Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Rakesh Kumar Khattar Vs. Rajinder Kumar JaIn and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Vide impugned order dated 29.4.2002 the complaint of the appellant who is a legal heir of B.R. Khattar was dismissed being barred by limitation. Feeling aggrieved he has preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that the deceased B.L. Khattar (who expired on 29.9.1996) had booked a plot/shop bearing No. 12-C1 located in colony Ashoka Enclave situated in village Khewaja Sarai and Palla now in Faridabad. The said plot was booked with M/s. Ashoka Land and Financiers whose partners were respondent Nos. 1 and 3 besides Amarjeet Singh Kalra and Lal Chand Sharma. On the application filed by the deceased B.L. Khattar for allotment of a shop/plot along with a sum of Rs. 1,250 being 25% of the amount of the total consideration which was received by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 through their agent Mr. Ramesh Nayar. The said application was dated 9.4.2003 and contains terms and conditions of allotment and which in fact was a sale agreement. It i...

Ramesh Chander, Ex. Head Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA applicant has assailed initiation of departmental enquiry (DE) vide order dated 29.12.2004, summary of allegations, finding recorded by the enquiry officer (EO), and an order passed by the disciplinary authority on 16.1.2005, dismissing the applicant from service as well as an order passed on 8.6.2006 in appeal, up-holding the punishment.2. Though Shri Anil Singhal, learned Counsel for the applicant has taken several legal contentions to assail the impugned orders but, at the outset, stated that entire enquiry proceedings and consequential orders are liable to be quashed and set aside for violation of Rule 15 (2) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.3. In the above backdrop, it is stated that admittedly on a preliminary enquiry conducted, a cognizable offence has been made out against the applicant in relation to public on discharge of official duty.Accordingly, the enquiry was ordered on 29.12.2004. However, approval had not been sought from the...

Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC238

1. These two appeals arise from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 08.02.2005 in Excise Appeal No. 1585 of 2005, by which demand for Rs. 1,67,371/- was upheld and the remaining demand was set-aside and penalty reduced. The Revenue has challenged reducing of the penalty in Excise Appeal No. 1603 of 2005 while the assessee has challenged the confirmation of the demand of Rs. 1,67,371/- in Excise Appeal No. 1585 of 2005.2. It appears from the impugned order that the Commissioner (Appeals) was under the impression that the letter of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited written on 20.01.99 to the appellant -assessee was not given to the adjudicating authority during the adjudicating proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed in paragraph 12.3 of the impugned order that the said letter was an additional evidence, for the production of which no application had been given. It is evident from the material on record that this impression of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) i...

Gupta Metal Sheets (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC53

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner dated 27.1.05 rejecting its claim for remission of duty amount of Rs. 2,71,520/- on the ground that theft cannot said to be an accident and that dacoity was not an act of nature. The Commissioner preferred to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Golden Hills Estate v.CCE, Madras Bench judgment, as against the contrary decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bavaji and Motibhai v. Inspector , on the ground that former was a Division Bench judgment rendered in 1996.2. The appellant was engaged in manufacture of copper sheets and circles. By application dated 18.1.01, the appellant requested for remission of duty of Rs. 2,71,520/-, under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that the goods were taken away by the dacoits during the night between 30^th April, 1999 and 1^st May, 1999.3. Under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it is inter alia, provided that there shall be levied and ...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Narmada Extrusion (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC28

1. The Revenue has appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent that he set-aside some the portion of the demand and the order confiscating 600 kgs. of HDPE granules found in excess and reduced the penalty.2. The learned authorized representative (DR) for the department submitted that there was no valid reason for the Commissioner (Appeals) to hold that the physical shortage of 17680.77 kgs. of granules was explained. He also submitted that the excess stock of 600 kgs. of HDPE granules was not explained and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error in setting-aside the order of the adjudicating authority.3. The Commissioner (Appeals), on the basis of the material on record held that the allegation of short receipt could not have been based on the statement of the director alone. He found that there was a physical shortage of 4700 kgs. of HDPE granules out of which it was established that 4075 kgs. were issued for production, leaving a short...

Sukhdev Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The present RA has been filed by the review applicant seeking review of our order dated 17.4.2007 passed in OA 934 of 2006.2. In the RA, applicants have again prayed for a direction to grant pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 on the ground that they are performing the duties of material clerk. We have dealt with all the issues raised in the RA in detail in the OA. As such, applicants are estopped from raising this issue in the RA. By means of this RA, applicants want to re-agitate the whole case again, which is not permissible.3. We have perused the relevant record and order dated 17.4.2007 and do not find any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record nor is there discovery of new and important material. No new evidence has been produced in this review application even after exercise of the due diligence. If the review applicant is not satisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal, remedy lies elsewhere. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das 13. The Tribunal pass...

All India Cpwd Office Staff Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The first applicant is an Association of the Staff of Central Public Works Department and the second applicant is a member thereof, working as a Head Clerk, stationed at New Delhi. The essence of the claim is for recognizing the demand of the Head Clerks of the Department for being placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000, instead of the present pay scale prescribed to them, namely, Rs. 5000-8000. The basis of the claim, according to them, is for the reason that the 5th Central Pay Commission had recommended such pay to the posts where the duties discharged by the incumbents are of supervisory nature. The Administrative Ministry and the Cadre Controlling Authority had in definite terms recognised the applicants' posts as supervisory but nevertheless consequential benefits were not extended to them. They contend that similar posts in the other Departments had been extended the higher pay scale. Resultantly, there is hostile discrimination and interference of the Tribunal is warrante...

Dr. Anil Mehra S/O Late L.N. Mehra Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi (Through ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Office Order dated 23.11.2006 transferring applicant from Director (Health Services) to Medical Superintendent, DDU Hospital, Delhi is questioned in present proceedings.2. Facts stated are that applicant appointed in super-time administrative grade (hereinafter referred as SAG) of General Duty Medical Officer (hereinafter referred as GDMO) Sub Cadre of Central Health Services in the year 1998 & belonging to regular cadre, was posted as Director (Health Services) in April, 2005. Prior to it, he was working as Chief Medical Officer (NFSG) & Senior Medical Officer.The Principal Secretary, Govt. of N.C.T. is controlling authority of Director (Health Services). Respondent No. 3 is the cadre controlling authority of service known as Central Health Services (hereinafter referred as CHS). Appointment to said CHS is to be made only through UPSC. The members of CHS are also placed at disposal of Government of NCT of Delhi by the Central Government. Director (Health Services) is the s...

Kundan S/O Shri Ram Saran Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant along with others, on sponsorship by employment exchange, was engaged on 24.4.2006 after interview as waterman on daily wage basis in the Department for a period of 89 days as per Annexure A-1.2. It is stated that the applicant was deployed on various kinds of work like cleaning, dusting, lifting records etc. as well. His engagement was extended from time to time with artificial breaks in between, as a result of which he completed 238 days of satisfactory service, but instead of regularizing him he was discharged by a verbal order w.e.f. 3.2.2007 on the pretext of completion of work with an assurance of re-engagement subject to availability of the same. It is contended that one Shri Jitender Kumar who was similarly situated has been allowed to continue. As such, the applicant states he has been discriminated against and arbitrarily terminated.3. It has been claimed that the applicant is eligible for grant of temporary status and regularization as per Casual Labour (Gr...

ito Vs. Magic Software (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are appeals by the revenue against the common order dated 2-2-2006 of the Id. Commissioner (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi, relating to the financial years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03.2. The respondent herein had taken premises 836 - Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Delhi, on lease from M/s. Hewa (P.) Ltd. under a lease agreement dated 19-2-2000. There was another agreement by which the respondent agreed to pay hire for furniture and fixtures in the premises of M/s. Hewa (P.) Ltd. The furniture and fixture referred to in the agreement was a DC Set (180 KVA) and Air-conditioners. The respondent at the time of making the payment under the hire agreement for hire of DC set and Air-condition ers deducted tax at source by treating the payment as one made to a contractor for carrying out any work under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and deducted tax at 2 per cent. The assessing officer was of the view that the sum paid under the hire ...