Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Shri G.P. Roy, Deputy Director, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(a) To quash the impugned order dated 8.8.2006 reducing the pay from Rs. 13825/- to 10325/- with retrospective effect from 15.7.2002; (b) To direct the respondents to place the applicant in the post of Director and the pay scale of Director, i.e. Rs. 14300-400-18300, from the date of his joining BIFR and, in the meanwhile, protect his pay in the said pay scale, which the applicant has been holding for the last more than 7= years; and (c) To direct the respondents to release the annual increments of the applicant in the pay scale of Rs. 14300-400-18300 after allowing the appropriate scale of Director in BIFR.2. The bare facts of the case are that the applicant, an employee of Hoogly Dock and Port Engineer Limited (HDPEL, for short), a Public Sector Undertaking, joined the Ministry of Shipping (MoS) in 1997 as Director (Mechanical) on deputation in pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500. At the time of completion of his tenure in MoS in 2002, he was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 13,825/-. On 01.02.2...

Dr. S.N. Sharma S/O Late Shri A. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Dr. S.N. Sharma and six others have filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to declare the order dated 09.06.2004 (Annexure-A) as arbitrary and discriminatory. The action of the respondents in not taking the necessary steps in order to extend the benefits of Flexible Complementing Scheme (In short 'FCS') to the applicants is also stated to be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the applicants are eligible for grant of the benefits of the above said FCS with effect from the date since when the same has been given to other R&D scientific employees under the respondents with all consequential benefits thereof within a stipulated time frame.2. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for applicants has referred to Scheme/Office Memorandum on the subject 'Reorganisation of working in Scientific Department' (Annexure A-3) dated 28.05.1986. The same deals with providing a better ...

Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Jainsons Minerals and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)BC45; 140(2007)DLT465; 2007(95)DRJ533; (2008)149PLR27

A.K. Sikri, J.1. This suit filed by the plaintiff is for recovery of Rs. 20,92,086/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. w.e.f. 1.1.1999. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is carrying on the business of manufacture and supply of insecticides and pesticides and agro Chemicals to its various customers. The plaintiff company also extends credit to its customers varying from 60 to 70 days, from the date of actual supply for making payments for the goods supplied. The defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm for which the defendant No. 2 is the managing partner. Other partners are not imp leaded as it is stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is not aware of any other partners of the defendant No. 1 firm.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that sometime during the year 1989, the defendants approached the plaintiff for supply of certain pesticides since the plaintiff company is carrying on the business of manufacture and supply of insecticides, pesticides ...

Rishi Dev Batra Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Anup Suri

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Del)689; [2007]289ITR475(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. On the basis of purported agreement to sell cum receipt dated 28.8.2003, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance and perpetual injunction. As per this receipt dated 28.8.2003, the defendant had offered and agreed to sell Kothi No. 8/273, Sunder Vihar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi ad-measuring 240 sq. yards for a total consideration of Rs. 70 lacs while claiming to have clean and mercantile title. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 5 lacs to the defendant as advance/earnest money which is reflected in this receipt and balance amount of Rs. 65 lacs was to be paid on or before 14.12.2003. 2. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant had also agreed to get the property converted from leasehold to freehold and balance amount of Rs. 65 lacs was to be paid subject to the fulfillment of aforesaid reciprocal obligation by the defendant. However, the defendant failed to get the suit property freehold and deliberately adopted go-slow tactics with the hidden intentions ...

Shri R.K. Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)SLJ258(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari the petitioner calls in question the validity of orders rejecting his representations for protection of his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Commandants in Central Reserve Police Force. A mandamus directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner an appropriate place in the seniority list of Assistant Commandants of the Force in accordance with the rules has also been prayed for. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition may be summarized as under.2. The petitioner is an Assistant Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force. In the year 1997 while he was serving as an Inspector in the Force, he appears to have been selected as a member of the Indian contingent deployed for peace keeping operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina for a period of one year. The petitioner was, it appears, around the same time also due for promotion and for being deputed to what is described as 'Senior Inspector Cadre Cou...

Packing Paper Sales (Regd.) and anr. Vs. Smt. Veena Lata Khosla

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi175

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. First petitioner is a partnership firm duly registered with the Registrar of Firms. Second petitioner is one of its registered partner. Petitioners had filed a suit for recovery against the respondents who are the wife and son respectively of late Shri O.S. Khosla. 2. I would be referring to the parties as plaintiffs and defendants respectively.3. A recovery suit was filed by the plaintiffs alleging that the defendants have inherited the estate of late Shri O.S. Khosla who took a loan in sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the first plaintiff. Acknowledging the loan and agreeing to repay the same within 1 year together with interest @24% per annum, a writing was stated to have been executed by late Shri O.S. Khosla which reads as under:I, O.S. Khosla s/o Late Shri V.N. Khosla r/o B-11/8262, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi hereby acknowledge that I have received a loan amount of Rs. 25000/- from M/s. Packing Paper Sales, 2483, Chhipiwara Kalan, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006 through its...

Sonia Travels Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ139CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 2,24,718/-. The applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 60,000/-. The demand is confirmed by treating the applicant as providing service as 'Rent a Cab'.2. The contention of applicant is that in view of the clarification circular dated 1.3.2006 to submit that rent a car does not cover motor vehicles which are given on rent on kilometer basis for transportation from one place to another. In the case of Kuldip Singh Gill v. CCE Jalandhar to submit that for a similar situation, when the vehicle was leased out to Indian Oil Corporation, the Tribunal held that such services are not in the nature of rent a cab service.3. On the contrary, the Revenue relied upon the order passed in stay application in the case of Shiva Travels v. CCE, Meerut-I reported in 2006 (4) STR 588 to submit that in a similar situation, the appellant was asked to deposit the whole of service tax. The Revenue also cited the case of Expres...

Cce Vs. Spice Communication (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ140CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Heard the learned SDR as none appeared on behalf of the respondents despite notice. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal.2. The revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed suo-moto adjustment of service tax and the Commissioner (Appeals) followed the earlier order No.82/CE/CHD/2005 dated 28.2.2005.3. We find that the revenue appeal filed against order in appeal No.82/CE/CHD/2005 dated 28.2.2005 is already allowed by the Tribunal vide final order No. 129/2006-ST dated 9.1.2006. The Tribunal held as under: We find that the provisions of Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules provides adjustment of Service Tax which had been paid by the assessee to the credit of Central Government Service Tax in respect of the taxable service, which is not so provided by him and the assessee has refunded the value of taxable service and the amount of service tax to the persons from whom it was received. In the present case, the respondents had not ...

Shri M.M. Kanade S/O Shri M.S. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash or set aside Column 10 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Director (Conservation) and consequent thereto to set aside Columns 6, 7 and 11 as well. Further prayer of applicant is to direct the respondents to re-frame/amend the Recruitment Rules in accordance with the DOP&T's guidelines dated 18.3.1988 and 3.10.1989, which are stated to be mandatory in nature, and consider the case of applicant for promotion to the post of Director (Conservation) in accordance with the fresh/amended Recruitment Rules and also to direct the respondents to withdraw the requisition as sent by them to the office of respondent No. 4 for filling up the post of Director (Conservation) by way of direct recruitment.2. The bare minimum facts on which the reliefs as spelt out above are sought to rest reveal that the applicant was initially recruited to the post of Deputy Superintending ...

Mr. Uma Kant Roy, Training and Vs. the Government of Nct Delhi

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicants have sought direction to the respondents to grant them the pay scales of Rs. 3000-4500 (pre-revised) and Rs. 3700-5700 (pre-revised) along with corresponding revised pay scales of Rs. 10000-15000 and Rs. 12000-18000 as per the recommendations of the Madan Committee and Dogra Committee [All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE, for short) recommendations] w.e.f. respective due dates.2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicants are working as Training and Placement Officers (TPO, for short) in various Polytechnics, under the Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. Admittedly, the application is not based on any impugned order, since the respondents have not passed any speaking order on the repeated representations of the applicants.This OA has been filed in the context of the aforementioned relief sought.3. The main argument of the applicants rests on the grant of pay scales sought by them to a similar...