Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Om Parkash Vs. B.S.E.S.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: 139(2007)DLT492
Rekha Sharma, J.1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent to grant all benefit and arrears of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.8.1999. It so happened that an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner while he was working with the respondent as a Junior Engineer. The report of the Enquiry Officer fortunately for the petitioner went in his favor. When the matter came before the Disciplinary Authority it disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and passed an order dated 21.8.2000 imposing major penalty upon the petitioner of reduction by four stages in his time scale of pay for a period of four years with further stipulation that he will not earn any increment of pay during the period of reduction. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order to the Appellate Authority which by order dated 20.7.2001 reduced the penalty to reduction by one stage for one year in his present time scale with cumulative effect.2. Aggrieved by the orders o...
Principal Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Jahangir Khan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: 139(2007)DLT406; [2007(113)FLR856]; (2007)2LLJ1066Del
Rekha Sharma, J.1. s writ petition has been filed assailing the order of the Desk Officer, Ministry of Labour dated 11.3.2003 whereby in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government has made the following reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, New Delhi for adjudication:Whether the action of the management of M/s. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi in terminating the services of Sh. Jahangir Khan, Ex-Peon w.e.f. 13.6.2001 is legal and justified ' If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to a from which date.2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the power to adjudicate disputes concerning the services of the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vests with Central Administrative Tribunal and, thereforee, the reference made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court is bad. Ref...
Sh. Bishamber Singh Vs. Dtc and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: 138(2007)DLT145; (2007)2LLJ948Del
Hima Kohli, J. 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 28th April, 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court whereunder, it has been held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner workman was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that the punishment of removal from service awarded to the petitioner by the respondent/DTC, is not disproportionate to the misconduct proved against him and, thereforee, the same does not call for interference by the court. With these findings, the reference was returned against the said workman.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner workman was appointed as a conductor with the respondent/DTC in the year 1968-69. On 29th March, 1993, he received an order of suspension passed by the respondent/DTC. On 7th April, 1993, the petitioner was served with a memo wherein charges of irregularity were made against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a reply to the ch...
Triad India Vs. Tribal Cooperative Marketing and Development Federatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR327(Delhi); 138(2007)DLT104; 2007(94)DRJ435; (2007)146PLR34
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the said Act' for short) seeking to challenge an Order passed by Mr. Wilfred Lakra, Sole Arbitrator on 09.01.2007. The dispute between the parties has a past history. An agreement was stated to be entered into between the parties on 15.03.1995 which contained an arbitration clause. This agreement was subsequently stated to be replaced by an agreement dated 16.12.1995 which also contained an arbitration clause but provided that only the Managing Director of the respondent could act as a sole arbitrator. 2. An arbitrator was earlier appointed being Mr. N.L.Kakkar to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties who made and published an award dated 18.01.1999. This award was challenged by the petitioner by filing a petition under Section 34 of the said Act in OMP No. 367/99 which was decided on 26.09.2001. It was held that the petitioner did not have notice of ...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Rattan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: 139(2007)DLT629
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2. The facts of only the present Writ Petition that is i.e. Writ Petition (Civil) No.8201-02/2006 are being taken up in this judgment for disposing of all the connected Writ Petitions being Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1607/2005, 8226-27/2006 8226-27/2006 , 8642-43/2006 8642-43/2006 , 8696-97/2006, 8707-08/2006 8707-08/2006 , 8709-10/2006 8709-10/2006 and 8711-12/2006 8711-12/2006 . 3. This Writ Petition challenges the order dated 29th July, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No(s).1885/2003, 1886/2003, 1887/2003, 1888/2003, 1889/2003, 1890/2003, 1891/2003 and 1892/2003 filed by the Respondents who were the members of the running staff category of Railway employees. The case of the Respondents was that the basic pay in the scale (effective from 1.1.1996) has to be fixed at the stage next above in the revi...
Maya Devi Vs. Land and Development Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ285
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This petition concerns the question of conversion of the one room tenement at J-IV/6, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar,-IV, New Delhi from lease hold to free hold. The original owner of this property was one Radha Krishan. It appears that on 03.10.1985 an agreement to sell was executed between him and the petitioner (Maya Devi wife of Sh. Ram Chand). A sum of Rs. 75,500/- was also paid by the petitioner to the said Radha Krishan and a power of attorney was executed by Radha Krishan in favour of Bihari Lai, who is the nephew of Maya Devi. It appears that a will was also executed by Radha Krishan bequeathing this property, in the event of his death, in favour of Maya Devi. The possession was also handed over to Maya Devi. Essentially, this was a sale transaction using usual documents of agreement to sell, power of attorney, will etc.2. As per the policy indicated by the L&DO;, conversion of property from lease hold to free hold has been permitted to the persons po...
Giesecke and Devrient (India) Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC501
1. Heard both sides and perused the record. The appellant imported a second hand card Personalization Machine and sought duty paid clearance of the machine in terms of a Duty Free Service Entitlement Credit Certificate issued by the DGFT.2. The claim for Duty Free Clearance was rejected under a order dt.7.4.05 by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs. First appeal against that order was also rejected by the Commissioner(Appeals). Hence the present appeal.3. It is seen that the original authority rejected the appellant's claim on the ground that the machine imported, according to appellant's own admission, has no nexus to the service rendered by it. We may read the relevant portion: It was communicated to the department vide party's letter dt. 4.2.05 that Duty Free Service Entitlement Credit Certificate was issued to the company for providing Services for maintenance & repair of the machine supplied to the Reserve Bank of India under a Contract for which the company received considera...
Allied Air Conditioning Corpn. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC138
1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide their judgment and Order in Civil Appeal No. 1100-1101 of 2001 made on 13^th September, 2006 remitted the matter to this Tribunal to consider the stand of the Revenue as regards the disputed items and deal with the items individually and also examine the rival stand on the question of limitation.2. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the appellants despite notice. The appellants are the manufacturers of package type air conditioners, room air conditioners, water chilling plant, cooling towers, bottle coolers, deep freezer and air washers etc. After a visit by the Central Excise Officers on 07.03.1988, a show cause notice was issued to them on 12.10.1988 and later on 28.03.1989 demanding differential duty. Both the notices were adjudicated by the Collector on 30.03.1990/23.04.1990 partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Revenue. On an appeal preferred by the appellants, the Tribunal vide its order dat...
Polyplex Corporation Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC520
1. The appellant registered a Project Import Contract with the Customs Authorities at Bombay in 1986. The project was for setting up a polyester filament manufacturing plant. Imports under the contract were made from 1986 to 1988 and goods cleared at the lower rate as applicable to imports under Project Import. The assessments were provisional against bond executed by the appellant. The project was completed also by installing the imported machinery.2. In 1999, a SCN was issued alleging that the appellant had not filed reconciliation statement as required under Clause 7 of the Project Imports Regulations, 1986 as amended in 1992 and for that reason exempted lower duty rates originally applied the imported goods were not available. The notice, proposed to demand the differential duty. It may be noted that Clause 7 was incorporated in 1992, much after the imports under the impugned contract had taken place. The appellant did not receive copy of the SCN. No reply was filed. Therefore, in...
English Indian Clays Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)9STT91
1. Heard both sides. The applicant seeks interim stay of the order of the Commissioner dated 29-9-2006 confirming the demand of Rs. 2,15,87,187/- calculated @ 10% of the price of the exempted goods. The applicant had already deposited Rs. 5,52,680/- out of the said demand, which amount has already been ordered to be appropriated by the impugned order. The demand of Rs. 11,10,863/- regarding the Cenvat Credit, wrongly availed on the Service Tax paid on transportation services, confirmed by the impugned order, has already been paid and the Commissioner has ordered appropriation of the amount deposited towards this demand. Penalties equivalent to the amounts confirmed has also been imposed.2. The total amount deposited is Rs. 16,63,543/-. In view of the said deposit, having been already made, and keeping in view the earlier interim order made in the applicant's own case (Stay Order No.50/07-Ex. dated 4-1-2007), we direct that the said amount of Rs. 16,63,543/-, be treated as pre-deposit ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »