed respondent No. 3 as the arbitrator. After appointment when the matter was listed for preliminary hearing, arbitrator passed an interim order under Section 17 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been preferred.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents plac...

indrawati and anr. Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ53

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.CM Nos. 6236-37/2007(exemption)Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.Applications stand disposed of.LPA 290/20071. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 28th July, 2006 dismissing the writ petition which was filed by the appellant praying for quashing of the decision of the Land & Building Department dated 10.2.2003 whereby the request for allotment of an alternative plot to the appellant was rejected.2. The appellant herein had earlier filed a writ petition No. 6205/1999 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 6th August, 2002 with the following observations:Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that petition can be disposed of by setting aside letter Annexure-L dated 10.9.1984 conveying rejection of the application and further directing the respondents to consider afresh the application of the petitioner's predecessor sympathetically made for all...