Delhi Court July 2007 Judgments

Ajay Bansal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)ILLJ199Del

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner herein is facing prosecution for violation of Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act (in short 'the Act') initiated on the basis of complaint filed by the Minimum Wage Inspector, Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Inspector'), alleging that the petitioner is not paying the minimum wages to his employees and he has thereby committed the offence under the aforesaid provisions of the Act. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant inspected the petrol pump of the petitioner on 22.3.2001 where he found 10 workers employed by the petitioner and further that the petitioner did not show any record or documents which the petitioner is supposed to keep under the provisions of the Act and the rules framed there under.2. On this complaint the learned MM passed summoning orders dated 3.7.2001 after dispensing with the examination of the complainant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner appeared but f...

Mrs. Pamela Kumar Vs. Mr. Chandrashekhar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ475

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The suit as well as the probate case have been instituted by Mrs. Pamela Kumar. Both the matters were heard together on the preliminary issues framed therein. Since the facts are common to both the suit and the probate case, this common judgment shall dispose of the preliminary issues in both the matters.2. The suit is essentially one of partition and possession in respect of the property bearing No. 28, Fire Brigade Lane, New Delhi. Mrs. Pamela Kumar (the plaintiff) claims a half share in the said suit property. On the basis of such claim she seeks a decree of partition and possession in respect of the said half share as also mesne profits against the defendant No. 1 (Mr Chandrashekhar). The other defendants, namely, Mr Arun Mohan (defendant No. 2), Mrs Lalita Steinmetz (defendant No. 3), Mrs Mala Goel (defendant No. 4), the Land and Development Office (defendant No.6) and the District Judge, Tis Hazari (defendant No. 7) are not contesting defendants. The defe...

Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC48

2. the first appellant M/s Oswal Woollen Mills is a manufacturer of yarn. It sold yarn manufactured by it to the second appellant, M/s Vanaik Spinning Mills ltd. The yarn was converted into multi folded yarn, paced and disposed of by the second appellant. Part of the multi fold yarn was sold to M/s Oswal Woollen Mills also.3. Under the impugned order, it has been held that the appellants were carrying out a circular transaction for the purpose of evasion of excise duty. The finding is that the first appellant sent undervalued yarn to the second appellant who returned it at a low price to the first appellant. It has been held that as a result of such under valued transactions there was a duty evasion of about Rs. 1.7 Crores during the period January 2002 to march 2004. The impugned order has proceeded to demand the duty short levied as well as to impose penalties on both the appellants. There are also findings that the second appellant is accessory for tax evasion. This finding is base...

Dhan Singh S/O Sh. Kure Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This Review Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 22(3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, for review of the order of this Tribunal dated 22.03.2007 passed in OA No. 469/2007.2. In terms of Rule 17(2) of the Rules ibid., this RA has been referred to the same bench which had passed the order in Original Application.In terms of Rule 17(3) of the Rules ibid., it has been decided to dispose of this Review Application by circulation.3. The applicant has sought to recall of the impugned ex parte order of this Tribunal in OA No. 469/2007 (supra) on, inter alia, the following grounds of errors of law and facts on the face of the record: The impugned order for removal of the applicant is not self-contained and is against the letter and spirit of PS No. 12545 (Annexure A-2 of OA). The Tribunal should not, therefore, have put the stamp of approval on respondents erroneous order wr...

Diageo North America, Inc. and anr. Vs. Shiva Distilleries Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(2)262; 2007(35)PTC599(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This order shall dispose of is 1717/2004 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiffs have the filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, passing off, infringement of trade mark, rendition of accounts, delivery up, damages and for unfair competition. The plaintiff No. 1 (Diageo North America Inc) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, USA. The plaintiff No. 2 (UDV India Ltd) is an Indian company and has been licensed by plaintiff No. 1 to use various brands and trade marks, one of which is the trade mark SMIRNOFF which is in question in the present proceedings.2. The plaintiffs claim to be the registered proprietors of the trade mark SMIRNOFF label under reg. No. 189744 dated 31.03.1959; the PIERRE SMIRNOFF label under reg. no. 202251 dated 04.05.1961; the SMIRNOFF mark with eyebrow device under reg. no. 904318 dated 17.02.2000. It is stated by the plaintiffs tha...

Kanwar Jagat Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT49

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These two writ petitions are being taken up together as the impugned orders both dated 01.03.2007 are identical. The circumstances are also the same. The petitioners are seeking the supply of copies of the documents which are in the possession of the respondents because, according to them, those documents help their case. The respondents submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the documents and would not be relied upon by them in the adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The petitioners, however, contended that they are not only entitled to copies of documents on which the respondents rely upon, but also those documents which are in the possession of the respondents and which advance the case of the petitioners. This is the entire scope of the controversy in these writ petitions. 2. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order ...

Modern Public School Edus. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT536

Rekha Sharma, J. 1. Prior to this writ-petition, Rakesh Nehra, who is respondent No. 2 had filed a writ petition bearing No. 15987 of 2004 in which he prayed for a direction to the petitioner herein, namely, Modern Public School Education Society (Regd.) to redesignate the post of PET 'cum'Office Assistant as PET and consequently to grant him the pay-scale of PET with effect from the date of his initial appointment. The post of PET 'cum 'Office Assistant was initially in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2040 which was subsequently revised to Rs. 4500- 7000. The post of PET carried the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000. Thus, the petitioner also claimed the arrears of salary owing to difference in the pay- scale.2. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 was employed by the petitioner as PET 'cum' Office Assistant on March 10, 1997. He is still working as such. However, on September 18, 2003, he made representation to the School stating that though he was appointed as PET 'cum' Office Assistant he...

Rajesh Sharma Vs. Krishan Kumar Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)149PLR60

J.M. Malik, J.1. Appellant, Rajesh Sharma, the propounder of the registered will dated 13th July, 1989, executed by his mother, has locked horns with his step-brother, Krishan Kumar Sharma, the respondent herein. Smt. Sneh Prabha Sharma, the testatrix, and her husband Ram Mohan Sharma were married twice. The appellant, Rajesh Sharma, is the son of the testatrix and Ram Mohan Sharma. The respondent Krishan Kumar Sharma, is the son from the first wife of Ram Mohan Sharma. The appellant's case is this that the will dated 13th July, 1989, was made by the above-said testatrix in sound disposing mind on 13th July, 1989 and it was got registered on 11th September, 1989. Smt. Sneh Prabha Sharma died on 9th July, 1990. Except Krishan Kumar Sharma, none of the other siblings of the appellant contested the petition moved by the appellant under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act.2. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court vide order dated 19t...

Noida Medicare Centre Limited Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC70

1. The appellant Noida Medicare Centre Limited, Noida had imported hospital equipment claiming exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 1.3.88 without payment of duty. Based on the customs duty exemption certificate issued by the Director General of Health Services (DGHS), the value of the consignment is Rs. 2,75,11,988/- and the duty foregone works out to Rs. 3,78,66,864/- (since reduced to Rs. 1,10,04,795/- in the impugned order of the Commissioner). The notification in question has laid down certain conditions to be satisfied by the importer "hospital" before claiming the same. One such condition as laid down under the Table at para 2 reads as under: 2. All such hospitals which may be certified by the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, in each case, to be run for providing medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment not only without any distinction of caste, creed, race, religion or language but also,- (a) free, on an average, to at least 40 per cent of all their out...

Safeguard Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR592

1. The applicant has filed this application alongwith an appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 5^th October 2006. In the impugned order the Commissioner has concluded as under: I have gone through the grounds of appeal written submission made, record of personal hearing and other evidence on record. The appellant as a provider of Security Services got registered with the department on 28.6.01. The service tax on security services became leviable with effect from 16.10.98. During investigation by the department, it was found that the appellant had, in fact, been providing security services right from 1994. Hence, the appellant was liable to pay the service tax from 16.10.98 i.e. from the date the service tax was leviable. At the time of taking out the registration, the appellant failed to pay service tax on his past liability. Not only that, he also did not disclose the full value of the taxable services received for the period subsequent to taking of the reg...