Delhi Court December 2007 Judgments

Smt. Vidya Vs. D.T.C. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ112

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks enhancement in compensation over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal in favor of the appellant vide order dated 18.10.2002.2. Factual scenario of the case in nutshell is that the present appellant received serious injuries including multiple fractures on her leg due to the accident involving bus bearing registration No. DBP-6242 of respondent No. 1. According to the case set up by the appellant in her claim petition, she along with baby Priyanka, her small baby of 2 years age, were traveling in a three-wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DHR-4551 in a most careful manner and at a low speed on the left side of the road near Azad Market Chowk and Railway Bridge when the DTC bus bearing registration No. DBP-6242 being driven by one Shri Mehmood Khan, respondent No. 2 herein, suddenly appeared from the opposite side due to which the said bus collided with the scooter. The said DTC bus was being dr...

P. Balasubramaniam Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order is delivered by Km. Vijay Laxmi, Member, Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange. 2. This is an appeal against Adjudication Order No. DD/MAS/90-98/2003(VS), dated 9-9-2003 passed by Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai imposing a penalty of Rs. 42,000 (Rupees forty two thousand only) against the appellant, Shri. P. Balasubramaniam for contravention of the provisions of section 9(1)(c) of FERA, 1973. The full amount of penalty has been deposited by the appellant in compliance of the order of this Tribunal where presently the appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. Three show-cause notices each were issued against the three sister concerns, viz., M/s. City Knitting Co., Tirupur, M/s. Happy Bee and M/s. Nitco Hosiery Mills, Tirupur and the appellant who is Managing Partner of these concerns. The details of the three SCNs issued against the three firms and the appellant are given below : M/s. Happy Bee (i) Show Cause Memorandum No. T-4/105-M/88(...

Ashok Agarwal Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ405CESTATNew(Delhi)

The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax of Rs. 2,63,478/- and penalties. The applicants are providing the service of C & F agent to the fertilizer company. The applicant also given on rent godown for warehousing the goods of the same fertilizer company. The Revenue wants to add the rent while arriving at the assessable value of the service provided by C & F agent.2. The contention of the applicant is that for giving godown on rent there is a separate contract, therefore, it cannot be considered as part of service of C & F agent.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods regarding which the applicant is providing C & F agent are warehoused in the godown, therefore, the hiring of godown is a part of the service provided as C & F agent and the contention is also that as per the contract on hiring godown the applicant has to receive the goods for safe custody and also to despatch the goods from the godown. The app...

Dixon Electronics Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ404CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. In this case, the entire Service Tax together with interest was paid by the appellants, who were found to have been providing services of maintenance and repair. The appellants challenged the impugned order on the ground that, they were not to pay penalty due to instant payment of tax together with interest.2. I have heard the learned JCDR for the respondent and perused the record. None is present for the appellants in spite of notice. I find that the issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Mett Macdonald Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur 2006 (2) STR 524, holding that, imposition of penalty is sustainable when tax liability was paid only after the inquiry was conducted by the Department. Therefore, there is no merit in the appellants' contention that the payment of demand of tax together with interest, prior to the issue of the show cause notice, would absolve them of the liability to pay penalty.3. Following the ratio of the above decision, I uphold the impugned order of imposit...

Acme Tele Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR416

1. In this case, the entire Service Tax together with interest was paid by the appellants, who were found to have been providing services of Erection, Installation and Commissioning of plant & machinery and equipments. The appellants challenged the impugned order on the ground that, they were not to pay penalty due to instant payment of tax together with interest [the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the tax payment and proportionately scaled down the penalty amount to Rs. 3,97,634/-.2. I have heard the learned JCDR for the respondent and perused the record. None is present for the appellants in spite of notice. I find that the issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Mett Macdonald Ltd. v. CCE Jaipur , holding that, imposition of penalty is sustainable when tax liability was paid only after the inquiry was conducted by the Department.3. Therefore, there is no merit in the appellants' contention that the payment of tax together with interest, prior to the issue of ...

Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar Gaur Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicants, SI Sanjay Kumar Gaur in OA No. 1908/2006; HC Vijender Singh, Const. Satvir Singh and Const. Satish Kumar in OA No. 1949/2006; and Const. Parmender Singh in OA No. 1969/2006, faced a joint departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer in his detailed report dated 15.3.2005 (Annexure A-5) held that the charges served upon them could not be substantiated. The disciplinary authority, however, after recording a note of dissent dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure A-2), and after hearing the applicants held the charges framed against them as proved and vide order dated 13.3.2006 (Annexure A-3) ordered their dismissal from service with immediate effect. Their suspension period from 3.9.2004 to 28.8.2005 was ordered to be treated as not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. The appellate authority vide order dated 7.8.2006 (Annexure A-4), however, while confirming the guilt against the applicants, modified the punishment of dismissal from service to that of forfeiture of two years appr...

Bhuri Singh S/O. Late Sh. Gulua and Sh. Niwas Sharma Sh. Bhuri Singh V ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT797; 2008(101)DRJ657

V.B. Gupta, J.1. By this common order, I shall dispose of two applications for granting of anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners, since these arise out of common FIR registered in this case.2. The present case has been registered on the statement of Smt. Phoolwati, mother of deceased Seema, recorded by the SDM. Smt. Phoolwati in her statement has stated that her daughter Seema was married to Ram Kumar on 8th July, 2003. At that time, they had spent beyond their capacity as per their demands. The family members of Ram Kumar took care of her for a while, but later on they started harassing and asking her daughter to bring money from her house as they were unable to meet the expenses of their household. On the occasion of last Raksha Bandhan, they gave an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to their daughter as per demand of their in laws but after six months, again she was sent back to her parental house after giving beating and was asked to bring money. Again they gave...

Ascent Constructions Pvt. Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Compan ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)BC472; 2008(103)DRJ118

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in complaint case in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate and also setting aside of the summoning order dated 20.11.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate.2. The respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the present petitioners on the allegations that the petitioners entrusted the respondent work of designing, supply, fabrication etc. at Greater Noida. The respondent completed the said work order to the satisfaction of the petitioners. After completion of the work, respondent submitted final bill against which, the petitioner made part payment. For the balance payment, the respondent served a legal notice and on receipt of the same, the petitioners issued four cheques towards the part payment. On presentation of those cheques by the respondent one cheque was returned with remarks 'Insufficient Funds' whi...

Sanjay Kumar Ghai S/O Late Shri D.N. Ghai Vs. the State Through Its Ch ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ731

V.B. Gupta, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of impugned order dated 16.4.2007 passed by the Magistrate and praying that there shall be only one trial in all the five cases filed against the petitioner.2. The present petitioner has taken loans from different persons and has issued various cheques to different persons. On bouncing of those cheques issued by the present petitioner, different persons have filed separate cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner.3. As per the averments made in the present petition, the petitioner filed an application before the Magistrate under Section 219/220 CrPC interalia praying the court for joint trial of all the five complaint cases which are as under:a. J.K.Gulati v. Sanjay Ghai, vide C.C. No. 2715/2004,b. Meenu Gulati v. Sanjay Ghai, vide C.C. No. 2716/2004,c. Kuldip Gulati v. Sanjay Ghai, vide C.C. No. 2717/2004,d. J.K.Gulati v. Sanjay Ghai, vide C.C. No. 973/1/2006 a...

Home Bank Investment Inc and anr. Vs. M.M.T.C. Limited and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR263(Delhi); 147(2008)DLT49; 2008(101)DRJ49

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award dated 30.10.2004 made and published by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three learned Arbitrators. However, this petition is limited to the conclusion arrived at in the award in respect of issue No. 11- 'Relief'.2. The petitioners had filed their claim before the Arbitrators. The case of the petitioners was that the petitioner No. 2 had made an offer through the petitioner No. 1 on 24.02.1995 for supply of Prilled Urea to the respondent MMTC Limited for a total quantity of 240,000 MTs. The petitioner No. 1 along with its letter of offer enclosed a bid bond dated 22.02.1995 in the form of a bank guarantee in favor of the respondent. According to the petitioners, no contract materialised between the petitioners and the respondent. However, despite the fact that there was no contract between the petitioners and the respondent the respondent invok...