Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments

Subhash Khurana Vs. Satyaprakash Sethi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On account of having denied service of banquet hall which was booked by the respondent for the marriage of his daughter against advance payment of Rs. 20,000 the appellant who is the owner of the Banquet Hall has been vide impugned order dated 8.5.2007, passed by the District Forum directed to refund the said amount and pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as litigation charges. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Case of the respondent, in brief, was that he booked Lajwaab Bonquet Hall for the marriage of his daugher in July 2006. The booking was done through relative Shri Sumit Kapoor. The marriage was to be take place on 10.12.2006. After a month from the date of booking, the respondent came to know that due to sealing, functions in the area are banned. He asked for refund of the money. Appellant promised to provide suitable place for marriage either at Noida or Ghaziabad. Respondent did not agree for that. Appel...

Oswal Fats and Oils and ors. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC56

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of soap. It imports Palm Acid Oil for use in the said manufacture.2. Nine consignments imported by the appellant during the period July to December 2000 were provisionally assessed based on the purchase prices and released. Subsequently, for finalization of the provisional assessments, transaction values were rejected and it was ordered that these consignments shall be assessed at a uniform assessable value of 260 US $ PMT, even though purchase prices varied from 113.50 US $ to 170 US $. The consignments were also confiscated for the offence of misdeclaration of value (Section 111(m) of the Customs Act) and penalties imposed {Section 112 (a)}.3. The reason for adopting the higher price for final assessments is that two imports of Palm Acid Oil at 260 US $ had been made in July and October 2000 by another party. Thus, the basis for the order is the price of comparable imports.4. The contention of the appellant is that its imports were under specific c...

Commissioner, Central Excise Vs. Vandana Energy and Steel Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(223)ELT83TriDel

1. The Revenue has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which, the order-in-original made by the Assistant Commissioner disallowing the modvat credit of Rs. 80,562/- was set-aside.2. The assessee was manufacturing ferro alloys and availing cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2000. It has availed credit of Rs. 80,562/- on the basis of the office copy of the extra copy of the invoices issued by the supplier of the goods. During the scrutiny of the ER-1 return for April 2004, it was detected that cenvat credit was availed on the basis of the photocopy of the office copy of extra copy of invoices.3. The adjudicating authority on the basis of the material on record found that the assessee never received the invoices in question or that they may have been lost before the goods said to be covered by them were received in the factory. It was, therefore, held that cenvat credit was not allowable to the assessee.4. The Appellate Commissioner held that the appellant had...

S.K. Sood, Ias Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(2)SLJ94CAT

(b) To direct the respondents not to reduce his rank and status from that of a Secretary to the Govt. of India. (c) To direct the respondents not to repatriate him to his parent state. (d) To issue any other order/direction as may be deemed appropriate in the interests of justice in this case.2. By way of interim relief applicant has sought a direction, restraining respondents from reverting him to the lower post or repatriate him to his parent cadre. An interim order passed on 9.5.2007, directed respondents not to revert applicant to the post of Additional Secretary.3. By an order passed on 23.5.2007 interim order has been continued, finding prima facie case in favour of applicant.4. Applicant, a direct recruit in Indian Administrative Service (IAS) was allocated to Himachal Pradesh Cadre in 1971. On 1.5.2003 he was appointed as an Adviser in the rank and pay of Additional Secretary and also as Director General, DGS&D under the Ministry of Commerce in the rank and pay of Addition...

A.K. Singhal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(2)SLJ55CAT

1. By virtue of this O.A., applicant, a Chief Engineer (Civil) in Central Public Works Department (CPWD), has assailed an office order dated 15.12.2006, whereby he has been transferred from PWD, Zone-III, Delhi to Calcutta as Member, Appropriate Authority, Income Tax.2. By an ad-interim order passed by the Tribunal on 23.3.2007 status quo as of that dale has been maintained.3. Applicant, who was promoted as Chief Engineer, CPWD in August 2001, was posted as an Arbitrator on deputation with Ministry of Urban Development on 9.5.2002 and had remained there upto 9.5.2006.Applicant, according to his pleadings, has decided 420 arbitration matters for which awards have been published. On completion of the tenure as an Arbitrator when applicant had asked permission from respondents to extend his tenure to write the remaining awards, he was repatriated as Chief Engineer, Zone-Ill, Delhi PWD vide order dated 5.5.2006, where applicant had assumed charge on 25.2.2006. By the impugned order dated ...

Sobran Singh S/O Late Sh. Behari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicants have sought a direction to the respondents to re-consider the case of applicant No. 2 for compassionate appointment in terms of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment operative from the year 1993 and pass a reasoned and speaking order accordingly.2. Applicant No. 1, a Postman, was retired on invalidation pension, after rendering service of more than 30 years, due to permanent incapacitation, vide Medical Certificate dated 24.11.1993. Applicant No. 1, is having a large family of 8 dependents, including a blind son and a daughter of marriageable age. On 25.02.1994 he sought compassionate appointment for his son, applicant No. 2. Vide respondents order dated 20.l2.1995 (Annexure A-7) his request was rejected. Between 1998 and 2005, applicant No. 1 sent several representations to various authorities culminating in a Legal Notice dated 12.04.2005, seeking compassionate appointment for his son with reference to compassionate appointments, in similarly situated...

R.B. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(2)SLJ214CAT

1. By present O.A., filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, applicant, belonging to Central Engineering Services Class-I, 1974 batch, is aggrieved by his non-empanelment to the post of Chief Engineer in Central Public Works Department (hereinafter referred as CPWD) in the panel for the year 2004-05. He seeks direction to respondents to promote him from the date his immediate juniors namely S/Sh. S. Baliga and Vipin Chand were promoted to said grade with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances, seniority etc., besides exemplary costs. He also seeks declaration that respondents' action not to promote him to said post merely based on minor penalty of withholding one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect imposed in May, 2000 and thereby excluding him from the said panel, is illegal, arbitrary and furthermore the said punishment would not stand in his way of promotion.2. Admitted facts are that applicant was promoted ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Marubeni India (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)415; [2007]294ITR157(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These two appeals are directed against a common order dt. 7th July, 2006 passed by the Tribunal, New Delhi in TDS No. 10 and 11/Del/2002 whereby the appeals filed by the respondent-assessed were allowed and the order passed by the CIT(A) for the asst. yrs. 1999-2000 and 2000-01 levying interest under Section 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act') were set aside.2. The respondent-assessed, a private limited company incorporated in India, employs foreign nationals. The respondent deducted tax on the salary paid to its employees and was depositing the same in accordance with the law. Some of the expatriate employees of the respondent who were also in receipt of income from certain foreign companies, informed the respondent company of such receipts of income in the month of March of the relevant financial year (1999-2000) and requested that tax be deducted thereon. The Dy. CIT, TDS Circle 23(1), by the order dt. 16th Nov., 2000, did not accept the Explanationn of the respo...

D.P. Kansal and ors. Vs. Delhi Jal Board

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR450]; (2008)IILLJ477Del

Hima Kohli, J.1. By this common order and judgment, this Court proposes to dispose of all the eight petitions. The present petitions are directed against the impugned order dated 21st March, 2005 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gratuity Act') dismissing the appeals of the petitioners and upholding the order dated 8th January, 2004 passed by the Controlling Authority rejecting the claim of the petitioners for payment of gratuity under the Gratuity Act on the ground that they were covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus to be issued to the respondent directing it to pay to the petitioners, the differential amount payable under the provisions of the Act, after deducting the amount of gratuity already paid under the Rules, along with interest.2. The facts of the case of all the petitioners are common, except for the fact that...

Smt. Surjit Kaur Chopra Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ646

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.FIR No.6/2007 dated 3.1.2007under Section 498A/406 IPCPS Hazrat Nizamuddin.1. Vide Bail Application No. 1711/2007, Smt. Surjit Kaur Chopra seeks anticipatory bail. Vide Bail Application No. 1716/2007, Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra seeks anticipatory bail. The 2 applicants are the mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the complainant, Arti.2. At the outset, I must refer my displeasure at the manner in which Bail Application No. 1711/2007 has been drafted by learned Counsel for the petitioner.3. The same is a verbatim copy of Bail Application No. 1716/2007.4. Use of computers does not mean that learned members of the Bar would not apply their mind. Human beings cannot become computers and start operating themselves by clicking a mouse.5. Little realizing that in Bail Application No. 1716/2007 reference to the applicant was made as father of the husband of the complainant i.e. as father-in-law of the complainant, even Smt. Surjit Kaur Chopra has been referred t...