Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

Dhuriapar Kisan Sahkari Chini Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC440

1. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of VP sugar and Molasses falling under sub-heading 1701.31, 1701.39 and 1703.10 of the CETA, 1985. During the period 1998-99, they stored molasses in the storage tank. Since November, 1999 till March 2003, molasses could not be cleared due to Stay Order of the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad. A quantity of 224.380 MT of molasses were reported as lost due to long storage. They applied for remission of duty amounting to Rs. 1,21,190/- in respect of loss of 224.380 MT of molasses. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the application for remission of duty and confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 1,12,190/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- along with interest.2. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that during the period from November, 1999 to March, 2003, timely cleaning of the tank could not be undertaken due to Stay Order of Hon'ble High Co...

Run Detective Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Compliance of the interim order requiring pre-deposit of Rs. 10,000/-is not reported. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed for non-compliance of the order....

Ravinder Kumar Kotru, Senior Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA applicant impugns respondents' order dated 19.6.2006, whereby his seniority has been relegated. He seeks restoration of his seniority as settled vide respondents' order dated 22.4.2003, with all consequential benefits.2. Applicant, who was selected as a Senior Accountant on deputation to National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) on 24.7.1995 was absorbed on 18.10.1997. The request of applicant made on 17.12.1997 for absorption under the recruitment rules when was rejected by the NCERT, permission was sought from the parent department of applicant on 23.1.1998 to apply for the post of Senior Accountant in NCERT under direct recruitment quota of 25%. Applicant qualified it and was selected on 22.5.1998, whereas private respondents No. 3 and 4, who appeared in the departmental quota under 75%, could not qualify the examination in 1998 but cleared it in 1999. Applicant on tendering his technical resignation on 31.8.1999 in the parent department ...

C.L. Bavalia, Ex-grade-i (Dass) Vs. the Lieutenant Governor, Govt. of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, an ex-Grade-I DASS, by virtue of this OA has assailed an order passed by the respondents on 26.5.2005 by the disciplinary authority (DA) in pursuance of the disciplinary proceedings, inflicting upon him a penalty of compulsory retirement. Also assailed is an order passed by the Lieutenant Governor on 10.5.2006 in appeal, upholding the punishment.2. A brief factual matrix transpires that applicant while functioning as Tehsildar, Ram Chander and others filed CWP No. 245.92 before the Delhi High Court whereby they have claimed to be in cultivatory possession of the land, sought direction of the High Court to record the factum of their cultivatory possession in the relevant Revenue records. Accordingly, an order passed on 14.8.2001, taking cognizance of the fact that irrespective of the petitioners in actual possession of the land or not, Revenue authorities have been directed to record the possession of the person who is cultivating the fields with liberty to the petitioner...

Satyendra Pal S/O Shri Samasha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As the case pertains to the year 2003 and the matter had earlier been dismissed in default on 04.12.2006 and restored vide order dated 18.01.2007, and noticing further that matter had been adjourned repeatedly on request made by parties, and further that two attempts were made to seek adjournments in the case today, which requests had not been acceded to, as noticed by separate order passed today, invoking Rule 15 (1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and upon hearing learned Counsel for respondents, we decided to proceed with the matter.2. In this third round of litigation, applicant challenges validity of communication dated 14.11.2002, rejecting his request for ante-dated promotion as P.W.I. Grade-I. He seeks direction to respondents to consider his claim for promotion w.e.f. 01.03.1993 in pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- with all consequential benefits, instead of 27.03.1995.3. On an earlier occasion, applicant preferred OA No. 3357/2001, which had been disposed of by a Single Bench o...

Jai Prakash and anr. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(2)148

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner questions an order on charge made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 25.7.1995. He was charged of having committed offences under Section 63 of Copy Right Act.2. The allegation in the First Information Report (FIR), made some time in 1993, was that the complainant/informant, alleged to own a factory manufacturing utensils in the trade and style of M/s. Monika Manufacturing Co. and also alleged owner of brand name 'VISHAL', (having exclusive use of a registered copyright and prior user of a Trade Mark for the purpose), came to know that the petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Sarvodaya Metal Industries was infringing that copyright as well as the Trade Mark. On the basis of that FIR, investigations were conducted and eventually a charge sheet was filed. By the impugned order, the petitioner was charged with having committed the offence. The material portion of the order reads as under:6. The contention of the counsel for the accused that the label...

Oriental Insurance Co. and ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ483

Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. The present appeals raise a common question of law relating to third party liability of an insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) even after the cheque given by the insured, i.e. the owner of the vehicle, to cover third party liability has bounced and notice terminating the contract of insurance has been served on the insured. Learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal has held that the appellants, the insurance companies will be liable to third parties. 2. Under law of contract, if one party commits fundamental breach of the terms of the agreement, the other party is entitled to terminate the contractual relationship and be absolved from performing it's obligations. Failure and default in paying consideration as per terms agreed, is a fundamental breach of a contract. In fact the party terminating the contract is entitled to sue the other side and claim/recover damages, if any. The Act, however, has made in...

Ranjana Vs. Tej Bhan Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi246

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-2-2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in HMA No. 172 of 2006.2. The petition HMA No. 172 of 2006 under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act) was filed by the respondent seeking to declare void the marriage between the parties which took place on 28-4-1998 at the Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhogal, New Delhi. The ground was that the appellant here was married at the time, which fact was not known to the respondent. The trial Court framed the three issues as under:1. Whether the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on 28-4-1998 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhogal, New Delhi was contrary to the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act and void ab initio? OPP2. Whether the petitioner was aware of the respondent having a husband living at the time of undergoing marriage ceremony with the respondent on 28-4-1998 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhogal, New Delhi? OPR.3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relie...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Towers (i.) P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]296ITR106(Delhi)

1. The matter has been called out twice but there is no appearance on behalf of the assessed. On the last two dates of hearing, the assessed was represented by its chief engineer.2. The assessed has filed a reply dated October 16, 2006, wherein it is stated that the appeal may kindly be decided on the merits and that the assessed would abide by the decision of the court. The reply has been filed by Sh. P.S. Gupta, one of the directors of the assessed-company and it is supported by his affidavit.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the Revenue and are of the opinion that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:(1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that in terms of Rule 46A(4) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) could take evidence on record without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to deal with the same?(2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in dele...

Post Master, District Court Tis Hazari Vs. Amarjit Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Respondent availed the services of the appellant for delivery of parcel containing four Sarees against consideration. Sarees were lost and could not be delivered. Charging appellant for deficiency in service respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum. 2. While holding the appellant deficient in service the District Forum vide impugned order dated 13.1.2005 directed the appellant to pay Rs. 10,795 with interest @ 9% and Rs. 1,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as cost of litigation. 3. Through this appeal, the impugned order is being assailed firstly on the ground that there was no description given in the parcel while booking the parcel and if the details of cost of the goods are given then these goods have to be insured if the cost exceeds Rs. 1,000 and secondly that there was no liability of the appellant under the Indian Postal Act as well as rules framed therein. 4. In our view wherever such services are availed by a consumer the conduc...