Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

Eureka Forbes Ltd. Vs. Renu Vaish

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On the complaint of the respondent on the defective R.O. system sold by the appellant the District Forum has vide its order dated 9.5.2007 directed the appellant to instal a system which works where TDS in the water is lower and also to pay Rs. 5,000 for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the respondent and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. At the outset, the Counsel for the appellant contended that it is an ex parte order and no opportunity was given to the appellant to present its case and secondly that the job card shows that on various occasions services were rendered free of charge and whatever little defect was there it was immediately rectified. It is also contended that the respondent did not complain that at the time of installation the TDS was only 340 whereas the job cards show that it was 1100 on 16.5.2005 and the main complaint was against the membrane which was chang...

National Cable Network Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR24

1. This is an appeal filed by the Cable Operator challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 78,025/- under Section 68, interest under Section 75 and penalty under Sections 76, 78 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants are challenging the chargeability of the tax but their grievance is mainly on the following grounds: The show cause notice issued by the department has invoked the extended period of demand more than one year by stating that there was an intention on the part of the appellants to evade payment of tax. It was contended that no proof has been established by the department in the show cause notice nor in the order issued by the authorities below. Secondly, the learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that there was some calculation error while arriving at the demand amount. Between 1-9-2003 and...

J.B. Gupta, Ex-senior Auditor Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA applicant, who has retired compulsorily by way of punishment with 20% cut in pension on 14.2.2006, has sought benefit of leave encashment and challenged the vires of OM dated 13.2.2006.2. Applicant, who was proceeded for a major penalty, was inflicted a punishment of compulsory retirement from service with 20% cut in pension for 15 years and gratuity as well by an order passed on 14.2.2002.3. On the ground that other similarly circumstanced have been allowed leave salary, OA-1853/2004 filed by applicant was dismissed on 13.9.2005, holding that negative equality has no place under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and would not accord an indefeasible right to applicant.4. Meanwhile, on demand of the staff side and in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, Rule 39 (5-A) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 has been deleted and those who have been compulsorily retired as a measure of punishment with imposition of cut in pension previously when not entitled to ...

Smt. Nirmala Devi Wd/O Late Sh. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In the present Original Application, the applicant is challenging the action of the respondents by which she has not been granted family pension, which is illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and law.2. Facts leading to filing of the present Original Application are as under: Husband of the applicant (Rajender Pal), who died on 13.05.2000, was initially engaged as casual labour under IOW w.e.f. 20.02.1977. In 1988 he was appointed as Loco Cleaner under Loco Foreman Laksar Junction against the clear vacancy after conducting all the required screening test, interview, medical examination etc. It is submitted that respondents treated him as Substitute whereas he was appointed on regular basis against the regular post. While working as Loco Cleaner, a major penalty charge sheet dated 14.03.1991 was issued alleging that he secured employment by submitting forged casual labour card. He was removed from service vide order dated 10.11.1994. Aggrieved by the same, he filed OA-1751/1995 ...

Basara and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(98)DRJ381

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 4/2005 registered against them under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC with Police Station, Samay Pur Badli.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners on 2.1.2005 on the statement of respondent No. 2, Sheikh Muslim.3. As per the contents of FIR, on 1.1.2005, at about 7:00 PM an altercation had taken place between accused Noora and Basara and nephew of the complainant. Altercation ended with the intervention of the complainant. Later on, at about 9:30 PM when the complainant along with his family members were doing some work in the front of their shop, accused Basara, Noora, Sammad and Jahangir came along with their friends. That Basara was carrying a knife, Noora was carrying a sariya, Sammad was carrying a sword and Jahangir was carrying a hockey. That accused Noora attacked with sword on thigh of the left leg of the complain...

Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(122)ECC7; 2007(148)LC7(Delhi); 2009(235)ELT60(Del)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the criminal proceedings initiated by the officers of the Customs under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and by the officers of the Wildlife Department under the provisions of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and seizure of 12 pieces of shawls, suspected to be made of 'Shahtoosh wool'. The main question raised in this petition is whether the phrase 'animal article' excludes 'animal hair'. The petitioner No. 1 Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd., is an incorporated company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, which trades in value added handicrafts, carpets and other items in natural and artificial fiber. The petitioner No. 2 Mr. Rajender Kumar Mehta is in charge of the exports of the petitioner No. 1. The respondent No. 1 is Union of India through the Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Environment and Forest. The respondent No. 2 is the Collector of Customs, Indira Gandhi Internat...

Rakesh Kumar Gupta and anr. Vs. Umesh Kumar Gupta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi73; 2007(99)DRJ194

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The present appeal has been filed as against the order dated 30th July, 2007 dismissing the application of the appellant under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of the order dated 12th March, 2007. We do not think that an order dismissing a review application is a judgment under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act and can be made subject matter of an intra-Court appeal. However, as we have heard learned Counsel for the appellant on this appeal, we deem it appropriate to deal with the contentions and issues raised on merit.2. The appellants herein are plaintiffs, who had filed a suit for partition of property bearing No. 1580A/1-C, Raj Block, Navin Shahdara, Delhi - 110 032. The defendants contested the suit on the basis of oral partition. On 12th March, 2007, the Court recorded a finding that there was no dispute between the parties that each of them had 50% share in the property and the only defense of the defendants was based on or...

Workmen, Itpo Vs. Management, Itpo

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR861]; (2008)ILLJ205Del; 2008(1)SLJ576(Delhi)

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is directed against the award dated 27th January, 2005 passed by the Labour Court whereunder it was held that the retrenchment of the petitioner workmen was not illegal and thereforee they were not found entitled to any relief. By way of the present writ petition the petitioner workmen have assailed the impugned award and sought directions to the respondent management for reinstating them in service as Beldars w.e.f. 19th April, 2003, with full back wages and continuity of service along with consequential benefits, and for setting aside the notice dated 12th April, 1993 by which the petitioner workmen were asked to collect their dues/amount offered as retrenchment compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the in January 1987, certain casual workers and regular workers of the respondent management went on an indefinite strike and thereafter filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court. Vide common judgment dated 26th September, 1989, the Supre...

Sh. Sumer Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ394

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.FIR No. 285/2005 dated 24.4.2005Under Section 302/120B/34 IPC read with Sections25/27/54/59, Arms ActPS: Najafgarh.1. Petitioner is an accused in aforenoted FIR. Charges have been framed against him under Section 302/120B/34 IPC.2. As per the FIR two boys on a scooter came from the side of Dhichaun Depot and in front of a gali fired at two women. Both women died at the spot. The two boys ran away. Investigation revealed that the deceased women were Ms. Beermati and Ms. Raj Bala.3. Both women were real sisters.4. Raj Bala was the wife of one Ranbir examined as PW3. Beermati was the wife of Dharamvir. This was the second marriage of Dharamvir. Dharamvir had been murdered in the year 2000.5. According to the prosecution, investigation revealed that accused Jaivir was born to Dharamvir and his first wife. He wanted to liquidate Beermati for the reason she was demanding a share in the property of late Dharamvir. Petitioner, Sumer is stated to be the real brother of Dhar...

Shri Yadeshwar Kumar Vs. M.S. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR779]; (2008)ILLJ396Del; 2008(2)SLJ267(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.CM No. 17332/2006 (condensation of delay)This is an application praying for condensation of delay of one day in filing the present appeal. Reasons for such delay in filing the appeal have been given and explained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application. Having gone through the same and having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and for the reasons stated in the application, we allow the application. The delay of one day in filing the appeal stands condoned. The appeal is taken on record.The application stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.LPA No. 2367/20061. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on the appeal, which was filed by the appellant as against the judgment and order dated 6th October, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the award dated 6th December, 2005 was set aside.2. The appellant was appointed as Printer with the respondent on ...