Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Raj Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT750

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 570 of 2003 seeks to challenge the judgment dated 30.04.2003 in Sessions Case No. 50 of 1999, F.I.R. No. 259 of 1999, Police Station Nangloi, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 302/392/394 IPC. Further by a separate order dated 15.05.2003, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 302 IPC. Under Section 392 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (rupees three thousand) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 394 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the accused was entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.2. Brief facts of the case as noted ...

Ram Phal and anr., Prem Singh and Rajbir Singh Vs. D.T.C.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT322

Hima Kohli, J.1. All these writ petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal by passing a common order, as counsels for the parties agree that the facts of these matters and issues involved are common and the order assailed by the petitioners is also the same. The petitioners have assailed the orders dated 20th February and 4th May, 1995 passed by the respondent DTC removing the petitioners from the service of the respondent with immediate effect under Clause 15 (2) (vi) of D.R.T.A.(Conditions of Appointment and Services) Regulations, 1952. 2. Factual matrix of the case is as narrated hereinafter. The petitioners were posted as the Assistant Traffic Inspectors on 1st April, 1994. On 12th April, 1994, they were suspended from service and were served with a charge sheet on 13th May, 1994 indicating the following irregularities and calling upon them to explain as to why action should not be taken against them for misconduct within the meaning of para 19 (f) (h) & (m) of the Stand...

P. Nageswara Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT763

ORDERT.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner calls in question the validity of an order dated 16th August, 1991 issued by Respondent No. 4 cancelling the earlier order issued by the DIG(P), CRPF, Chandigarh offering to the petitioner an appointment against the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector/Clerk in the Central Reserve Police Force. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition may be summarised as under:2. The petitioner joined as a water carrier in the CRPF as early as in the year 1981. Between June 19, 1982 to 1st May, 1991, the petitioner appeared 9 times in a competitive examination held for eligible candidates for appointment against the available post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) in the Force. The petitioner appears to have failed in all these attempts except the one made in the year 1991 when he was declared successful and was offered an appointment in terms of an order issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF...

Noida Catering Service Vs. Cc and Ce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STJ38CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 4,13,800/- and penalty of equal amount alongwith interest of Rs. 41,300/-under Section 76 for late deposit of service tax. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that they have deposited the entire amount of service tax alongwith interest before issue of show cause notice. He submits that, a new levy introduced on 10.09.2004 and therefore, there was a delay of depositing the tax arrear. He also submits that they have deposited the penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 77. He also submits that there is no willful suppression of facts and therefore, penalty cannot be imposed in this case.3. The learned authorized representative (DR) appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that they have disputed the imposition of penalty of Rs. 4,13,800/- under Section 78. Therefore, amount of penalty of Rs. 41,300/- under Section 76 for late deposit of the tax should be paid by them a...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Lloyd Insulation (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these appeals, all the respondents raised a common preliminary objections and therefore these appeals are taken up for hearing together for disposal.2. Mr. Bipin Garg, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 35B(2) of Central Excise Act. 1944, are not maintainable on the ground that the appeals were signed by the Commissioner himself. He further submits that the Commissioner himself filed the appeals without recording his opinion that impugned order is "not legal and proper" and he is exercising powers of his subordinate officer in violation of Section 35B(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. In this connection, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Surat-I v.Shree Canesh Dyeing & Printing Works reported in 2006 (76) R.L.T. 858 (CESTAT-Mum.), and the case of CCE, Surat-I v. Varun Dyeing & Printing Mills & Ors. and Vice Versa reported in 2007 (78) R.L.T. 438 (CESTAT-Mum.)....

Oberoi Flight Services Vs. C.S.T.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STJ41CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The stay application is in respect of service tax demand of about Rs. 38 lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under the impugned order. The tax demand is on the ground that appellant is rendering "Airport service" by keeping the "Executive Lounge & Snack Bar" at transit area in Terminal-II of Delhi Airport.3. The services authorized in the Executive Lounge by the Airport Authority of India are the following: The Licensee will manage the Executive Lounge & Snack Bar counter and provide the facilities of: g) Communication facility including STD/ISD/Fax - Video Conferencing etc.It is by treating the above service as Airport service that the tax demand has been made.4. It will be seen from para 4 above that the Executive Lounge provides several services like Cable TV, Food and Telecom services in the executive lounge. These services are not airport services, as they have nothing to do with the arrival or departure of aircraft, which is the substance of airport service. It ...

Shiv Kumar Sharma S/O Sh. Madhav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Vide MA No. 998/2004, applicant seeks oral hearing in RA. MA is allowed.2. Heard. Applicant seeks review and recall of an order dated 15.12.2003 passed in OA-3104/2002. It is contended that relief prayed vide para 8.1 as well as 8.2 of the OA were not redressed and adjudicated by this Tribunal while deciding aforesaid OA. It was pointed out that on earlier occasion, applicant filed OA-1743/1998 which had been disposed of vide order dated 16.11.2000 issuing direction to respondents to consider suitable modification in the letter dated 6.3.1999 and open the avenue of promotion to Pointsman category, to which applicant belongs. Earlier the condition imposed had been that where Switchman grade does not exist, other categories namely, Cabinman, Leverman, Pointsman would be considered for promotion for next higher post of Goods Guard. Pursuant to the order dated 16.11.2000, Northern Railway issued order dated 5.9.2001 and provided that all Pointsman of 'Bikaner Division' would be allowed...

Naresh Kumar Mal, Extra Assistant Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the orders of the respondents dated 24.08.2005 (Annexure A-1), November, 1997 (Annexure A-2), and December, 1997 [Annexure A-2(a)]. He has further sought direction to the respondents to revise the applicant's pre-revised re-fixed pay of Rs. 2750/-, as fixed in pay fixation order at Annexure A-5 (pg. 39) in the revised pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was selected by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC, for short) as Extra Assistant Director (EAD, for short) in the office of Director (Co-ordination), Police Wireless (DCPW, for short), in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 2000-3500/-. He joined as EAD, DCPW on 30.10.1996. Before his appointment as EAD, he was working as Assistant Manager, Indian Telephone Industries (ITI, for short), Bangalore, a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU, for short), in the pay scale of Rs. 4800-8275/- and was in receipt of total emoluments o...

Laxman Lal S/O Late N. Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This application is filed seeking direction to the respondents to re-fix the pay of applicant in respect of scale of Rs. 1400-2300.Aggrieved by the non-consideration of the claim of the applicant, applicant has preferred the present OA seeking the following reliefs: (i) Re-fix pay of the applicant (DEO-C) in his respective scale (Rs.1400-2300 p/r) w.e.f. 1.1.86 instead of 11.8.89. (ii) pay the consequential benefits on account of such refixation alongwith interest/costs. (iii) Any other or further relief, the Hon'ble may deem fit & necessary in the interest of justice.2. Notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents have filed their counter reply.3. Learned Counsel of applicant has pleaded and submitted that the issue involved in this application is covered by the orders passed by this Tribunal. In spite of the fact that he has prayed for, the respondents have not considered and accepted the request of the applicant for grant of relief claimed.4. Respondents have file...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Anil Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT788; [2007]292ITR552(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as 'Act') against the order dated 23rd September, 2005 passed in ITA No. 2468/Delhi/2002 for the assessment year 1995-96.2. We have framed the following substantial question of law for consideration:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 20 lacs on account of gifts alleged to have been received by the assessed?3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessed in the present case filed the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 1995-96 on 31st October, 1995 declaring an income of Rs. 1,04,249/-. This assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act on 2nd March, 1998 accepting the declared income of the assessed. Subsequently, this assessment order was examined by CIT(Central-2), New Delhi under Section 263 of the Act who set aside the assessment on 2nd August, 1...