Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)14STT29

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax and penalties. The demand is for the period 1997 to 1998 and show-cause notice was issued on 10.11.04 demanding the Service Tax Under Section 73 of Finance Act in respect of the Goods Transport Operator Service. The issue is settled in favour of the applicant by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. reported in 2006 (3) STR 715(SC). In view of this, the pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax and penalty is waived. The stay petition is allowed....

Ashok Kumar Arora S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA, applicant, a retired Group 'B' officer, has assailed respondents' order dated 30.4.2004, whereby a disagreement Note has been arrived at by the disciplinary authority (DA) in the disciplinary proceedings. Also assailed is an order passed on 23.9.2004 in pursuance of a major penalty proceedings, imposing upon applicant a minor penalty of censure with treatment of absence period from 23.6.1999 to 26.5.2003 as extraordinary leave (EOL) without medical certificate. Lastly, the appellate order dated 9.12.2005, affirming the punishment is also assailed.2. Applicant, who had been earlier posted on hard stations, had been a chronic patient of bronchial asthma since 1998. While posted at Silchar, i.e., a place, which does not suit as per the climatic conditions, continuance of applicant due to his ailment was subjected to a medical examination regarding fitness of civilians in the field service on the basis of his bronchial asthma in 1994. The concerned graded speciali...

Shri Dhanai Prasad, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By present OA, applicant challenges Memorandum issued in December, 2005, received by him on 19.12.2005, whereby his representation dated 01.12.2005 for removing alleged anomaly in pay had been rejected.2. The facts as stated are that applicant is holding post of Superintendent in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan since December 1989 and had been drawing basic pay of Rs. 7,775/- as on 1.12.2005. His junior, viz. Smt. Shashi Khanna, who was promoted to said post in the year 1992 was drawing basic pay of Rs. 8,425/- as on 01.12.2005. Therefore, he submitted a representation dated 01.06.2005 (Annexure A/3) followed by reminder dated 1.12.2005, which ultimately had been rejected vide impugned communication.3. The grievance of applicant is that aforesaid Memorandum vide which his request has been rejected is evasive and in no manner falls in line with relevant rules and instructions on the subject. Applicant as well as Smt. Shashi Khanna had their initial appointment in Clerical cadre and app...

Shri Vinod Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(a) To call for the records and hold that the act of the Respondent was not justified in denying regularization to the Applicant in the services and further direct the Respondents to regularize the Applicant from the date of his successful completion of probation i.e. one year after the date of his joining; & To further direct the Respondents to calculate and pay the arrears of salary granting increments from the date Applicant became eligible to be appointed on regular basis with all consequential benefits and interest @ 18% over the amount, besides, damages for the losses suffered by him and declare the action of Respondent as illegal and arbitrary; & To further quash the process of recruitment/selection against the advertisement for the post of Sales Accountant/Technicians published in Hindi daily newspaper 'Amar Ujala' (Meerut News) dated 05.02.2006; and/or To further direct the Respondents not to appoint any other person on the post of the Applicant till the services of t...

Shri Kishan Lal Kamboj S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi), (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Whether applicant is entitled to first financial upgradation counting the period of notional appointment/regularization is the question raised in present OA? Applicant seeks direction to Respondents to convene Screening Committee and consider him for grant of first financial upgradation in pay scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/- with all consequential benefits including arrears, interest and costs.2. Admitted facts of the case are that applicant belonging to Scheduled Caste community commenced his career as a Casual Labour Artist under Respondents on 01-10-1985. When his juniors were being absorbed, overlooking his claim, he filed OA No. 443 of 1993, which was disposed of vide order dated 03-05-1993, directing concerned authorities to consider his case in the light of the scheme. Pursuant thereto, Respondents passed order in July, 1993, stating that as applicant was first engaged on 01-10-1985 when he did not attain age of 21, as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for Group 'D' post, he...

Nestle India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Delhi)498

1. These are the cross-appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the order dt. 6th March, 2003 passed by the CIT(A), New Delhi for asst. yr. 1999-2000.2. The first ground of appeal in substance relates to the order confirming the disallowance of Rs. 37.82 crores out of total expenditure of Rs. 56.73 crores on account of royalty debited to the P&L a/c and claimed as allowable expenditure. Briefly stated facts are that during the year the assessee had made total payment of royalty of Rs. 56,73,24,000 on account of technical fee/royalty to the Societe de Products SA (SPN) and Nestec Ltd., Switzerland (Nestec) for 7 major categories of products. Nestec and SPN are subsidiary non-resident companies of Nestle, Switzerland. The AO observed that the assessee had claimed to have paid the royalty @ 3.5 per cent on domestic sales and 5 per cent on export sales net of taxes and by including the tax of 20 per cent and cess of 5 per cent, the payment of technical fee/royalty on dome...

Avat Ram Mamtani Vs. N.D.M.C.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ366

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The petitioner, an allottee of stall no. 46, Municipal Market, Jan Path, New Delhi, challenges the demand notice dated 18.1.2005 issued by the New Delhi Municipal Council ('NDMC'), calling upon him to pay Rs. 4,58,823/- on account of license fee for the period ending in January 2005. There are further prayers made in the alternative: either the shop should be declared to be continuing in the name of the petitioner exclusively or be transferred in the name of son of the petitioner either exclusively or jointly with the petitioner without enhancement of the license fee or that it should be transferred exclusively to the son with 30% enhancement in the existing license fee as per the policy dated 18.3.1999 with prospective effect. Pleadings of the parties2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that shop in question was allotted to the petitioner in 1950. In 1992, the petitioner requested that the shop be transferred in the name of his son, Shri Bhi...

Shri Muralidharan K. Vs. the Management of Circle Freight Intl. (India ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ14; (2007)IIILLJ953Del

Gita Mittal, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an industrial award dated 3rd January, 2003 of the industrial adjudicator answering the reference made to it against the petitioner-workman. 2. There is no dispute to the material facts essential for adjudicating upon the subject matter of the present case and the same are briefly noticed hereafter. 3. The petitioner was appointed as an Operations Supervisor with effect from 1st July, 1986 by the respondent No. 1 pursuant to a letter dated 1st July, 1986 on probation for a period of six months from the date of his joining. The duties of the petitioner in this letter of appointment clearly stipulated that the petitioner was responsible for the following duties; 7. You will be responsible for:(a) issuing delivery orders and sending out arrival notices. (b) maintaining registers on day to day basis. (c) handling of consolidations (sorting out cargo and transshipping the same promptly) (d) maintaining good rel...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kundra Shoes

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR471(Delhi); 2007(96)DRJ34

Anil Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of objections by the plaintiff, Union of India under Sections 30 and 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 against the arbitral award dated 29th December, 1999 passed by the learned Arbitrator which was filed by the Arbitrator and which was registered as CS(OS) 1257-A of 2000 and the petition which was filed by M/s Kundra Shoes under Section 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the Award was filed by the Arbitrator, seeking direction to the Arbitrator to file the award and to make the award rule of the Court.2. Brief facts to appreciate the controversies are that the plaintiff floated a tender enquiry and in response defendant offered to supply the stores, namely, shoe canvas, brown rubber soles of different size by an advance acceptance of tender on 30th July, 1984 followed by a formal AT bearing No. WL-3/101/208/2-6-81/63/II/776/RP/110/COAD dated 9th August, 1984. The plaintiff had conveyed his acceptance of tender by letter dated 16th Aug...

Ras Bihari Bansal, Prop. Bansal and Co. Vs. the Commissioenr of Income ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT630; [2007]293ITR365(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') against the impugned order dated 20th May, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Misc. Application No. 427/D/04 (in ITA No. 2960to 2961/D/99 and C.O. No. 235 and 236/Del/2003) for the assessment year 1988-89 and 1989-90, vide which application under Section 254(2) of the Act was dismissed.2. The assessment order in this case was passed by the Assessing officer on 30th March, 1998 assessing the taxable income of assessed as Rs. 11,65,290/-.3. Being dissatisfied with the assessment order, the assessed filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who vide order dated 16th March, 1999, partly allowed the appeals filed by the assessed.4. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Revenue filed appeals for both the assessment years whereas, the assessed filed c...