Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments

B.K. Gupta Vs. Ravinder Seth

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ604

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. It is an unfortunate case where a brother of a deceased brother is predating on the assets of his deceased brother. 2. Late Harish Chander Seth died leaving behind Vijay Laxmi as his widow and 2 children. He had applied to DDA for allotment of 60 sq. mtrs. plot under DDA Rohini Residential Scheme and in respect whereof he held a registration in his favor vide registration No. 25799 dated 24.4.1981. He had deposited Rs. 5000/- with DDA. 3. One would have expected Ravinder Seth, brother of Harish Chander Seth to have cared for his widowed sister-in-law and the minor children of his late brother. But far from so doing, under cover of his mother and using the shoulders of his mother, he picked up arms against his widowed sister-in-law. 4. Since the deceased was a Hindu and as per the Hindu Succession Act, mother, wife and children of a deceased male are Class-I legal heirs, a suit came to be filed in the name of the mother of the deceased claiming 1/4th share in the...

M.C.D. Vs. Balbir Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT776; [2007(115)FLR88]; (2007)IIILLJ1000Del

Hima Kohli, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 21st March, 2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') in ID No.168/97 answering the reference in favor of the respondent workman and holding that the services of the respondent workman had been terminated illegally, thus entitling him to reinstatement in service with continuity of service and full back wages as drawn by his regular counterparts, without any increment up to the date of his reinstatement. It was also held that the respondent workman would be entitled to receive salary without any increment as drawn by his regular counterparts. 2. A brief narration of sequence of events is necessary. The respondent workman filed a statement of claim before the Tribunal stating inter alias that he joined the employment of the petitioner MCD (hereinafter referred to as `the MCD'), with effect from 1st May, 1986 as Chowkidar and he was being treated as daily ra...

Shri Virender Singh Vs. Shri Anand Prakash and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ2519

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act 1988 is directed against the award dated 30.4.90. Appellant Virender Singh seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded on account of injuries sustained at a road accident on 22.11.1980 involving bus No. DEP-2672.2. Injured was aged 26 years at the time of the accident. He was working as a sepoy in the Indian army and was drawing a salary of Rs. 454.45 per month.3. Because of the accident, injured suffered serious head injuries resulting in paralysis of left side of body and 100% permanent disability. Besides physical injuries, he also suffered various neurological disorders such as loss of memory, loss in concentration power etc.4. Injured remained hospitalized in the Army Hospital for a period from 22.11.82 to 30.5.83 i.e. nearly 6 months. He remained unconscious for a period of about 2 months.5. It is an admitted fact that after the accident the appellant was discharged from the army because of 100% physical disab...

The Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Vee Kay General Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)BC36

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 11.7.2007, arguments were concluded in the above captioned petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had desired to file brief synopsis with decisions. Two weeks' time was granted to learned Counsel for doing the needful.2. Neither synopsis nor relied upon judgments have been filed.3. Two weeks have elapsed.4. A short issue arises for consideration in the instant petition.5. Whether, vide order dated 8.10.2004 the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as per law.6. Respondent and the petitioner had entered into a jural relationship with each other when respondent's offer for supply of goods in respect whereof a notice inviting tender was issued by the petitioner was accepted by the petitioner.7. Terms of the agreement between the parties find mention in a purchase order dated 21.6.1985.8. Inter alia, vide Clause 15 of the Purchase Order, it was stipulated that dispute and differences be...

Bawa Masala Co. Vs. Bawa Masala Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi284; 2007(97)DRJ541; (2008)149PLR38

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.CS (OS) No. 139/2002.IA No. 579/2002 (Under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC) and is No. 1860/2002 (Under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act).1. The legal dispute in the present case was referred for mediation. Mr. Rajiv Virmani, Advocate and Mr. Dalip Mehra, Advocate were the mediators. It is stated that there were a number of inter-linked disputes pending before the trial Court and even they were called for mediation to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The mediators were successful in resolving all the other disputes but unfortunately the dispute in the present case has not been resolved.2. Learned Counsel for the parties suggest that another effort should be made to resolve the disputes amicably by alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Learned Counsel for the parties suggest that instead of the process of mediation, an endeavor be made through the process of Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE)'.3. In order to appreciate this contention, it i...

Ramphal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant had initially sought release of commuted value of pension to him by the respondents with 18% interest. However, during the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the applicant informed that the commuted value of pension has already been released to the applicant and, therefore, the OA survives only for payment of the interest for the period of delay in releasing the commuted value of pension to the applicant.2. The brief facts of the case are that while the applicant was serving as Painter under the respondents, a major penalty of compulsory retirement, as a measure of punishment, was imposed on him. The applicant was thus compulsorily retired from service w.e.f. 26.06.2000.Pension Payment Order was issued on 18.04.2005. The respondents made the payment of other retiral benefits to the applicant, except commuted value of pension. Being aggrieved, the applicant made a representation on 05.05.2005 requesting for payment of commuted value of pension. The res...

Prem Matiyani, Director, Song and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. tue of this OA applicant, who has been functioning as a Director in Song and Drama Division, has assailed respondents order dated 26.12.2003, received by him on 4.1.2004, whereby his claim for upgradation of post as per the recommendations of the High Powered Committee (HPC) with consequential benefits, has been turned down.2. pplicant has also filed MA-663/2006 for condonation of delay on the ground that despite a HPC recommended upgradation of ex-cadre post of Director in Song and Drama Division, whereas the claim has been accorded to the equivalent posts in Indian Information Service (IIS), yet it has not been accorded to Media Heads of the Drama Division. It is stated that applicant has been pursuing his remedy and as from time to time the matter remained under consideration of the respondents, the cause of action is recurring and continuing one.3. n the other hand, respondents have not filed any reply to the MA and have not objected to limitation in corresponding paragraph-2 o...

Steel India Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR109

2. It is seen that the appellant's activity is one of buying/ reselling of re-charge coupons for making telephone calls. Revenue is seeking to treat the appellant as a Commission Agent, rendering Business Auxiliary Service. Buying and selling is separate from being an agent. The demand is prima facie not sustainable. It is also seen that in the Mangalore jurisdiction, a similar tax demand was dropped. Stay application is allowed....

Nawan Shahar Co-operative Sugar Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(122)ECC345

1. The appellant company challenges the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 29.6.2005, upholding the order-in-original by which the Assistant Collector had rejected all the four refund claims of the appellant.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of sugar molasses. Four refund claims were filed by the appellant on the ground that 2% of the education cess was levied on excise duty only with effect from 8.7.2004. The appellant had charged and paid education cess as per the invoices issued after 8.7.2004. The appellant, in view of the circular dated 20.7.2004 of the Indian Sugar Mills Association and the circular of the CBEC dated 10.2.2004, clarifying that education cess was applicable only on the production after 8.7.2004, made the refund claims with the supportive evidence such as TR-6 challan showing payments, and copy of the circular of the Association.3. The case of the assessee was that, the education cess was borne by the appellant and that the incid...

Tara Chand Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Through this MA the applicant has sought implementation of the following order of this Tribunal in OA No. 678/2006, decided on 14.11.2006: 5. Upon hearing learned Counsel for respondents, I find that respondents have not passed any specific order keeping in view the law laid down in aforementioned judgments, which are binding in the given circumstances. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the res1pondents to pass necessary detailed speaking & reasoned order after considering applicant's claim, particularly keeping in view the law laid down in the afore-mentioned judgments. Accordingly, I direct the concerned authorities to pass said order within a period of forty-five day from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.2. The question to be decided is whether the orders issued by the respondents in their letters dated 23.02.2007 and 05.07.2007 satisfy the requirement of the compliance of the order of this Tribunal aforementioned.3. The MA was filed on 15.01.2007. When the matter c...