Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sub Inspector Sanjay Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT588; 2008(101)DRJ401

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The issue raised in this petition relates to applicability of Rule 10 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 to the officials of the Delhi Police. We may mention at the outset that in view of Sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, suspension of the respondent herein is set aside. In this petition filed by the petitioners, including the Commissioner of Police, primary contention is that these Rules do not govern the matters of discipline of the employees of the Delhi Police. Rule 10, as it originally stood, was amended vide Notification dated 23.12.2003 published in the Gazette of India dated 3.1.2004 read with corrigendum dated 29.3.2004 published in the Gazette of India dated 4.4.2004. By this amendment, Sub-rules (6) and (7) were added thereto, which are given effect to from 2.6.2004. Sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10 are to the following effect:(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under the rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify o...

Dharamvir Sharma Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT149

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This petition under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeks grant of letters of Administration concerning the Will of one Shri. Kunwal Kumar Sharma (hereafter 'the testator'), who died on 17th December, 2002. A true copy of the death certificate has been produced with the petition.2. It is averred in the petition that the testator, at the time of his death was residing at 36, Bilston Lane, Willenhall, West Midlands, WV13 2QB, United Kingdom and had roots in the society. Prior to his demise, the testator executed his last and only will, on 28-8-1991, bequeathing all his movable and immovable properties to the petitioners. It is averred that the will was attested by PA Lowers and J Evans of Rowland Tildesley & Harris Solicitors, New Road Willenhall West Midlands WV 13 2AH UK. The testator had named his wife Ms. Susheel Sharma as sole executrix and trustee of the will; however, she passed away on 17-1-1999 before the death of the testator. In terms of the will, if the...

Ms. Usha Handa Vs. the Lt. Governor, Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ115

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7th February, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant filed the writ petition contending, inter alia, that although she was appointed as a TGT(Science) by the respondent No. 4, yet she was not given the selection grade in TGT(Science) which action is challenged in the writ petition. An advertisement was issued on 8th June, 1972 inviting applications for the post of Science Teacher(TGT). The appellant offered herself as one of the candidates. The appellant was appointed as a TGT Teacher in Swami Shivanand Secondary School under order dated 28th March, 1973. It was, however, not indicated in the said letter that the appellant was appointed as a Science Teacher(TGT). However, another letter was issued on 29th March, 1973 which described the appellant as TGT Science Teacher and she was shown to have been promoted to TGT Grade as a Science Teacher in t...

Shekhar and anr. Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3258; 148(2008)DMC106

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. These appeals arise out of a judgment of conviction dated 20th July, 2004 under Sections 392/394/302/34 IPC and Section 411 IPC in FIR No. 390/2001 PS Mangol Puri, Delhi and sentence of imprisonment and fine to respective respondents by an order dated 24th July, 2004 as under:(1) three years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine SI for one month under Section 392/34 IPC;(2) RI for four years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine SI for one month under Section 394/34 IPC;(3) imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine SI for one month under Section 302/34 IPC; and (4) RI for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default SI for one month under Section 411 IPC.2. The substantive sentences of imprisonment under different heads are to run concurrently. 3. The appellants together with three others were prosecuted on the allegations of committing dacoity and murder o...

Chandna K.L. Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008(117)FLR814]; (2008)2LLJ834Del

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant being aggreived by the order dated July 27, 2006 passed by the learned single Judge. The main grievance which is raised by the appellant in this appeal is that the learned single Judge was not justified in directing for payment of only 6% as interest instead of 10%, which is interest due and payable in terms of the: respondent's own circular dated July 20, 1999.2. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant that in view of the aforesaid mandate of the circular issued by the respondent themselves, the learned single Judge was not justified in allowing only 6% interest on the late payment of the arrears of gratuity whereas it should have been 10%. Our attention was also drawn to the relevant guidelines regarding-terminal benefits, which state as follows:As per provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act 1972, the bank has to pay full amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable to th...

Piyush Colonisers Ltd. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2008)BC208

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.Crl. M.C. No. 1990/2008Allowed subject to all just exceptions.Crl. M.C. No. 521/2008 & Crl. MA. No. 1989/2008Notice, which is accepted by learned APP.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in respect of the condition imposed by the trial Court of an FDR being made of the amounts lying in the Bank accounts of the petitioner in the name of the Court, the said condition be modified to furnishing a Bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the trial Court.2. On hearing learned Counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the intent of 5 the order passed by the trial Court is to preserve the money in question and the funds, should be available.3. Oncc the funds can be made available through the process of. an unconditional bank guarantee to be furnished by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the trial Court, it would serve the same purpose while giving liquidity to the petitioner.4. In view of the aforesaid, I deem it appropriate to modify the condition...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. SaifuddIn and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ98

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (hereafter called. 'MTNL') sues the defendants for a decree in the sum of Rs. 17,83,056/- with interest at 24% p.a.2. According, to averments in the plaint, one Smt. Sudesh Vig was subscriber; she had applied for a telephone connection. When the intimation of connection was issued on 27th October, 1994, she was no longer interested in the telephone and wanted to surrender it to the MTNL. It is alleged that before she could surrender the telephone, the second defendant, a phone inspector working for the MTNL at that time, allegedly asked her to get the telephone connection transferred to some interested person; he allegedly offered Rs. 1,000/- to her to do so. The said Smt. Vig allegedly agreed, being a housewife and not familiar with procedures, accepted the offer, and allegedly signed blank papers, transferring the telephone connection to an intending purchaser. At the time, she did not suspect any foul play. The seco...

Anchor Agencies (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)14STT335

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 12.01.2007 upholding the adjudication order of the Joint Commissioner dated 04.10.2006. By the said order, the Joint Commissioner held that the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax amounting to Rs. 6,39,734/- and Education Cess amounting to Rs. 5,497/- for the period April, 2002 to September, 2005. Penalties @ 100/- per day under Section 76; Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 and Rs. 6,45,231/- (the amount equal to the Service Tax and the Education Cess) under Section 78 were also imposed. The appellant was also directed to pay interest at the appropriate rate on delayed payment of Service Tax in terms of Section 75 of the Act.2. The appellant is a clearing & forwarding agent (hereinafter referred to as 'C&F Agent') within the meaning of Clause (25) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). It is not in dispute that the services provided by a C&F Agent i...

Ajmer Automobiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR427

1. This appeal has come up for hearing on the point of waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit. The dispute relates to service tax and the period of dispute is March to September '04. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner in exercise of suo motu of revisional power under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 pursuant to show cause notice issued in terms of a provision which was non-existent at the relevant time.2. It is also the case of the appellant that the service tax is sought to be levied on the amount on which the principal i.e. Maruti Finance has already paid the service tax.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for total waiver of pre-deposit. It is ordered accordingly....

Shri K.L. Mehndiratta, S/O Late Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicants who retired as Loco Inspector, seek through this OA extension of benefit of the decision of the Tribunal in Kishan Lal v.Union of India and Ors. (OA-229 of 2000) decided on 16.10.2001 with re-fixation of pensionary benefits and retiral dues by addition on element of 55% of the basic pay as granted to loco running staff from the date of retirement.2. At the outset, Learned Counsel of applicants, Shri Patel would content that the applicants are entitled for the benefits at par with other loco supervisors in the same group of running staff are also entitled to the pay element, denial of it to applicants is invidious discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.3. Learned Counsel would contend that decision of the High Court in WP(C) 960/2002 decided on 22.9.2003 had accorded the benefit of the decision of Apex Court in G.C. Ghosh and Ors.V. Union of India and Ors.1991 Supp.(2) SCC 497 which when upheld by the Apex Court, applicants being simil...