Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

Opus Media and Entertainment Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STJ259CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant seeks interim stay of the impugned order and waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amounts. The Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 500/- for failure of registration under Section 75A of the Finance Act, 1994, penalty of Rs. 100/- per day from the date when the service tax became payable till the actual date of payment of the confirmed service tax amount under Section 76 of the Act, and a penalty of Rs. 1,50,312/- under Section 78 of the said Act being equal to the demand of service tax confirmed against the assessee under Section 73, as per the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner.2. Section 76 of the Act provides that if any person, liable to pay service tax fails to pay it, he will have to pay in addition to the tax and interest thereon, a penalty which shall not be less than Rs. 100/-, but which may extend to Rs. 200/- for every day during which such failure continues subject to the maximum of service tax that he failed to pay. Section 76, therefo...

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking. They are required to file clearance from the Committee on Disputes as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC v. UOI .2. The appellant has not filed the COD clearance. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with the liberty to the appellants to get it restored as and when COD clearance is obtained....

Satya Pandey, Principal (Retd.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Counsel for applicant states that DASTI process was taken and the respondents have been served. Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 is present and there is no appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On asking, Shri R.N.Singh, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of Ministry of HRD (1st respondent) and Shri H.K. Gangwani, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of Union Public Service Commission (2nd respondent).2. The prayer made in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to direct the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of 8 weeks from the date of passing of the order by this Tribunal.3. Briefly the facts of the case reveal that on 27.12.2001, i.e., just three days before applicant's retirement, she was placed under suspension and served with a chargesheet for certain alleged irregularities while working as Vice Principal, Govt. Girls...

Ramesh Chand S/O Shri Jagdish Vs. Gnct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a Constable in Delhi Police, by virtue of this OA has assailed an order passed by the disciplinary authority (DA) in pursuance of disciplinary proceedings, whereby a major penalty of permanent forfeiture of two years' approved service along with reduction of pay has been inflicted upon him and the period of suspension has been treated as not spent on duty. Also assailed is an order passed in appeal on 13.8.2005, upholding the punishment.2. Applicant while posted in Traffic Branch of Delhi Police on a raid conducted by the PRG Cell was alleged to have connivance with one Delhi Home Guard (DHG) constable found to be collecting money from the bus driver and as recovery was made from DHG constable grave misconduct was alleged on the part of applicant.3. During the course of inquiry the conductor of the bus has not supported the prosecution and stated that nobody has demanded money, whereas PRG raid personnel stated that the Home Guard Constable disclosed to have collected mo...

State (Delhi Administration) Vs. NaraIn Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3346; 140(2007)DLT276

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment dated 03-06-1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions case No. 440/1988 arising out of FIR No. 200/1984 pertaining to police station Narela whereby all the four accused persons, who are now the respondents in this appeal and were tried for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 452 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC have been acquitted of all these charges.2. The prosecution case against the four acquitted accused Narain Singh, Ram Chander, Attar Singh and Smt. Phulo @ Phulwati was that they had killed Karan Singh who was the brother of accused Attar Singh, Narain Singh and PW-10 Amar Singh. These four brothers had some ancestral properties in village Jathkore in Delhi and a family partition had taken place. However, accused Attar Singh and Narain Singh were not satisfied with that fami...

Ramesh Kumar Vs. the Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT593; I(2007)DMC553; (2007)IIILLJ89Del

Hima Kohli, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning the Award dated 3rd December, 2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as `the Industrial Adjudicator') in ID No. 84/94. The facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that the the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent Bank on 15th November, 1985 vide a letter dated 21st October, 1985. On 31st December, 1989, a written complaint was lodged by a customer of the respondent Bank against the petitioner, pursuant to which the petitioner was served with a charge sheet in the following terms by the respondent Bank stating that he had received two cheques of Rs. 3,000/- each and had contravened the procedures of the respondent Bank:(i) You did not affix Bank's crossing stamp partly on the counter foil and partly on the relevant voucher, in lieu of having received the voucher along with cheques.(ii) You did not sign th...

Delhi Union of Journalist Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Vs. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ155

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. The Petitioners are three cooperative societies of journalists, who were allotted land admeasuring 230 bighas in Gulmohar Park, New Delhi by a lease deed dated 4.7.1962. With a view to providing other facilities to the members of these societies, the Petitioners formed the Gulmohar Park Journalists Education Society in 1981. In the same year Petitioner Nos. 3 Society wrote to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) seeking grant of the lease of a plot of land for a nursery school.2. By Notification dated 20.9.1995, the Central Government modified the Master Plan for Delhi, 1962 whereby certain additional activities were permitted on the lands in residential areas. This included running a fine arts school. Pursuant to the said notification, land measuring 1000 sq. mtr. located in Gulmohar Park, New Delhi was allotted in favor of Respondent No. 4, Kalashram for the purposes of running a Dance and Drama Institute. A perpetual lease deed was executed by the DDA in fa...

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3545

ORDERS. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This revision petition is directed against an order of charge dated 30th July, 2002 whereby the petitioner was charged with having committed offences under Section 348/330 read with Section 120-B/130/348, IPC and under Section 195, Cr. P.C.2. It would be useful to narrate the facts which have been stated by the trial Court in the impugned order. The relative part of that order is hereby extracted below:The facts of this case which was earlier pending in the Sessions Court at Dehradun and later on transferred to Delhi pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in writ petition (Crl.) No. 317/94, are that accused Geeta Ahuja and her father accused Khem Chand Ahuja (who had died during the pendency of this case) were at the relevant time living in the neighborhood of the complainant Raj Pal Dhal in Rajnagar, Ghaziabad. As per the prosecution case accused Geeta Ahuja and complainant's son Atul Dhall fell in love with each other and they wanted to...

Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds) Vs. Asian Hotels Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]296ITR374(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 28th June, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench F in ITA Nos. 1629 to 1636(Del)/2001 and ITA Nos. 1657 to 1664(Del)/2001 relevant for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1997-98.2. The assessed is running a hotel under the name and style of Hyatt Regency at Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. The assessed entered into an agreement with M/s Hyatt of Hong Kong Ltd. and under this agreement some expatriates were deputed to assist the assessed in better management of the hotel. For the services of these expatriates, the assessed was required to make some payment, one of the heads being per diem payment. According to the agreement, the assessed was to make the payment to M/s Hyatt of Hong Kong Ltd. and not to each individual expatriate.3. The assessed was of the view that while it was liable to deduct tax at source on the per diem payment, it was not very clear about the rate. Accordingly, the assessed applied t...

Prabha Rawat Vs. Deepti Srivastava (Dr.) and Another.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Vide impugned order dated 30th January, 2001 the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation and payment of expenses incurred by her due to the medical negligence of the respondent was dismissed. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. The allegations of the appellant, in brief, were that she was suffering from severe abdominal pain and irregular menstrual cycle in July, 2000. She went to the respondents clinic on 13.7.2001 for treatment. She was examined by the respondent superficially and diagnosed to be suffering from PID with cervicitis with urinary tract infection. The respondents treatment continued from 13.7.2000 to 24.8.2000. During the period, no tests were prescribed. Since the appellant was not having relief, the respondent continued changing medicines on every occasion. On 14.9.2000, the appellant went to Timarpur alongwith her husband to a friends place where she had severe pain in abdomen and collapsed. She w...