Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments

R.T. Paper Board Ltd. and ors. Vs. Central Excise

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)BC260; 2007(94)DRJ750; 2007(218)ELT347(Del)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the summoning order issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has been questioned. According to the complainant the petitioner had issued cheques in the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 19 lakhs to the Central Excise Department which were dishonoured, in March, 2004.2. In response to the notice under Section 138, the petitioner/respondent had on 17.02.04 contended that the sums were payable as security towards balance amount of demand by the Department on the specific understanding, in writing, that they would not be presented without the written consent of the drawer/petitioner. It was also stated that the petitioner's appeal by special leave against the assessment by the respondent was heard by the Supreme Court on 30.01.04 when the same was admitted and was directed to be placed for final hearing in March, 2004. On these grounds, the notice had resisted the petitioner's liability.3. After hearing materials on record, ...

Shri A. Chaudhary Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT602

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. Petitioner assails the judgment and final order dated 6.9.2000 in O. A. No. 2065/97 and the order dated 13.11.2000 in R.A. No. 333/2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing the said Original Application and the Review Application preferred by the petitioner herein. The petitioner has also sought quashing of Office Order dated 25.11.1994 circulating the revised seniority list (provisional) and Office Order dated 5.2.1997 confirming the said provisional seniority list. He has further sought quashing of the DPC proceedings held in 1994 for considering promotions to the post of Superintending Engineer (Electrical) and has prayed for constitution of fresh DPC for filling up of the vacancies in the post of Superintending Engineer (Electrical) on a regular basis for the years 1983 to 1987. He also seeks placement in the seniority list of Superintendent Engineer (Electrical) above respondent No. 4 and all other consequential re...

Aditya Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ6CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 19.04.2006 that upheld the order-in-original vide which the refund claim filed by the appellant was rejected.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,47,358/- in respect of the amount paid by them as Service Tax for the period October, 2003 to November, 2003 in respect of the services received by them from a non-resident engineering consultants. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to reject the refund claim on the ground that the Service Tax paid by the appellant is correct and the appellant being a service receiver has correctly paid the amount as service tax.Appellant resisted the show cause notice mainly on the ground that they are not liable to pay the service tax as per the provisions of the Section 68 of The Finance Act, 1994 and the amount paid by them is not in accordance with the law, and hence, the same is refundable.Adjudicating a...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Overseas Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 27-7-2006 which set aside the order-in-original and allowed the appeal of the Respondent.2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the seizure of mobile phones by the authorities from the respondent. The department's contention is that the respondent is unable to produce any documents for the licit possession of these mobile phones. On careful perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given a detailed finding which are as under: 5. On a careful consideration of the submission made by the appellants in their appeal memo, I find that the issue in this appeal relates to confiscation of foreign origin mobile phones rechargeable lanterns and 2 VCRs due to non-production of documents showing licit acquisition. The Adjudicating Authority has confiscated the mobile phones etc., all of foreign origin, on the ground that the sup...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Tokyo Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 17-7-2006 which set aside the order in original and allowed the appeal of the Respondent.2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the seizure of mobile phones by the authorities from both the respondents. The department's contention is that the respondents are unable to produce any documents for the illicit possession of these mobile phones. On careful perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given a detailed finding which are as under: 6. On a careful consideration of the submission made by the Appellant in their appeal memo, I find that the issue in both the appeal relates to confiscation of foreign origin mobile phones due to non-production of documents showing licit acquisition. In the Tokyo Electronics case, the Adjudicating authority has confiscated the mobile phones etc. all of foreign origin, on the gr...

Udai Pal Singh S/O. Late Bhagmal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)3SCL284NULL

(a) Quash and set aside the order dated 27.10.2006 (Annexure A-1) and dated 08.07.2005 (Annexure A-2) and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary. Hold and declare that the applicant stands deemed absorbed in the Intelligence Bureau. Direct the respondents to consider/re-consider the applicant for permanent absorption in IB in a fair and reasonable manner vis-`-vis his juniors and other similarly situated persons, i.e. those who already stand absorbed in the Intelligence Bureau. Direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders, absorbing the applicant from the date of joining the Intelligence Bureau. Any other order that may be deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also be passed.2. The bare facts of the case, shorn of all embellishments, are that the applicant joined the Border Security Force (BSF, for short) as a Constable on 10.04.1987. Respondent No. 3, vide orders dated 06.07.1999 and 25.08.1999, placed the services of the applicant, among others, at ...

B.L. Sinha S/O. Late Rajendra Nath Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is a B.Com (Hons) graduate and has also qualified the examination of Chartered Accountants of India in 1978. He was initially appointed as Grade-IV Accounts Branch (Officer) in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1300 on 2.3.1983 with the Department of Company Affairs in what is now known as Indian Company Law Service (ICLS). It is submitted by the applicant that he has challenged the seniority list of Junior Administrative Grade (Accounts Branch Officers) in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500 corrected up to 15.7.2005 in OA No. 2329/2005 before this Tribunal. An extract of the seniority list has been annexed with the application. He was granted Selection Grade (Non Functional) by order dated 10.7.1996. The seniority list shows the following position of the applicant and the two private respondents 4 and 5 impleaded herein:Sr. Name of the Officer Date of birth Date of appointment Date of superannuation1.B.M. Anand 20.11.1947 07.06.1994 30.11.20072.B.L. Sinha (SC) 01.11.1950 11.10....

Subhash Chander Chachra and ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Chachra and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR288(Delhi); 137(2007)DLT401; 2007(95)DRJ55

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. Present is an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) directed against the order dated November 16, 2006 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on an application i.e. IA - C/4, filed by the claimants (Respondent herein) under Section 17 of the Act. The application is - C/4 was filed for interim relief on which the Arbitral Tribunal has issued interim directions to the appellants to release an amount of Rs. 1 crore to the respondents in four equal installments of Rs. 25,00,000/- each in four months being in the first week of December, 2006 and to pay interest to the respondents on their balance amount of capital reflected in the final amounts as on 31.3.2005 @ 18% per annum. The appellants herein are respondents before the Arbitral Tribunal.2. Disputes are essentially between two families. Appellant Subhash Chander Chachra is the elder brother while the respondent Sh. Ashwani Kumar Chachra is the younger brother. The brothers alo...

Bhupinder Singh Vs. Delhi Commission for Women and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT411; I(2007)DMC483; 2007(94)DRJ487

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J 1. This writ petition is directed against the letter dated 03.07.2006 issued by a member of the Delhi Commission for Women to the Accounts Officer, MTNL, Telephone Exchange, 4th Floor Hari Nagar, New Delhi. The subject of the letter is interim maintenance. It appears that a complaint was filed with the Delhi Commission for Women by the respondent No. 3, who is the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner is an employee of MTNL. As per the respondent No. 3's case, she and her two minor children are living along with her aged mother and her husband (the petitioner) was not maintaining her for the last five years. On the basis of this submission, the Commission, by virtue of the impugned letter made the following instruction:The Commission has granted Smt. Sonia interim maintenance of Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month, considering her miserable condition till such time she gets an order from the Court. This amount be deducted from Sh. Bhupinder Singh's sal...

Sai Hosiery Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Air France and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complainant is a Private Limited Company and is engaged in the business of manufacture and fabrication of hosiery garments and import export. On account of delay in delivery of the consignment booked by the respondent, the complainant sought through this complaint a compensation of Rs. 21.13 lacs (Rupee conversion of US $) on account of value of the consignment, interest and as damages for loss of business and reputation, mental agony and harassment. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is that in the course of its business, it had an export order of Rugby T-Shirts to be exported to Guruji Inc., Austin, Texas, USA and as per the terms governing the said export order, the complainant was required to ensure delivery of the export order to the buyer on or before the midnight of 17.12.1996 (IST). The complainant made inquiries from various carriers carrying cargo to Houston whose rates were comparatively lower than those quoted by the O.P. 1. Since time was th...