Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

Vijay Gupta Vs. Renu Malhotra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi83

ORDERHima Kohli, J.1. By this order, the objection raised by the counsel for the judgment debtor with regard to the maintainability of the present execution petition in this Court on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction is being decided.2. The genesis of the dispute subjection matter of the present petition, arose in the year 1998, when the decree holder filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') before this Court in December, 1998, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. For the purpose of jurisdiction and valuation, the decree holder valued the petition at more than Rs. 5 lakhs. It is relevant to note that at that point in time, this Court had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain suits the value of which exceeded Rs. 5 lakhs. Consequent to the filing of the aforesaid petition, vide order dated 27-2-2002, an Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties.3. During the pendency of the arbitrat...

Keshav Kumar Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2333

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 and Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. for appropriate directions of enquiry into the acts of the police officials in illegally detaining the petitioner and sending him to Tihar Jail invoking Section 107/151, Cr.P.C. on a false complaint of one Ashok Kumar Munna (respondent No. 5), a bad character of the area and for quashing the proceedings.2. Petitioner has stated that he was a businessman and living at Flat No. C-48, Karampura, Moti Nagar, New Delhi at first floor. Respondent No. 5, Ashok Kumar Munna was a known bad character of the area of Police Station Moti Nagar. He contested the elections for the area Councilor and MLA. He was agent of local leaders and local police in illegal recovery of money from the traders and innocent people. He flourished under the patronage of local leaders and police and also was indulging in grabbing and encroaching public land. He alle...

Cit Vs. Gillete Group India (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]315ITR179(Delhi)

ORDER1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 24-2-2006 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' in ITA Nos. 1957 and 1958 /Del/2002 relevant for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99.2. Two issues have been raised by learned Counsel for the revenue. The first relates to payment of an amount of Rs. 8,80,500 paid by the assessee towards consultancy charges to one Pradeep Pant.3. The Tribunal has noted that an agreement dated 10-1-1995 was entered into between the assessee and Pradeep Pant and it relates to advice on business strategy, marketing and sales planning, possibilities of joint venture and acquisition etc.etc. The assessee, as mentioned in the assessment order, is set up to establish the business of the Gillette Group of Companies. It merely carries out advisory functions and is not in the business of manufacturing nor is it an industrial undertaking.4. The question urged is whether the consultancy charges paid to Pradeep Pant would fall within the purview of Section 35D...

Haran Haldar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ391Del; 2009(3)SLJ273(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant ESIC is aggrieved by an order dated February 15, 1999 passed by the learned Judge, ESIC Court allowing respondent's petition Under Section 75 of the ESI Act which challenged an order dated January 31,1995 passed by the ESI Corporation holding that respondent's establishment was covered under the ESI Act.3. Shorn of unnecessary details it would be relevant to note that order dated January 31, 1995 was passed on the basis that the business of Ajay Enterprises carried on by the son of the respondent was found to be a part and parcel of the business of the respondent who was carrying on business as the sole proprietor of Liftman Industries. The reason for the said finding was the respondent who was the sole proprietor of Liftman Industries was the father of Ajay, the sole proprietor of Ajay Enterprises. That both businesses i.e. the business of Liftman Industries and Ajay Enterprises were being carried on from...

Esic Vs. Ved Prakash Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ626Del

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant ESIC is aggrieved by an order dated February 15, 1999 passed by the learned Judge, ESIC Court allowing respondent's petition under Section 75 of the ESI Act which challenged an order dated January 31, 1995 passed by the ESI Corporation holding that respondent's establishment was covered under the ESI Act.3. Shorn of unnecessary details it would be relevant to note that order dated January 31, 1995 was passed on the basis that the business of Ajay Enterprises carried on by the son of the respondent was found to be a part and parcel of the business of the respondent who was carrying on business as the sole proprietor of Liftman Industries. The reason for the said finding was the respondent who was the sole proprietor of Liftman Industries was the father of Ajay, the sole proprietor of Ajay Enterprises. That both businesses i.e. the business of Liftman Industries and Ajay Enterprises were being carried on fro...

Unitech Ltd. Vs. Cst

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has come up for hearing on the point of waiver and stay.The submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is sought to be saddled with liability for the period from 2002 to 16.6.05 on the basis of amendment in Rule 2(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, which is the definition clause of the Rules. It is submitted that by amending the definition clause, tax liability can not be created.Reliance is placed on an order of this Tribunal dt.9.1.08 in the case of VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. and Ors. (Service Tax Appeal No. 593-96 & 630 to 632/07).2. Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the case is distinguishable on facts.3. After considering the matter we are of the opinion that in view of the order in the case of VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. & Others, The appellant is entitled to full waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. We order accordingly.4. As huge amount of revenue is involved in this case, we fix the appeal for hearing on 22.4.08....

Lintas India (P) Ltd. Vs. Cst

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR474

1. Heard both sides on the stay petition. The appellant has entered into contract with their clients for the purpose of arranging advertisement in various print media/electronic media. They are booking orders with various media and they are accredited agency for the said purpose; they are eligible for a discount of 15% on the bills raised by the various media. In other words, they paid discounted price to the media. They recovered this amount alongwith their commission which ranges from 2.5% to 15% and on whatever amount they earned as commission from their client, they are paying service tax. The Department held that the 15% discount given by the media as earning by the appellant and demanded service tax on the same.2. Ld. Advocate relies on the final decision of the Tribunal in the case of McCann Erickson(India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, Delhi reported in 2008-TIOL-271-CESTAT-DEL.4. We are of the prima facie view that the 15% discount shown cannot be considered as a commission actually paid...

Bhagat Singh Negi, Lalita Prasad Vs. Union of India and ors. Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The three applicants had joined together to file this application and it is seen filed on 01.10.2007. The prayer is for directing the respondents (Ministry of Defence) to grant upgradation to the applicants to the level of Assistants in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with arrears and interest thereon as also the consequential benefits. It is seen that they had, on a previous occasion, filed OA 3084/2003. This application had been disposed of at the stage of admission. Respondents have been directed to consider the representations, which had been filed by them seeking such reliefs (Annexure A-2). The applicants have been thereupon served with a speaking order dated 17.03.2004 (Annexure A-1). Thereby, they stand informed that it is not feasible to accede to their demands. The Original Application had come to be filed in the above context.2. The basis as well as the driving force of the application evidently is the order passed by the CAT (Madras Bench) in OA No. 27 ...

All India Equality Forum Through Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This OA has been filed by All India Equality Forum and Ors. seeking a direction to quash notification dated 19.4.2005 whereby 238 posts of Driver Goods in grade of Rs. 5000-8000 were advertised for holding the selection (page-12) and panel dated 29.11.2005 whereby names of selected candidates were issued in the form of panel to the post of Driver Goods in grade of Rs. 5000-8000 (page-14). They have also stated that no effect should be given to Instructions of Railway Board dated 21.8.1997 as the same have already been quashed in OA No. 286/1998 in the case of R.K. Gaur v. Union of India and adopt the procedure laid down in DoP&T's instructions dated 02.7.1997.2. It is stated by the applicants that earlier Para-140 of IREM Vol.-I dealt with the post of Driver Goods wherein only Shunters were eligible for this post. However, in the year 1996, R.B.E. No. 40/96 dated 01.5.1996 was issued whereby First Fireman and Second Fireman were made eligible provided they had sixty thousand km...

P.K. Gupta, S/O Late Shri Bhagwan Vs. Union of India, Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, who retired on superannuation on 31.1.2001, as Deputy Chief Engineer, impugns Presidential order dated 11.3.2002, whereby post retirement, on enquiry, after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) a penalty of 25% cut in pension on permanent basis has been imposed, an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority (DA) on 5.10.1997, whereby pursuant to a disciplinary proceedings, a penalty of reduction to lower stage in the same time scale of pay for three months with future effect has been imposed upon applicant and appellate order passed on 31.1.2002 passed in appeal, upholding the punishment of reduction.2. Applicant vide memorandum issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 dated 15.9.1997 was proceeded against for delaying the bills of parties for long duration, for which when an enquiry was proceeded against applicant, the enquiry officer (EO) held applicant guilty of the charge Nos. 1 and 3 but did not establish charge No. 2.The DA held app...