Delhi Court June 2007 Judgments

Shri Vijaya Kumar S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. MA 1507/2006 under Rule 4 (5) (a) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together in one single application is allowed.2. Four applicants, initially appointed as Senior Computer in pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/- in the years 1987-1988 in this OA filed under Section 19 of A.T. Act challenge communication dated 13.09.2005 rejecting their representation for placement in EDP Grade-A, pay scale Rs.1600-2660/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 or from the date of their appointment. They also seek extension of benefit of judgment of this Tribunal dated 18.12.2003 in OA No. 553/2003 (Shri R.K. Sharma and Ors. Union of India and Ors.) and order dated 19.05.2006 in OA No. 2587/2005 (Smt. Shama Kaul and Ors. v.Union of India and Ors.).3. Their grievance is that though they were initially appointed as Senior Computer in pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/- on different dates in the years 1987 & 88 and thereafter they were re-designated as Data Processing Assistant Grade A as per Office Orders dated 8.1.1991 and 6.1...

Dinesh Mehta Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3834; II(2007)DMC334

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This revision is directed against the order on charge dated 02-08-03. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereafter ``the trial court'`) charged the Petitioner, for commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A/ 304-B IPC. The other co-accused too was charged.2. The prosecution alleged that on 24-08-2000, Manju, wife of the petitioner (hereafter ``the deceased'`) was admitted to the Safdarjung Hospital with 90% burns. One Krishan Gahlot of Newada from whom her husband had taken Rs 10,000/- loan, first forced her to have friendship with him and on 18-08-2000, he visited their home, tried to persuade her to have sexual relationship; when she refused, he had forcible sexual intercourse with her. It was alleged that on 24-08-2000, when the deceased disclosed this to the petitioner, he scolded her as to why she hid it from him. Subsequently, she served food to him around 5.15 p.m. and then went to the kitchen, poured kerosene and set herself ablaze. In her ...

Kulbir Krishan, Ips Inspector Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(1)SLJ294CAT

1. When half way through, the deputation of applicant Mr. Kulbir Krishan, an IPS Officer of Assam-Meghalaya Cadre of 1976 Batch, was cut short and he was sought to be repatriated to his parent cadre, he approached this Tribunal seeking to set aside or quash that decision, which by the time present application was filed, had not been communicated to him. Challenge to his repatriation is on variety of grounds but what mainly has been stressed with vehemence by Counsel representing him is that it is punitive in nature and would be stigmatic to his career. With a view to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel, it will be necessary to give facts culminating into filing this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.2. The applicant is 1976 Batch IPS Officer of Assam-Meghalaya Cadre. He was posted in Intelligence Bureau and served there for 18 years. He was posted in hard areas and handled Kashmir Problem for more than 5 years.He served in Srinagar for...

Surender Kumar S/O Shri Raj Sunder Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi (Through ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(1)SLJ157CAT

1. Whether cancellation of applicant's selection as TGT (Maths) as ordered vide Memorandum dated 25.02.2005 alleging that he did not fulfill the requirements of Recruitment Rules because of administrative decision endorsed by the Cabinet, Government of NCT of Delhi, defining the term 'elective' as those who have passed the concerned subject in all the years/semester of graduation as the case may be with at least 100 marks paper each year/semester, is justified? is the question raised/falling for determination by this Tribunal.2. Applicant challenges Memorandum dated 04.01.2005 vide which his candidature was cancelled besides Memorandum dated 25.02.2005 vide which his representation dated 25.01.2005 was rejected. Memo dated 02.06.2005, rejecting his further request and claim for appointment on the ground of equality with other cases, is also under question.Besides he seeks a declaration that he is entitled to be appointed on the post of TGT (Maths) in the Directorate of Education, Govt...

Tele Tech Communications Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant provides services relating to marketing, sale and promotion of prepaid cellular connections. They also undertake recharge of SIM cards and providing of customer care services. The appellant had not taken registration or paid the service tax on the services provided. Therefore, Central Excise Authorities issued notice to the appellant. While so, the Central Government announced a scheme for registration of service tax providers and payment of tax in arrears, without penalty. The features of the scheme were published. A copy of the Trade Notice No. 2 of 2004, dated 22-9-2004 of Chennai, Commissionerate may be read for understanding the scheme: Subject: Extraordinary taxpayer friendly schemes for instant registration of service providers - Regarding 1. Hon'ble Finance Minister has launched an Extraordinary Taxpayer Friendly Scheme for registration of those service providers who have not got themselves registered so far. The details of the scheme are enclosed as annexures...

Jeevan Singh S/O Late Shri Hukam Vs. Director of Education, Govt. of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA challenge is made to penalty of removal imposed by disciplinary authoritys order dated 26.04.2004 as upheld by order dated 19.01.2005.2. Admitted facts of the case are that applicant joined Respondent No.3, i.e. Raghubar Dayal Jan Kalyan (Co-Ed) Senior Secondary School in 1984. Said School was converted into a Government School on 16.09.1996.In September 1994, he applied for leave on account of his illness. Vide application dated 23.09.1994, he intimated the change in his address, to be recorded in his service book. He remained ill for quite sometime and was under constant medical care. His problem aggravated due to death of his brother which led to immense depression and hypertension and, accordingly was forced to prolong his leave. He reported for duty on 02.08.1999. Medical certificates issued by concerned Doctor as well as Government Dispensary were submitted to Respondents. Vide communication dated 27.1.2000, Dy. Director of Education, District North-East directed t...

Sh. Sandwip Roy Vs. Sh. Sudarshan Chakraborty

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ109

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The Petitioner (accused) and the Respondent (complainant), in the instant case, are both residents of Chitranjan Park, New Delhi. Complainant is a married person with two children out of the wedlock. He was married on 4.12.1987 at Dhanbad. The Petitioner is stated to be an old friend of the complainant and known to him for last number of years. The Petitioner is an unmarried man and had been a frequent visitor to the family of the complainant.2. On 22.10.1998, a divorce petition was filed by the complainant against his wife on the ground of adultery. The Petitioner was also imp leaded as respondent No. 2 in the said divorce petition as the allegation was that the Petitioner was living in adultery with the complainant's wife number of times. Four months after filing the divorce petition, the complainant on the basis of these very allegations also filed a complaint under Sections 497 & 506 IPC on 9.2.1999. However, some time later the complainant withdrew the divorce pet...

Mr. R. Basu Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ4254; 2007(96)DRJ722

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Mr. Arun Aggarwal, a practicing Advocate has filed a complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, under Sections 292, 293 & 294 IPC, inter-alia, against Star TV, Star Movies and V Channels as many as 30 (thirty) persons have been arraigned as accused persons in the said complaint. Other persons, apart from aforesaid Star TV channels, are the persons who are in charge of and responsible for the day to day affairs of these channels or the various cable operators transmitting these channels. This is termed as probono public prosecution by the complainant in which he brought to the notice of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that on these channels obscene and vulgar TV films were shown and transmitted through various cable operators. According to the complainant, this amounted to obscenity and, thereforee, accused persons committed offence under Sections 292/293/294 IPC and under Section 6 read with Section 7 of the Indecent Representation of Women (...

Dart Industries Inc. and anr. Vs. Techno Plast and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(35)PTC285(Del)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. There are two plaintiffs in this case who have filed this suit for permanent injunction against the defendants under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 read with Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff No. 1 is a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware, USA. The plaintiff No. 2 namely M/s. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian company. The plaintiff No. 1 claims ownership and possession to the proprietary know-how, innovative technology, intellectual property rights and trade secrets in creating the designs used for the manufacture of its products commonly known as Tupperware products. It is also stated that these products are the result of artistic work in the form of product drawings, mould drawings and moulds and thereforee, copyright is also claimed therein. The plaintiff No. 1 has consented and contractually granted to the plaintiff No. 2 the right to use its moulds to manufacture Tupperware products and also granted the right to use and ap...

Amba Polytubes Pvt. Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant is a Commission Agent. The tax demand is in relation to booking of certain orders. The contention of the appellant was that there was no Service Tax during the period when the service was rendered and the tax being prospective, no demand could arise. It is not in dispute that the commission was received after the levy was imposed.3. The observations in impugned order about the period of service may be noted. 6. I have gone through the facts of the case the appeal and submissions made by appellant. I find that the moot question involved in the issue is whether the service tax is leviable on the payment of commission received during the months of March, 2005 when the appellant claimed that the work was completed before the introduction of service tax on such commission with effect from 10.07.2004. The appellant has pleaded that the service tax was not applicable on them at the time of procuring the orders and of all the work relating to contracts was completed on 01.07....