Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments

Manjeet Kaur Vs. Tej Pratap Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ670

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner herein is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. On the allegation that the respondent was not maintaining her, she moved complaint under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the respondent for herself as well as her two minor children. This complaint was filed on 19.12.1985. Vide order dated 3.6.1991 the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance to the petitioner and her two children @ Rs. 200/- each, i.e. Rs. 600/- per month. On 12.8.1991 she filed execution petition seeking arrears of maintenance. The respondent could not be served in the said proceedings for quite some time as he was absconding and could not be traced. In the month of February 2002, the petitioner came to know that the respondent was working as a P.E.T. Teacher at Umri High School, District Karnal, Haryana. Accordingly, she moved an application for issuing warrants of attachment at the aforesaid address, which were served and the respondent started appearing before the t...

Sandeep Chaudhary and anr. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ604

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioners had business dealings with the respondents No. 2 to 4, who are the partners of M/s. Jain Art Jewels (hereinafter referred to as the 'Complainants'). According to the complainants, while dealing with them, the petitioners committed fraud and cheating. Accordingly, FIR No. 283/05 has been lodged with the Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120B IPC. Though it is not necessary to go into the details of the allegations regarding the said fraud and cheating in this petition, suffice it to mention that the petitioners were working as commission agents for the complainants. They were obtaining orders from Dubai for stainless steel utensils, which used to be executed by the complainants and the petitioners were getting commission thereon. As per the allegations, after gaining confidence of the complainants in this manner, both the petitioners, who are brothers, represented in January, 2004 that they had got a very huge order...

Rajesh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT667

Aruna Suresh, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.11.2003 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the CAT) in O.A. No.663/2003 whereby the OA of the petitioner was dismissed. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Civilian Vehicle Mechanic (MV) in 505 Army Base Workshop on 21.2.2000 after qualifying selection. He was involved in a case FIR No.348/1998 registered under Section 341/323/34 IPC, PS Najafgarh, Delhi. At the time of filing of the Attestation Form for character and police verification, petitioner suppressed the fact of pending criminal case against him despite knowledge of the same. On verification the respondents were informed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi that the petitioner was involved in case FIR No.348 dated 8.7.1998 under Section 323/341/34 IPC, PS Najafgarh, Delhi pending adjudication. This resulted...

Sushila Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT1

ORDERT.S. Thakur, J.1. Late sepoy Ramji Lal, husband of the petitioner was enrolled in the 11, Kumaon Regiment of the army and discharged on compassionate grounds after he rendered 10 years and 1 month of military service. From the date of his discharge in 1973 till the date of his demise in 2003, the deceased did not make any claim at any stage for payment of service or pro rata pension. Two years after his demise, the petitioner, widow of the deceased ex-serviceman has filed the present writ petition for a mandamus directing the respondents to grant what she describes as pro rata pension and special family pension in her favor. The petitioner's case is that since her husband deceased sepoy Ramji Lal had rendered over 10 years of service, he was entitled to receive service pension from the date of his discharge till the date of his demise and after his death, the petitioner is entitled to claim family pension. 2. In response to a notice issued by this Court, the respondents have filed...

Mange Ram Vs. M.C.D.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(208)ELT324(Del)

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent had suspended him from service with effect from 12.8.1994 and he continued to remain on suspension till 6.8.1997. When the suspension of the petitioner was revoked, the period of suspension was treated as spent on duty but his pay and allowances were restricted to 50%. He was also not paid arrears of increment and bonus nor was he given financial up-gradation which was due to him having rendered 15 years of service. It is stated that the petitioner approached the respondent for redressal of his said grievances but to no avail In view of what has been noticed above, the respondent is directed to treat the present writ petition as a representation from the petitioner and deal with the grievances raised therein in accordance with law within a period of two months from now. The respondent shall pass a speaking order and in case any of the grievances has already been met it shall be so indicated in the order. The resp...

Sheo Nath Singh Vs. Sujata

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)DMC601; 2007(95)DRJ156

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 6.2.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in HMA. No. 383 of 1999 by which the Appellant's petition seeking dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion, was dismissed.2. The Appellant and Respondent were married on 31.10.1995 and resided in Delhi up to 4.6.1996. The Appellant is an employee of the Central Government and the wife was employed as a Nursing Officer in an Army hospital. 3. The husband cited as many as 8 instances in support of his case that the Respondent has treated him cruelly during the time they stayed together. The Appellant, however, examined only himself as the sole witnesss. In his cross-examination, the Appellant admitted that the parties had shifted their residence from Pushpa Vihar, where they were residing soon after the marriage, to the Government accommodation allotted to the Respondent at Lawrence Road in February, 199...

Murlidharan Vs. Sumangala

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ296

S. Muralidahr, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.10.2001 of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in H.M.A. No 21/2001/92 whereby the Trial Court had dismissed the appellant's petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act') on the ground of cruelty.2. In support of his petition for divorce, the appellant pleaded several instances of the alleged cruelty meted out by the respondent wife. It was first urged that the respondent had started misbehaving with the petitioner within a few months of the marriage. Second, that the respondent had developed illicit relationship with 'somebody'. Thirdly, that the respondent had told the appellant and his relatives that the child born to them on 28.8.1990 was in fact not of the appellant's but someone else's. Fourthly, that the respondent had not allowed the appellant to come near her and she had therefore failed to perform her marital obligation. Fifthly, that the resp...

Rajasthan Explosive and Chem. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These stay applications filed along with appeals challenge the order of Commissioner of Central Excise made on 29-8-2006. This matter had come up twice before this Tribunal, when the Tribunal had ordered de novo adjudication and remanded the matter to the Commissioner. When the matter came up, the learned Advocate for the applicants mainly relies upon the following two grounds, which have been overlooked by the original authority: (i) The request made by the appellants for cross-examining persons namely, Shri Ganesh Mathur, Shri G.C. Bahuguna and Sh. Mahesh Sharma was denied by the learned Commissioner. [It was argued that as the entire case was based on their statements the Commissioner had erred by denying the opportunity of cross-examining these persons on the flippant reason that the Tribunal had not given such directions to him]. (ii) The sanctioned scheme in BIFR case No. 34/92 had clear provisions not to insist on duty or penalty in the subject case. [According to Clause (xv...

Mehta Security and Detective Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STJ28CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The appellant had "man power supply" contracts with JNVU, Jodhpur and some other parties. The appellant paid service tax on the amount received for the said supplies of man power. The tax was payable during that period (Feb'01 to March'02) in respect of 'Manpower Recruitment Agency Services'.3. Subsequently, the refund of tax paid was claimed by contending that the appellant had not carried out any "recruitment service" and therefore, the payment made was a mistake. In adjudicating as well as in the first appeal, the refund claim was rejected by holding that the appellant had in some manner rendered manpower recruitment agency service. The finding is that the supply of skilled manpower would involve recruiting and, therefore, recruitment service was rendered, 4. The submission of the Ld. Consultant for the appellant is that in the present case, man power in question is not supplied through recruitment of persons for the hiring organization. It is being emphasized that the supplied ...

Prabha Telecommunications Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STJ40CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Heard both sides and perused the record. The service tax demand is in regard to services provided by the appellant to telephone customers.2. The submission is that the appellant was granted only an EPABX exchange and the call charges collected were passed on to BSNL alongwith service tax. Bills of BSNL have been produced by way of proof. The submission is that BSNL was liable to deposit the service tax and that was being done.3. A portion of the demand is on installation and maintenance charges.The submission is that these charges are not telecommunication charges and therefore, no taxes are attracted. It is also pointed out that no tax was collected by the appellant on this count. Prima-facie, there is merit in the appellant's contention.4. In view of what is noted above, stay application is allowed and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal....