Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments

Marble Point and ors. Vs. Dda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT496

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This writ petition is by 10 marble traders seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the letter dated 12.7.2006 issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to the extent that it raises a demand for the alternative plots allotted to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 38,259/- per sq. m. The other prayer is that the demand should be scaled down to Rs. 5200/- per sq. m. on par with what has been demanded from other similarly situated marble traders.2. The background to this writ petition is that in 1997 these very petitioners had filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1674 of 1997 in this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to the DDA to allot alternative shops or plots to the petitioners on the terms and conditions applicable to other equally placed 94 persons who had been held eligible by the DDA for allotment in the marble market at Papankala. This allotment was made under the scheme of rehabilitation of marble traders who had been removed from the Central South Ridge, Mehrau...

Shri Sanjay Vs. Smt. Kamlesh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT740; (2007)146PLR49

J.M. Malik, J.1. Learned Trial Court dismissed the application under order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. moved by the appellant, on 20.10.2006. Aggrieved by this order, first appeal has been preferred before this Court. Smt. Kamlesh, respondent filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, damages and pendente lite mesne profits with interest. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit on 11.11.2005. This is an indisputable fact that the appellant who was arrayed as defendant No. 3 was served on 18.5.2005. He did not appear before the Court and thereforee he was proceeded against ex-parte.2. The appellant has enumerated the following grounds in his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC dated 18.10.2006. The respondent/plaintiff is his real sister. The appellant received Court notice of this case on 18.5.2005. He engaged Shri D.N. Pandey, Advocate, who assured the appellant that he would represent his case diligently. The appellant kept on enquiring from his advocate. On each ti...

Sahansar Pal Vs. the State of N.C.T. of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT199

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In the present petition, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 188/2000 has been impugned as far as it directs the Deputy Commissioner of Police to ensure that immediate action was taken against the present petitioner (PW-5), towards prosecuting him of the offences under Section 307 IPC.2. Briefly stated facts are that on allegations of commission of offences under Sections 307/147/149/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Prevention to Damage of Public Property Act, five persons were named as accused in a First Information Report (FIR No. 280/1998).3. The accused were allegedly involved in the offences by removing of screw of oxygen pipe line in Safdarjung Hospital in furtherance of a common object. The oxygen supply was connected to the Nursery of the Safdarjung Hospital where 25 new borns were in the need of oxygen and three new born were on ventilator, requiring oxygen for their survival. These led to 15 to 20 minutes after which it ...

Prakash Kumar Saini Vs. M.C.D and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ85

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The petitioner was working as a Mate in the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in a work charge establishment. Along with four other similar employees, he was appointed as a regular Assistant Sanitary Inspector (ASI) in the DDA on 26.11.1991 on the basis of the recommendations of a Selection Committee. It was stipulated in the said letter that the period spent by the work charge mates on work charge establishment 'will be regularized as per the provisions of EO No. 130 dated 10.1.1991'.2. The aforementioned E.O. No. 130 dated 10.1.1991 is a communication by the Commissioner (Personnel) DDA informing that the Lt. Governor of Delhi/Chairman, DDA had been pleased to order that 'all the work charge employees of the Delhi Development Authority would be treated as a part of the regular work charge establishment, with immediate effect'.3. Three years prior to this, in 1988, 44 resettlement colonies were transferred from the DDA to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). C...

Manohar Dewani Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT399

ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1st December, 2006 passed by the learned single Judge, rejecting the prayer of the appellant/petitioner for allowing him to be represented by a lawyer. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned single Judge has directed for expeditious disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. 2. The appellant herein was dismissed from service by the Commissioner, MCD under Section 95(2)(b) read with Regulations 9(ii) of the DMC (Control and Appeal) Regulations 1959 after observing that holding of the inquiry is not practicable in this case. 3. As against the said order passed on 07.4.2006, the appellant filed an appeal, which has been transmitted to the respondent No. 1, the Appellate Authority namely Lt. Governor of Delhi.4. It is contended before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant should be allowed to be represented through a lawyer as otherwise fundamental right of the appellant would be violated...

Padmini Technologies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the sanctioned refund was ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.3. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant filed a refund claim on the ground that they had paid excess duty, the same was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs vide earlier order dated 24-7-02, Against that order, the appellant filed an appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 31-12-03 allowed their appeal by setting aside the adjudication order. The contention is that the Commissioner (Appeals) held that refund claim filed by the appellant ought to have been sanctioned and the amount of refund actually due to the appellant should be computed and worked out by the proper officer after verifying the documents and after deducting the Modvat/other benefit already availed of by the appellant. In pursuance to this order, the Deputy Commissioner, Customs quantified the amount of...

Micrometic Grinding Technology Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ76CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appeal is directed against denial of refund of Rs. 1,56,250/- which was paid by the appellant during the investigation of service tax liability of the appellant. The liability itself was in regard to purchase of Technical Know How by the appellant from M/s. Lizzini SPA.2. Under the impugned order, it has been held that the agreement was for Consulting Engineering Service and that service was liable to service tax.4. We may note the relevant portion of the agreement between the parties to understand the subject of transaction. AND WHEREAS it is the mutual desire of the parties hereto that Licensor should grant exclusive license, provide technical information and assistance, provide the complete design documentation besides training to enable Licensee to manufacture and sell CNC Internal Grinding Machines of Polar model and its variants The Licensor for the period of this agreement, grants to the Licensee under its Technical Information and Improvement furnished by the Licensor t...

Nachiketa Papers Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC291

1. In this case, by Final Order No. A/328-329/05-NB(S) dated 2.3.2005 and Misc. Order No. 34/06-SM(BR) dated 9.12.2005, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and allowed the appeals filed by the appellants. Revenue filed appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana against the said order of the Tribunal. By Judgment and Order dated 25.9.2006, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced below: We have already gone into the matter in our order dated 25.7.2006 in CEA No. 13 of 2005 (Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-III v. Machino Montell (I) Limited and Anr.) and held that mere deposit before issuance of show cause notice was not; conclusive for not imposing penalty and the matter had to be gone into on merits.2. The relevant f...

Cce Vs. Maharastra Samaj Bhawan Trust

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ198CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order confirmed the demand and interest, however, set aside the penalties on the following ground: As regard the remaining issue framed above, I find that there are a catena of decisions of various appellate for a to the effect that in the initial stages of introduction of this public oriented wide spread new levy, many of new assesses being ignorant such procedural delays in taking up of registration and consequent filing of the returns etc. a lenient view can be taken. This was precisely the reason as to why many new Voluntary Disclosure Schemes for voluntary compliance like Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme declared under Board's F. No. 137/39/2004-CX. 4 dated 23.9.04 to be operational upto 30.10.04 in respect of the assesses who had not at all complied with the provisions of Service Tax Law had been launched waiving the various penalties under the aforesaid Sections 75A, ...

Binlas Duplux Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ8CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appeal is directed against the demand of service tax of over Rs. 48 lakhs and imposition of equal amount of penalty on the appellant.The first finding is that the appellant is a clearing and forwarding agent and is liable to discharge service tax on that service. The second is that the appellant rendered service as a real estate agent.The duty demand on this count is about Rs. 4.5 lakhs.3. The contention of the appellant was that it was a mere commission agent and it rendered no service in relation to clearing and forwarding of goods. This contention was made before the lower authority and it was held in the impugned order that the services of attending tender, procurement of order etc. would fall in the category of clearing and forwarding agent. While passing that order, the Commissioner was going by an order of this Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory . In regard to real estate agency, the submission was that the appellant had only taken the commission by obtaining ...