Delhi Court July 2007 Judgments

Dinesh Kumar Vs. District and Sessions Judge

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)SLJ373(Delhi)

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is directed against order dated 29.9.2005 passed by the District and Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Courts, the Disciplinary Authority in the enquiry proceedings and the respondent herein, whereunder the petitioner has been awarded punishment under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) thereby withholding his future increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect.2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner was appointed as a Staff Car Driver with the respondent. In the month of June 2003, the log book pertaining to Car No. DL 1C F3261 got lost. As a result, respondent issued a Memorandum dated 18.5.2004 to the petitioner informing him that the respondent proposed to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Rules on the allegations of misconduct. The Charge framed against the petitioner was to the effect ...

Smt. Veena @ Bharti Vs. Shri Parmil

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT573; II(2007)DMC374; 2007(97)DRJ124

J.M. Malik, J.1. It has to be borne in mind that all frauds, like the wall daubed with untempered mortar, with which men think to buttress up an edifice, always tend to decay of what they are devised to support. Now I turn to the facts of the instant appeal, where the wife/appellant seeks to pick a quarrel with her husband's/ respondent's securing an ex parte divorce decree against her. The respondent moved a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 i.e. appellant had treated the petitioner with cruelty and (i-b) that the appellant had deserted the respondent for a continuous period of not less than two years, on 27.04.1989. The appellant was proceeded against ex parte on 08.11.1989. The appellant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree, on 17.12.1993, with the principal ground that she was neither served by the summons nor with the Regd. AD cover personally. She further alleged that the respon...

Mangtu Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ570

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition challenges an order dated 18.4.2001 passed by the Revenue Assistant under Section 11 and 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (DLRA) rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for declaration of bhumidari rights regarding certain agricultural land situated in village Shakarpur. The petition also challenges the order dated 29.10.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (South-west District), New Delhi dismissing the petitioner's appeal and the order dated 14.2.2006 passed by the Financial Commissioner dismissing the second appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforementioned order.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that at the time of the commencement of the DLRA, one Smt. Chameli Devi, the widow of late Shri Munshi was declared bhumidar of half the share of the aforementioned land on the basis of the entries in the Revenue records. The petitioner and Shri Devi Singh were also declared bhumidars in respect of 1/4t...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. India Seeds House

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Del)365

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 23rd March, 2000 and the previous orders leading up to the order dt. 23rd March, 2000. This order reads as follows:In conformity with the opinion of the majority of the Members of the Tribunal, who have heard this case, including those who first heard it, for the reasons stated in the order, we allow the assessed's appeal, pro tanto.2. The order shows that the Revenue was represented by Shri S.R. Malik, Departmental Representative. We have seen the file maintained by the Tribunal and there is nothing to indicate that this order was reserved and pronounced later. In any case, since the order is of hardly four lines, it is very unlikely that it would have been reserved and pronounced later on particularly since the hearing took place on the same date, that is, 23rd March, 2000.3. The present appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 was filed by the Revenue on 6th May, 2005.On 10th Nov., 2005, when the matter came up for hearing, it wa...

Pritam Kumar Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1256

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 2004 seeks to challenge judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge. New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1999, arising out of F.I.R. No. 141 of 1999, registered at Police Station Inder Puri, whereby the learned Judge vide her judgment dated 30-1-2004 has held the appellant, Pritam Kumar, guilty for offence under Sections 364-A and 302 IPC. Further vide her order dated 5-2-2004, has sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three months under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was further sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month under Section 364-A IPC. Both the sentence were directed to run concurrently. However, the appellant was awarded the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Brief facts of the case as have been noted by the learned Addit...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Surinder Pal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT595; [2007(115)FLR85]

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the legality of the award dated 3rd August, 2004 whereby the Industrial Tribunal 11, Karkardooma Court, Delhi held that the order dated 29th April, 1992 of termination of the respondent workman was illegal and unjustified and the workman was entitled for reinstatement of service with full back wages. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are that respondent was working as a conductor with the petitioner. He was chargesheeted on 10th January, 1992 because of his continuous unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 18th July, 1991. An inquiry was conducted as per rules and regulations and in the inquiry, the respondent was found guilty of the charge. The Depot Manager issued a show cause notice to the respondent dated 9th April, 1992 as to why he should not be removed from service and thereafter an order of termination of service of the respondent was passed. ...

Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. KVV/95/92/B III dated 29.04.1992 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants were clearing a product known as lean gas emerging after extraction of LPG from natural gas. The classification of above product was in dispute. Proceedings were initiated by the Revenue against the appellants. In the order-in-original dated 4.2.84, a demand of Rs. 45.43 crores proposed in show cause notice was confirmed by classifying the product under the erstwhile Tariff Item 11A(5) and 11AA(2). Another Order-in-Original dated 28.8.84 was also passed directing the appellants to file classification list and price lists.In this order, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) passed order in appeal dated 18.9.86 upholding the above orders in original. However, the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 25.8.87, (1989 (42) ELT 420) held that the process of emergence of lean gas after extraction of LPG ...

Cce Vs. Modern Steel and Agro Indus. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC55

1. These two appeals are preferred against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 19.04.2005 by which the penalties imposed on the respondents under the order-in-original were set-aside on the ground that the respondent No. 1 (original noticee No. 1 - Partnership Firm) had already paid up the full amount of duty and penalty, and the respondent No. 2 (original noticee No. 2 - partner of the said Firm) had also deposited the full amount of penalty.Admittedly, the entire duty amount of Rs. 78,841/- was paid up by the respondent No. 1 by paying Rs. 53,851/- on 12.01.2002 i.e the date on which the Revenue Officers visited the factory and when shortages were noticed, and the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 14.01.2002. Twenty five per cent of the duty amount was paid by way of penalty on 19.03.2002 presumably for taking the benefit of the provisions of first proviso to Section 11-AC of the Act. The respondent No. 2 - partner of the noticee No. 1, paid up the full amount o...

Padam Chand Mutha and Co. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR620

1. Heard both sides. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 10,97,758/- and lakh at the time of hearing of the appeal by Commissioner (Appeals).2. The demand is confirmed treating the applicant as a consignment agent. Whereas, the case of the applicant is that they have only Commissioner agent. The contention is that the applicants is receiving tea from the manufacturer. The tea is sold by the applicants to various customers and after deducting the commission the sale price is reverted back to the supplier. The revenue relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Chopra Brothers to submit that in similar situation Tribunal held that assessee is functioning as C&F agent. On the other hand applicants relied upon Board Circular No. 5918/03 dated 08/08/2003 where the position in respect of consignment agent and in respect of commission agent is clarified. The Board Circular clarified that a consignment agent job is to...

Mitul Engineering Services and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties. The contention of applicant is that the demand was confirmed treating the contract entered between the applicants and Electricity Boards as the applicants were providing service for maintenance and repair. The contention of applicant is that they are not providing of any service regarding maintenance. The contracts are only for repair purposes only. Applicants are also relied upon the copy of contract to show that it is only contract for repair.2. Learned SDR for revenue pointed out that the contract is for routine maintenance of coal handling plant and also necessary repairs. A consolidated amount is to be paid to the appellant in respect of routine maintenance and repairs. The revenue also pointed out that in Annexure to the contract, there was a clause for shift maintenance which is a routine maintenance of coal handling plant.3. In reply, the contention of applicant is tha...