Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

Rameshwar Dayal Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ523

Hima Kohli, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying inter alia for quashing of the impugned award dated 13.11.1998, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in ID No. 107/1995, whereunder it was held that the petitioner/workman was not able to prove that his services were terminated, illegally or unjustifiably by the respondent/management and therefore his claim was rejected.2. Brief facts which are relevant for deciding the petition are that the petitioner was taken into employment of respondent No. 2, MCD as a 'Mali'/'Beldar' w.e.f. 26.05.1984. The petitioner workman was being treated as a muster roll employee and was being paid minimum wages fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act. The petitioner claimed that his services were terminated by respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 26.07.1991, without assigning any valid reason thereof and in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, in short referred to as 'the Act...

Delhi Ivf and Fertility Clinic and Another Vs. Lina Goyal (Dr.)

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of negligence in not providing the requisite post care treatment to the respondent who had availed the services of the appellants for treatment of IVF Procedure commonly called as Test Tube Baby Procedure, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 3.3.2001 held the appellants Delhi IVF and Fertility Centre and Dr. Anoop Gupta guilty of deficiency in service and directed to refund fees/medicines/investigation charges/room charges etc. charged from the respondent with a sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation towards mental and physical pain suffered by the respondent besides Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. The case of the respondent before District Forum in brief was that the respondent availed services of the appellants for treatment of IVF procedure commonly called as Test Tube Baby procedure vide appellants case File No. Reg. No. 462/94 for a consideration of fees as demanded by...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Aggarwal Plastic (India)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Common issue is involved in these appeals and, therefore, the same are taken up for hearing together for disposal.2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are engaged in the manufacture of electric wire and cables, PVC components, strips at their factory and availed Cenvat credit. On 12-3-2003, the Central excise officers visited the factory of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The said visiting officers resumed invoices issued by M/s. Aggarwal Plastic (India), Delhi Respondent No. 1 on the ground that they had been issuing the fake sale invoices. The statements of the representative of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were recorded wherein they slated that they received inputs accompanied with duty paying documents of M/s. Aggarwal Plastic (India) Respondent No. 1 and utilized in the finished goods. Show cause notices dated 17-7-2003 were issued to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. It has been alleged that Shri Rajiv Aggarwal, authorized signatory...

Prasad Enterprises Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC119

2. The appellant is a regular importer of plastic sheets. It imported two consignments in April 2004. The purchase price was @ 600 $ per metric ton. The appellant sought assessment of the goods to customs duty at this transaction value; but customs authorities rejected the transaction value and assessed the goods at 780 U.S. $ per metric ton.No reason for rejecting the transaction value or justification for adopting U.S. $ 780 was conveyed to the appellant. The appellant cleared the consignments on payment of duty as assessed and filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). Those appeals were rejected by the Commissioner with the following observations: In both the appeals, the issue involved is that the appellants imported goods against contract and filed Bills of entry with transacted value. department on the basis of the value of the subject goods in international market, loaded the value at par with international value, which was duly accepted by the appellant, and duty on the...

Cce Vs. H and R Johnson (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC161

1. Common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore, both the appeals are taken up for hearing together for disposal.2. Heard the learned D.R. on behalf of the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of issue of notice. It appears from the record that on 28.3.2007, the learned advocate on behalf of the respondents requested for adjournment for 2 weeks. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 2.4.2007. Today, when the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents and, therefore, the appeals are taken up for hearing in their absence.3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of wall tiles and floor tiles of different varieties falling under sub-heading No. 6906.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 19.11.1997 and 20.11.1997 the central excise officers conducted stock verification of the finished goods. There was of shortage and excess of the different varieties o...

Ms. Helan Peter, Staff Nurse, Guru Vs. National Capital Territory of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. None appeared for the applicant in spite of repeated calls. We proceeded to hear the learned Counsel for the respondents on merit in view of Rule 15 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.2. The applicant was appointed as Staff Nurse on contract basis for 89 days at a consolidated salary of Rs. 5800/- per month w.e.f. 7.9.1998.After completion of 89 days, he was given 3 days break and then again appointed in the same capacity. After May 2000, there was no break in the services of the applicant and she remained in continuous service.However, the applicant has not been given full salary, though entitled to the same, after completion of one year of continuous service, from 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002. A notification issued by Government of NCT of Delhi entitles her to equal pay for equal work and salary/other allowances as admissible to regular staff.3 On 20.9.2005 applicant made an unsuccessful representation to the respondents praying therein for consideration of her case for regularization as w...

Dalip Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)1STJ104NULL

1. In this O.A., the charge sheet dated 5.7.2005 and the penalty order issued on 14.12.2005 have been impugned. The following relief has been sought by the applicant who has retired from Military Engineering Service as Additional Chief Engineer on 28.2.2006. (a) to call for all the records of the case relating to the impugned memorandum of charge sheet dated 5th July, 2005 and the impugned penalty order dated 14.12.2005 passed by the respondents; (b) to quash the impugned memorandum dated 5.7.2005 and the impugned penalty order dated 14.12.2005 as illegal, mala fide and void ab initio; (c) to direct the respondents to order promotion of the applicant to the grade of Chief Engineer with effect from the date his next junior was promoted to the said grade with consequential benefits; and (d) to grant any other relief or reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case along with the cost of the litigation.2. The applicant has alleged that he was included in the...

O.N. Mathur S/O Shri J.N. Mathur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(i) to quash and set aside the action of the respondents in adopting the composite method while filling up the post of Finance & Accounts Officer; and consequently quash and set aside the column No. 10 and 11 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Finance & Accounts Officer [Annexure A-3]; (ii) to direct the respondents to adopt the promotional method as first mode while filling up the vacancy of Finance & Accounts Officer and consider the case of the applicant for promotion in accordance with either the earlier DPC or by way of fresh DPC and if the applicant is fit or found to be fit, he may be promoted with all consequential benefits from the date of the DPC; (iii) to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.2. An interim order passed on 6.10.2004 maintained status quo as to continuance of applicant as Finance and Account Officer (F&AO).3. A brief factual matrix transpires that applicant was appointed as Junior Accounts ...

iqbal Singh S/O Shri Bakshi Singh, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Despite repeated call, none appeared for the applicants. We have heard the learned Counsel for respondents and proceeded to hear the OA under Rule 15 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.2. Applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2 were appointed as casual labourers in the year 1980 and 1984 respectively. They were conferred temporary status of Khalasi w.e.f. 1.1.1984 and then regularized in the year 1996. While working as Chowkidars, they were served with a charge sheet SF-11 on 9.9.2005.3. On 12.11.2005 applicants were imposed a penalty of Rs. 8800/- as per Annexure A-4 and Annuexre A-1/1 by Shri J.P. Singh, JE/P.Way Shahdara.Applicants then preferred an appeal on 4.5.2006 and 11.5.2006 respectively and the disciplinary authority reduced the penalty from Rs. 8800 to Rs. 3300 each.4. The applicants also pleaded that as per Rule 2 (i) of Rule 15 and 16 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, the order of recovery of Rs. 3300/- from each of the applicants could be done only after con...

Shri S.P. Singh S/O Late Shri C.B. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. At the very outset, learned Counsel of the applicant states that the proceedings of this case be adjourned sine die, awaiting the decision to be rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal CC No. 1965/2007. The order passed by the Supreme Court dated 07.03.2007 reads as follows: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Three weeks' time is granted for filing counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.2. Briefly put, the facts of the case reveal that earlier in point of time, the applicant had challenged an order dated 30.08.2005, placing him under suspension on the basis of contemplated disciplinary proceedings, and also an order dated 16.09.2005, dealing with the withdrawal of salary/subsistence allowance, before this Tribunal. This Tribunal in OA No. 2234/2005 held that the suspension order dated 30.08.2005 is non-est in law and would not come in the way of withholding permiss...