Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments

Harish Chand S/O Sh. Makhan Lal Vs. Bachchi Singh Negi S/O Sh. Narayan ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)ACC790

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Appellant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation to Rs. 50,000/- as prayed for in the claim petition.2. Appellant's case is that on 23rd May, 1984 he boarded bus No. UTF-2489 belonging to U.P.Road Transport Corporation from Haldwani for Delhi. At about 9.00 p.m. when the bus was three kilometers away from Haldwani Bus Stand, a truck No. UTF-7836 came from opposite side at a very fast speed and struck against the right side of the bus, as a result of which some persons received injuries and one of them died. The appellant also received injuries in this road accident. The bus was also being driven at a very fast speed and does not appear to be under control of the bus driver. The bus was being driven by respondent No. 1 while respondent No. 2 is the owner of the bus whereas, respondent No. 3 is the truck driver and respondent No. 4 is its owner and it is insured with respondent No. 5.3. The appellant suffered permanent disfigurement of...

Sh. Subhash Chand S/O Sh. Prabhu Dayal Vs. Sh. Rulda Singh S/O Sh. Nir ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)ACC776

V.B. Gupta, J.1. s is an appeal filed by appellant seeking enhancement of the compensation award to Rs. 3,00,000/- along with cost and interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation.2. Vide impugned judgment dated 29.11.1997, Sh. Rakesh Kapoor Judge, MACT, Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 79,900/- on account of injuries sustained by appellant in a road side accident, under the following heads:1. Expenses on account of treatment/ Rs.5,000/-purchase of medicines 2. For conveyance Rs. 2,500/-3. For special diet Rs. 5,000/-4. For pain and agony Rs. 5,000/-5. For loss of Income Rs. 24,000/- 6. Compensation for the Rs. 38,400/---------------------Permanent disability Rs. 79,900/----------------------3. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.4. Brief facts of this case are that on 16.7.1993, at about 12.30 p.m., the appellant was walking on foot Along with one Sh. Sunil Kumar on extreme left hand side of Nag...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Khairati Lal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT148; 2007(95)DRJ194

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The Respondent Khairati Lal was working as APO as a Group 'B' officer and was deemed to be considered by a DPC for being placed in the senior scale on adhoc basis upon being found fit by such DPC. For the period from 1989 to 1993, the DPC held, did not find him fit for promotion to the senior scale. On 25.03.1991, the Respondent was issued a charge sheet for imposition of major penalty and another charge sheet dated 24.10.1997 for the imposition of minor penalty that resulted in the findings of the DPC regarding his promotion to the senior scale being kept in sealed cover. In both the enquiries the Respondent was found guilty and he was imposed minor penalty of stoppage of three sets of privileges passes in the major penalty charge sheet and three sets of privilege tickets in the minor penalty proceedings. 3. The Respondent filed OA being No. 1704/199...

Veena JaIn Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This is an appeal against adjudication order No. ADJ/904/2004/AD(BK)/5180 dated 22-12-2004 passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,10,000 against the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(d) FER Act, 1973 on the reasons that appellant made payment of Rs. 11 lakhs to or for the credit one Mrs. Anjali Verma resident of Dubai in lieu of and in consideration of receipt of a cheque of foreign currency of Rs. 10 lakhs. In this appeal 10 per cent amount of penalty is deposited in compliance of the order dated 25-10-2005 passed by this Tribunal. Presently, this appeal is taken up for final hearing on merits. 2. According to Learned Counsel Shri R.K. Handoo, the impugned order is passed merely on the basis of a statement of third party namely S.J. Anand who did not specifically name any payment by the appellant but has only described about general mode of receipt of gift cheques through him in lieu of payment. Further show-cause notice at pages...

Shree Sidhball Steels Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STJ30CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The appellant Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. is a manufacturer of CTD Bars. In the year 2001-02, it prepared a "feasibility study" for a project and earned an income of over Rs. 16 lakhs. Under a SCN dt.28.6.04, service tax authorities alleged that the feasibility study in question was an Engineering Consultancy and therefore, liable to pay service tax which had been imposed on Consulting Engineers.Accordingly, service tax was demanded under the notice. That demand was confirmed in adjudication as well as in the first appeal before Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The present appeal before us is directed against those orders.3. The contention of the appellant is that, under the service tax provision during the relevant period, only professionally qualified engineers and engineering firms were covered for the levy. The submission is that, the appellant being a steel manufacturing firm, cannot be treated as an "Engineering Firm" and subjected to service tax as a Consulting Engin...

Cc Vs. Essel Marmo Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC98

1. Heard ld. SDR. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby redemption fine is reduced from Rs. 4,50,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- and penalty is reduced from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. The Revenue is against the reduction of redemption fine and penalty.2. In this case, imported goods were found misdeclared in respect of description and quantity. The authorities below held that the goods in question are restricted items as per Import Export Policy, therefore are liable for confiscation.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the adjudicating authority after taking into consideration the margin of profit on the imported goods imposed redemption fine of Rs. 4,50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order without taking into consideration the margin of profit reduced the penalty.4. I find that the adjudicating authority after conducting a market enquiry come to the conclusion that t...

Sharma Roadlines Vs. C.S.T.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ203CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The applications are directed against service tax demand made against the appellant and penalties imposed. The impugned order has held that the appellant was rendering the service of C&F Agent to M/s.EIL.3. The contention of the appellant is that it was transporting fly ash from NTPC's power plant (where they accumulated) to the asbestos plant of M/s. EIL and that service has been incorrectly adjudged as clearing and forwarding service. M/s. Eternit Industries Ltd. Kymore (subsequently known as M/s. Everest Industries Ltd. and hereinafter referred to as the E.I.L.) is a part of ACC Group of companies and is engaged in manufacture of Asbestos Sheets having production units at Kymore (MP), Kolkata, Lakhmapur (Nashik District) and Padanur (near Coimbatore). They appointed transportation agents for supply of fly ash. Some of its C&F agents were also functioning as the suppliers of fly ash, which is a waste material generated by power plants and was supplied free of cost. These ...

Avanija Sundaramurti Vs. University of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT220; 2007(95)DRJ52

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The question that arises in this petition is whether the attendance is to be counted from the date of commencement of classes or from the date of admission of a student to the first semester of the LLB course offered by the Law Faculty of Delhi University.2. The facts are that the petitioner appeared in the entrance examination for admission to the said course. The said entrance examination for the academic sessions 2005-2006 was held by the Law Faculty some time in June, 2005. The petitioner ranked 35th in the order of merit in the said entrance examination. Counselling for the same was concluded on 22.7.2005. The petitioner has been called for counselling because of her position in the order on merit. Unfortunately, the result of her BA (Honours) in Journalism had not been declared till then. The said examination was also conducted by the Delhi University. On 22.7.2005, at the time of counselling, she was unable to produce her mark sheet/provisional certifica...

Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Kanwaljit S. Sareen,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)BC362; 2007CriLJ2339; 138(2007)DLT682; 2007(94)DRJ723

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The present contempt proceedings have been initiated by the Court on its own motion, taking cognizance of the abuse of the legal process. Two recovery suits were filed on loan agreements by respondent/contemnor No. 1, where admittedly, the consideration in the manner as recorded in the agreements was not paid. Besides, the loan agreements were not executed on the dates recorded thereon, since the stamp paper on which they were engrossed, were of a later date. Accordingly, in exercise of powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, show cause notices were issued to the plaintiff Kanwaljit S. Sareen and his Advocates Dr. Dewan C Vohra and Ms. Kiran Singh, for reasons as recorded in order dated 22nd April, 2004, for abuse of the legal process in the institution and prosecution of suits based on the said agreements.2. In these proceedings, the role of Advocates signing the plaint, containing averments, which were false to their knowledge and contrary to the s...

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)ACC335; 2007(94)DRJ292

J.M. Malik, J.1. Although, the Railway Claims Tribunal vide its order dated 20.10.2003 held that two tank wagons bearing No. WR-42619 and NR-74156 containing 22150 and 22260 litres of furnace oil, respectively, were not delivered at the destination station and the appellant had suffered a loss in the sum of Rs. 2,76,525/-, yet, it proceeded to dismiss the claim of the appellant on the ground that the application had not been signed, verified and filed by a duly authorised person. Again no proper claim notice was served upon the respondent. For these reasons, the compensation petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, the claimant has filed the above said appeal. 2. The first objection taken by the counsel for the respondent was that this matter should be referred to High Power Committee.3. I see no merit in this argument because in an authority reported in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. : (1997)5SCC511 , it was held that disputes und...