Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

Terex Veetra Equipment (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicant is a manufacturer of excisable goods and is paying Service Tax on the services rendered by "Goods Transport Agency" as a recipient of input services. They were taking credit of Service Tax so paid by them and utilized the same towards payment of Service Tax for subsequent period on such input services. The Department objected to their utilization of credit of Service Tax paid by them on such input services towards payment of service tax on input services. According to the Department the Service Tax credit can be utilized only for output services and that the applicant is not rendering any output service.The applicant is not contesting the main issue that, the credit of Service Tax paid by them cannot be used for payment of Service Tax relating to incoming transportation, but is claiming the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004, which provided for payment of Service Tax on a value equivalent to 25% of the gross amount charged from the custo...

Shri Ram Kishan the General Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through, the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This OA has been filed by All India Central Government Heath Scheme Employees Association and three individuals. MA for filing joint application is allowed.2. Applicants have challenged show cause notice dated 13.8.2007 and order dated 19.11.2007 whereby 17.7.2007 has been treated as dies-non in terms of Rule 7(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules and effecting break in service in terms of FR 17A (i) and (ii) of FR & SR causing an interruption in the services thereby forfeiting the past service except for pension and other pensionary benefits (page-15 & 19 respectively).3. It is stated by the applicants that Association had been requesting the respondents for certain demands including the one to fill up the vacant posts on promotional basis but except giving assurance no action was being taken. They gave a charter of demand also but finding no positive response. Association gave a proper notice on 04.6.2007 (page-29 & 30) under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that agitation would b...

Shri Guru Dutt S/O Sh. Tula Ram and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Direct Respondents effect differential of payment they themselves have determined and indicated in payment column in Annexure A with 10% interest from the date of accrual till the date of payment.2. It is stated by the applicants that they were inducted into Railway Service as casual employees on daily rates. All of them have been regularized as Khallasi on completion of 120 days and have attained temporary status. They are serving at Northern Railway, Shakurbasti as Gangmen. It is stated by them that respondents had issued a list of 63 persons wherein the amounts, which were to be paid, have been mentioned (page-10). Applicants' names figure at serial No. 2, 24, 45, 13, 1, 29, 32, 14, 54, 60, 6, 10, 16, 19, 28, 48, 43, 50, 47, 38, 23, 36, 41, 44, 59 and 57 in said list yet they have not been paid the difference. One person namely Sh. Raghu Parshad from the above-said list at serial No.35 had filed a case before the Labour Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 24.1.2002. OA 294...

Ramesh Kumar S/O Late Sh. Kishan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Having been appointed as Store Keeper vide order dated 19.05.2001 w.e.f. 04.05.2001, the applicant by filing the present Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 05.09.2007 vide which his representation pursuant to order passed by this Tribunal for notional seniority from 19.01.1984 has been rejected. Obviously on setting aside of the impugned order Annexure A-1 dated 05.09.2007 rejecting his representation, the applicant seeks notional seniority w.e.f. 1991-92.2. Brief facts as projected in the Application reveal that the applicant was sponsored from the Employment Exchange for appointment to the post of Store Keeper against the vacancies notified by the respondents in 1983. He had taken examination followed by interview held by the respondents and was selected for appointment on 19.01.1984.He was offered appointment on the post of Store Keeper on 01.04.1985.The applicant, however, was ...

Shri B.K. Srivastava S/O Late Shri Vs. Director (Employment)

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. B.K. Srivastava working as Bradma Machine Operator (hereinafter referred to as BMO) in Employment Exchange (South), New Delhi has filed this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 calling in question the order dated 14.12.2001 passed by the disciplinary authority vide which his pay has been reduced by three stages in the time scale of pay of Rs. 3050-4590 for a period of three years with immediate effect as also the appellate order dated 09.04.2003 vide which appeal preferred by him against the order aforesaid has been rejected.2. Before we may proceed any further, we may mention that for the same relief the applicant had filed OA No. 2367/2007 which was sought to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one wherein miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay may also be filed. On the prayer made by the counsel representing the applicant, the aforesaid OA was dismissed with leave and liberty, as asked for.Inasmuch as the impugn...

Shri Pratap S/O Sh. Triloke Ram and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Direct Respondents effect differential of payment they themselves have determined and indicated in payment column in Annexure A with 10% interest from the date of accrual till the date of payment.2. It is stated by the applicants that they were inducted into Railway Service as casual employees on daily rates. All of them have been regularized as Khallasi on completion of 120 days and have attained temporary status. They are serving at Northern Railway, Shakurbasti as Gangmen. It is stated by them that respondents had issued a list of 63 persons wherein the amounts, which were to be paid, have been mentioned (page-11) but applicants' names do not figure in said list. Being aggrieved they gave representation on 16.2.2007 but till date no reply has been given to them. One person namely Sh. Raghu Parshad from the above-said list at serial No. 35 had filed a case before the Labour Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 24.1.2002. Some other persons have also been given the benefit. T...

Asi Tulsi Ram Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Tulsi Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, faced departmental enquiry on the orders issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell (SB), Delhi dated 9.7.2002 (Annexure A-1) which read as follows: It is alleged against ASI Tulsi Ram, No. 4673/D that while posted in West Distt. he used to go to the house of one Smt. Nirmalaa Rani r/o D-56, Bal Udyan Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi in connection with some official enquiries. Due to his frequent visits, intimacy between both of them developed. ASI Tulsi Ram falsely told her that he is a widower having two children who are studying at Kurukshetra, Haryana and by making deceiptful statements he mattied her on 6.2.96 at Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar. In the month of Jan. 1997 ASI Tulsi Ram with his malafide intention and ulterior motive persuaded the complainant by misrepresenting the facts and managed to take away Rs. 1,40,000/- on the pretext that he is purchasing the agricultural land in his native villag...

Hero Honda Motors Limited Vs. Mr Anil Kumar Garg and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2008(2)300; 2008(36)PTC217(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.IA No. 1858/2008 (Under Order 23 Rule 3 Read with Section 151 of CPC)1. The plaintiff had filed this suit for alleged infringement of its trade mark, copyright as well as for passing off and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff and the defendants have arrived at an amicable settlement. The terms of the settlement are set out in this application. Essentially, the defendants have acknowledged the plaintiffs to be the proprietors of the trade marks mentioned in paragraph 8 of the plaint which includes the trade mark 'HERO HONDA' and the HERO HONDA stylised logo under class 12 vide Registration No. 419115 and 513474 respectively.2. The defendants have also acknowledged the plaintiffs to be the owners of the copyrights in the logo as well as in the packaging of the HERO HONDA spare parts referred to in paragraph 9 of the plaint. The defendants have undertaken not to manufacture, sell, advertise, directly or indirectly deal in any product wh...

Sunita Vijaykumar Deshpande Vs. Mithanlal Marketing Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2008)BC449; 2008(101)DRJ366

S. Muralidhar, J.1. Initially, after submissions were made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, orders were reserved on 21st January, 2008. Subsequently, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 filed an application for permission to be heard by this Court. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has accordingly been heard today at length.2. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') by Smt. Sunita Vijaykumar Despande seeking the quashing of an order dated 4th December, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), Delhi allowing the revision petition filed by the complainant and directing summons to be issued inter-alia to the Petitioner here. It also challenges an order dated 25th February, 2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), Delhi passing a consequential order of summoning the Petitioner for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act') in Complaint ...

Major Kuldeep Singh Jarg (Retd.) and anr. Vs. Bax Global India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)CTLJ200(Del); 151(2008)DLT146

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide present petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure petitioners have laid challenge to the order dated 04.02.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi.2. By and under the impugned order the learned Trial Court has dismissed an application under Order xxxvII Rule 3(5) CPC seeking leave to defend a recovery suit filed by the respondent company under Order xxxvII CPC.3. Facts necessary to dispose of the present petition are that the respondent company filed a suit under Order xxxvII CPC against the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 7,15,965/-. Suit was based upon a lease agreement dated 14.04.99 entered into between the respondent company and petitioner No. 1 Major Kuldip Singh and a letter dated 30.05.01 written by petitioner No. 1 wherein he admitted his liability to pay to the respondent company.4. Material averments in the plaint were that a lease agreement dated 14.08.95 was entered into between petitioner No. 2, M/s Ritu Cos...