Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Gopal Sen Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ467

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A secret information from an informer was received by the Narcotics Branch of the Government of NCT of Delhi on 1.10.2005 that one Sunil @ Naniya, his sister and mother are indulging in the business of supply of smack. According to the information, Sunil @ Naniya got such smack from Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh for supply in Delhi and on that day he had to get the smack from some trader at Railway Station, Delhi. Sunil @ Naniya was expected to travel on a scooter No. DL7S-U-3191 via Avantika Chowk, Rohini around 6:30 ' 7:30 a.m. towards his house at C-1, Sector-I, Rohini, Delhi. Such information was recorded in DD entry No. 4 at 5:55 a.m. on 1.10.2005 and after some inquiry, the Narcotic Department took necessary action for carrying out a raid. The scooter with two riders on it was apprehended. The scooter was being driven by Sunil @ Naniya while the petitioner was the pillion rider. The informer identified the two people and the petitioner was identified as th...

Enforcement Directorate Vs. Nemi Chand JaIn @ Chandraswami

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT277; 2008(101)DRJ255

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners being the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Crl. R.P. No. 772/2007 and Enforcement Directorate in Crl. R.P. Nos. 753/2007 to 761/2007(hereinafter referred to as the said petitioners) are aggrieved by the Orders dated 06-12-2007 and 13-12-2007 passed by the Ld. CMM and Ld. ACMM respectively allowing the applications of the respondent seeking permission to go abroad for a period of 30 days from 20-12-2007 to 20-01-2008 in different complaint cases pending before the Ld. CMM and Ld. ACMM pertaining to the violations of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in short FERA) and Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976 (in short FCRA). To appreciate the merits of the case, it would be pertinent to pen down a brief background of the cases.Facts:2. It is the case of the petitioners that with the adjudication proceedings pending against the respondent in a number of cases for such violations as mentioned aforesaid, a penalty of Rs. 9.65 crores wa...

Shri Ganpat Nath (Since Deceased Through Lrs) and ors. Vs. Smt. Parsan ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT151

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The parties come from a rural background and hence their conduct, behavior and understanding of the ways of the law would be appreciated by me in relation to the ways of the world in rural India.2. With the aforesaid preface, relevant facts needed to be set out for adjudication of the instant appeal may be noted.3. Parsandi Devi and Inderjeet filed a suit seeking a decree of declaration that they are the owners of House No. 431, Chirag Delhi. They sought a decree for mandatory injunction against MCD to mutate their names as owners thereof and to delete the name of Ganpat Nath recorded by the MCD as the owner of the house. 4. MCD was imp leaded as defendant No. 1. Ganpat Jogi S/o Jhuttar was imp leaded as defendant No. 2.5. The relief claimed affected defendant No. 2. He was proceeded against ex-parte in the suit after being ostensibly served by substituted means. Fortunately for Ganpat Jogi the suit suffered a dismissal on merits. Parsandi Devi and Inderjeet fil...

Parkash NaraIn Mathur Vs. Shanti Parshad JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT542; 2008(101)DRJ717

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has bee preferred to impugn the order dated 5.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, (for short the `RCT') whereby the said RCT allowed the Respondent-tenants appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the `Act') against the order dated 18.5.2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Delhi in E-10/1988 whereby he allowed the application filed by the petitioner- landlord under Section 15(7) of the Act and dismissed the Respondent's application for condensation of delay in depositing the rent, filed under Section 151 CPC and consequently struck off the defense of the Respondent tenant. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner landlord had preferred the aforesaid eviction Petition, inter alia, on the grounds contained in Section 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the Act viz. non payment of rent and sub-letting. The Petition was filed against the original tenan...

K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(228)ELT31(Del)

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The Assessee is aggrieved by an order dated 15th February, 2007 read with an order dated 27th July, 2007 [2007 (220) E.L.T. 960 (Tri.-Del.) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in Excise Appeal No. 2134/2005-NI3(SM) and Excise Miscellaneous Application No. 447/2005- SM(BR) respectively.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we admit this appeal and frame the following substantial question of law for consideration:Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the imposition of 100% penalty on the Assessee in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944?3. Filing of paper books is dispensed with.4. The broad facts of the case are that the Assessee is a manufacturer of Ghutka. On 16th September, 2003, two tempos carrying Ghutka were intercepted by the Excise Authorities and on an enquiry from the tempo staff, they reached the factory premises of the Ass...

Silverline Express and Skylark Vs. Cst

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ22CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Heard both sides. Since the common issue involved in both the appeals, they heard together.2. Both the appellants are proprietorship concern of Shri Naveen Yadav and are providing courier service. Demands were confirmed and penalties imposed on the ground that the appellants were paid service tax in respect of courier service provided by them. The appellants are not contesting the issue on merit. The only contention of the appellants is regarding quantification of the demand and that the impugned order is passed in violation of principle of natural justice as the unrelied documents/hard disc (sic) by the Revenue, which are not relied upon in the show cause notice have not been returned to the appellants. In such situation the appellants were unable to put up proper defence in respect of quantification of the demands.3. In respect of quantification of demands, contention of the appellants is that the demand is confirmed after taking into consideration the all amounts deposited in th...

Shri Shiv Prakash, (Staff No. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. (the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. A preliminary objection appears to have been raised at the instance of the respondents about the jurisdictional power of the Central Administrative Tribunal to adjudicate the claim raised in these applications. As there was no appearance on their behalf, we are constrained to resort to examine the issue on the basis of pleadings in the counter reply. The objection in O.A. 2581/2005 appears to be that since the applicant as at present is employed in a public sector enterprises, and since the said establishment (BSNL) has not been notified under Section 14 (2) of the Act as an Institution as coming within the purview of the Tribunal, the application is not maintainable. Presence of a Full Bench judgment of the Tribunal reported as B.N. Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2004 (2) ATJ 11 had been referred to. Attached to the counter reply, a copy of the orders passed by a Division Bench (Mumbai) in OA 81/2004 had been produced. There, the Full Bench Decision had been followed. ...

Shri Subash Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant at the time of filing the Original Application (January, 2005) had been working as Managing Director of Delhi Khadi Board. He belonged to the 1970 batch of the officers of IAS. The application had been filed being aggrieved about his non-promotion to the rank/scale of Secretary to the Government of India, as, according to him, his claim had been cleared by the Screening Committee during December, 2003. It had been urged that when the Screening Committee prepared the panel for the rank of Secretary, there were no charge sheets issued to him nor were any charges framed against him. What was there was only placement of First Information Reports. This position was there upto August, 2004, and that too at a time when vacancies were there available to which he could have been accommodated. The reliefs prayed for were for quashing the order dated 06.10.2004, which effectively had turned down his request for promotion in the following terms: I am directed to refer to your let...

Rashida Begum W/O Late Shri Nathu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A, applicant has challenged order dated 18th July, 2005 (page 6) whereby she was informed that since her husband was a temporary status casual Gangman, who expired on 23.11.1996, she would not be entitled to any family pension because family pension is regulated as per Rule 75 of Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993, which provides for grant of family pension to the family of a deceased Railway servant. Casual labourers are not covered under the definition of 'Railway Servants'as per rule 3 (23) of the aforesaid Rules.2. It is stated by applicant that her husband while working as a Gangman died on 23.11.1996. She approached respondents for grant of compassionate appointment to her son, release of retiral dues as well as grant of family pension. Her son was given compassionate appointment vide order dated 3rd August, 1998, but she has not been given family pension nor the retiral dues were settled in favour of her daughter Ms.Noor Banu.3. Counsel for applicant has relied o...

Mr. Vivek Ahuja Vs. Mr. Shyam Sunder and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT667

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this suit the plaintiff sought relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 7th June 2004 in respect of the property bearing number 61, Block V-I, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. It is stated by the plaintiff that the total consideration agreed between the parties was Rs. 66 lac. The plaintiff, at the time of execution of the agreement dated 7th June, 2004 had paid a sum of Rs. 1 0 lac, Rs. 5 lac in cash and Rs. 5 lac through cheque. The time of execution of the sale deed was extended by mutual consent of parties up to 25th November 2004 It is alleged that defendant did not turn up at the Sub Registrar's office for registration of the sale deed on 25.11.2004 In terms of the agreement, in case the defendant backed out, the defendant was to pay double the amount of earnest money and in case the plaintiff backed out, the earnest money was to be forfeited. The plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant on 2nd December 2004 asking for payment of Rs. 20 ...