Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments

Sat Pal Singh S/O Late Shri Sohan Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Throu ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28.07.2006 (Annexure A) whereby the applicant was dismissed from service while dispensing with departmental enquiry in terms of Sub-clause (b), of second proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India [Article 311 (2)(b), for short]. The applicant has also sought quashing and setting aside of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 30.10.2006 (Annexure-B) whereby his appeal was rejected. The applicant has also sought direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service, with all consequential benefits.2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28.07.2006, are as follows: On 26.7.2006, Shri Ravindra Nath Sharma S/o Shri S.N. Sharma R/o House No. RZF-33/A, Gali No. 33, Pradhan Chowk, Palam Gaon, New Delhi made a written complaint in Anti-Corruption Branch/CBI that in the year 2004, a case u...

Anupam Sharma Vs. Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT497

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide Crl.M.C. No. 3920/2003 Anupam Sharma, husband of Anu Gautam prays that FIR No. 323/2002 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, PS Vikas Puri be quashed.2. Vide Crl.M.C. No. 2111/2004 Anu Gautam prays that the orders dated 25.1.2003 and 5.2.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be quashed.3. Order dated 25.1.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reads as under:Present: Shri L.C. Jain APP for the State with SI Shiv Darshan with case file and complainant Smt. Anu with her counsel Sh. S.K. Sharma, Adv. Sh. K.K. Madan, Adv. for the petitioner.Heard. Efforts for settlement were made. Complainant is ready and willing to receive Rs. 5,00,000/- in full and final settlement including alimony from the petitioner. Payment of Rs. 73,000/- has already been made. The said amount shall be deducted from agreed amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Both the parties agree that they will move for quashing for FIR and mutual divorce. Rs. 2,27,000/- (Two Lac Twenty Sev...

Speedways Tyre Service Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR106

1. Common issue is involved, therefore, the applications are taken up together. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax. Case of revenue is that the applicants are providing the service of maintenance or repair. The contention of applicant is that they are only re-trading the old and used tyres of their customers and there is no contract or agreement entered with between applicant and the customer. The contention is that as per the definition of maintenance and repair service under Section 65 of the Finance Act, any service provided by a person under a contract or agreement in relation to maintenance or repair.2. We find that in absence of any contract or agreement, applicant have a strong case in their favour, therefore, pre-deposit of amount of service tax is waived for hearing of the appeals. Stay petitions are allowed....

Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(223)ELT219TriDel

1. The Applicant made a request to decide the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty on merit. There is a demand of duty of Rs. 50/- and penalty of Rs. 100/- against the applicant.2. In view of small amount involved the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty is waived. Stay petition is allowed....

Constable Gyanender S/O Raj Pal Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 147 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, the Delhi Administration had framed the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 1980 Rules). By virtue of provisions contained in Rule 15(1) of the said Rules, a fact finding enquiry, which is known as preliminary enquiry, is conducted to establish the nature of default and identity of defaulter, to collect prosecution evidence, to judge the quantum of default, and to bring relevant documents on record to facilitate a regular departmental enquiry. It is quite clear from the reading of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15, as has also been held in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Singh v. Union of India an Ors. that a preliminary enquiry is held only in cases of allegation which is of weak character. When, however, the allegations may be of grave nature and specific information is available, there is no bar for the departm...

Hc Jag Saran Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 09.06.2005 (Annexure A-1) and of the Appellate Authority dated 23.06.3006 (Annexure A-2), vide which a penalty of forfeiture of five years of approved service permanently has been imposed upon him and the period of his suspension has also been treated as not spent on duty.2. This is the second round of litigation. The bare minimum facts, which need mention, are that upon FIR Nos. 1082/ 1997 and 1083/1997 having been filed on 17.12.1997, disciplinary enquiry under Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (Rules of 1980, for short) was initiated against the applicant on 15.04.1999 on the same charges. The Enquiry Officer (EO, for short) issued the summary of allegation and on denial of charges by the applicant, the enquiry proceedings were initiated. However, on a request made by the applicant, disciplinary enquiry was kept in abeyance, vide order dated 29.10.1999, ...

Shibu Soren Vs. C.B.i.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ629

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 64 of 2007, 158 of 2007 and Criminal Revision No. 99 of 2007 seek to challenge judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2006, arising out of F.I.R. being R.C. No. 5 (S)/96-SIU-(XI)/CBI/New Delhi, whereby learned judge vide his judgment dated 28.11.2006, while acquitting Sunil Khaware and Ashish Thakur, has convicted the appellants, namely, Shibu Soren, for an offence under Section 120B read with Section 364/302 IPC; Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu under Section 120B read with Section 364/302 IPC and for substantive offence under Section 302/201 IPC; Shalendra Bhattacharya under Section 120B read with Section 364/302 IPC and for substantive offence under Section 201 IPC; Ajay Kumar Mehta @ Dilip under Section 120B read with Section 364/302 IPC and for substantive offence under Section 201 IPC and Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho under Section 120B read with Section 364/302 IPC and for substantive of...

Grammy Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.P.L. Telecom Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT798

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The suit filed by the appellant has been decreed against the respondent in the sum of Rs.7,75,681/- with costs and interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 1.4.2004 till the amount is paid. The appellant's grievance in the appeal is that interest should have been awarded @ 36% per annum, which is claimed to be the contractually agreed rate between the parties. The respondent had been duly served in appeal but none appeared for the respondent. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent on 9th July, 2007 or for that matter, on 14.8.2007.2. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant claiming the price for range of the telecommunication products supplied to the defendant. It is not necessary, in these circumstances, to go into any other aspect except the claim for interest as this is the only relief being sought by the appellant. The Trial Court while dealing with the question of interest, held as under:18. So far as interest is concerned, plaintiff has c...

Joint Commissioner of Police Vs. Ex. Asi (Min.) Shiv Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)SLJ52(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, Joint Commissioner of Police, through this writ petition seeks quashing and setting aside of order dated 1.12.2006 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1191/2005. Vide the impugned order, petitioner was directed to forthwith reinstate the respondent Shiv Kumar in service. Tribunal held that the respondent be entitled to all consequential benefits, including pay and allowances as per Fundamental Rules.2. Brief Facts of the case are:i) Respondent had applied for non refundable loan of Rs.75,000/- from his GPF Account No. 35892 while posted in Crime Against Women Cell, Nanak Pura. The loan application was processed in Accounts Branch, CWC, Nanak Pura and sent to Police Headquarters from where sanction order was received on 8.1.2001. On the basis of the sanction order, bill was passed and Rs. 75,000/- were drawn and disbursed to respondent vide Bill No. 190 against proper receipt on 9.1.2002.ii) Respondent again applied for refundable loan ...

H.C. BhasIn and ors. Vs. R.O.C.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]142CompCas518(Delhi); [2008]87SCL49(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Two complaints were filed on 19.2.2002 against the petitioners. The complaints were for an alleged offence under Sections 62 and 63 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. One complaint related to stated defaults committed by the petitioners, disclosed to be the directors of M/s. H.B. Stock Holding Ltd. when annual return was filed on 28.12.1992. The second complaint related to the alleged defaults when annual return was filed on 21.11.1994.3. It is not in dispute between the parties that the offence, if proved to have been committed, would be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. Thus, limitation for filing the complaints would be three years under Section 468 Cr.P.C. 1973. It is also the common case of learned Counsel for the parties that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case limitation would commence under Section 469(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.4. The question which needs to be considered is, on what date ...