Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

Saraswati Shiksha Kendra Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has come up for hearing on the point of waiver. In terms of the impugned order, the appellant is required to pay Service Tax of Rs. 3,99,362/- and penalty @ Rs. 100/- per day under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Admittedly, the appellant is running a commercial training or coaching centre within the meaning of Clause (27) of Section 65 of the Finance Act and is, therefore, rendering a taxable service within the meaning of Sub-clause (zzc) of Clause (105) of Section 65. In fact, the appellant does not dispute the liability to pay Service Tax. The case of the appellant is that it is providing service under a franchise granted by Career Point Infosystems Ltd., Kota, with whom it shares the amount received from the students as fees etc. on 75:25 per cent basis.As the appellant is retaining only 75% of the amount collected from the students, it is not liable to pay Service Tax to the extent of the remaining 25% of the amount.3. In the present case we are concerned wi...

P.D. Sharma and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. P. D. Sharma and sixteen others, who are Junior/Senior Hindi Translators in the Income Tax Department, which is a subordinate office of Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), in this Original Application filed by them under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seek a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order dated 17.5.2004 vide which their representation claiming grant of higher pay scale, i.e., Rs. 5500-9000 and Rs. 6500-10500, has been rejected. In wake of setting aside of the order aforesaid, the applicants pray for the aforesaid pay scale on the only plea that they have been discriminated vis-`-vis employees holding similar posts in Central Secretariat Official Language Service (for short, CSOLS), as also in some other organisations like Central Translation Bureau, Armed Forces Headquarter, etc.2. This matter came up for adjudication before a Division Bench, but in view of the divergent opinion expressed in the matter, the Bench seized of the...

Shri M.C. Singhania and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicants belong to the Indian Foreign Service and for the purpose of this case, it may only be relevant to note that all of them were promoted in the senior scale effective from 20.07.2004 by an order dated 31.03.2005. By an office memorandum dated 25.04.2005, they were given `year of allotment' as July, 1996. Rule 15 of the Indian Foreign Service (Recruitment, Cadre, Seniority and Promotion), Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') deals with issue of seniority.In the case of Indian Foreign Service Branch `B', it is provided that a promoted officer will get the year of allotment determined as per the rules but not earlier than the eight years preceding the date of actual promotion. The grievance highlighted in the O.A is that in spite of their promotability and ignoring the circumstance that vacancies were available all through from 1999 to 2003, there was undue delay in the holding of DPC and resultantly they were given promotion only belatedly. The plea is tha...

Sh. Narinder Bishal and anr. Vs. Sh. Rambir Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The present appeal is preferred against the award dated 17th August, 2006 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,01,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum to the appellant.2. The factual scenario in nutshell is as follows: On 6th July, 1999 at about 2 pm Sh. Pragati Bishal along with Ms. Shilpi Chaudhary was traveling in his two-wheeler scooter and were proceeding towards Rohini. When they reached Road No. 41, Opposite Gautam Hospital, Wazirpur Depot Road, Delhi, the scooter was hit from behind by a tempo bearing registration No. DDL 6850 driven in a very rash and negligent manner by the driver Sh. Munish as a result of which Sh. Pragati Bishal fell on the road. At that point of time a bus bearing registration No. DL 1P A 1046 which was being driven by Sh. Ranbir Singh came from behind and ran over the deceased, who succumbed to his injuries and died on the spot. Consequent to this, a claim petition was filed be...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Mohinder Dev and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ1208; AIR2008Delhi116

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. This order shall dispose of the application moved by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC. The appellant has invoked the said provision of law so as to bring on record carbon copy of the original insurance policy. The only reason given by the appellant in the application is that the appellant insurance company could not file the carbon copy of the insurance policy before the Tribunal as the same was misplaced during shifting of the records of the Branch Office of the appellant insurance company at Malout to its Divisional Office and despite due diligence and best efforts the same could not be traced out. It has been further stated that true copy of the policy in question was proved on record as Exhibit RW1/A and carbon copy of the same has now been traced out after great efforts have been put by the appellant insurance company to trace the same from its old records. The application filed by the appellant is duly supported by an affidavit ...

Sh. Narinder Bishal and anr. Vs. Sh. Rambir Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ1881

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The present appeal is preferred against the award dated 17th August, 2006 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,01,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum to the appellant.2. The factual scenario in nutshell is as follows:On 6th July, 1999 at about 2 pm Sh. Pragati Bishal along with Ms. Shilpi Chaudhary was traveling in his two-wheeler scooter and were proceeding towards Rohini. When they reached Road No. 41, Opposite Gautam Hospital, Wazirpur Depot Road, Delhi, the scooter was hit from behind by a tempo bearing registration No. DDL 6850 driven in a very rash and negligent manner by the driver Sh. Munish as a result of which Sh. Pragati Bishal fell on the road. At that point of time a bus bearing registration No. DL 1P A 1046 which was being driven by Sh. Ranbir Singh came from behind and ran over the deceased, who succumbed to his injuries and died on the spot. Consequent to this, a claim petition was filed before t...

Smt. Veena Gupta W/O Shri Lalit Gupta Vs. Director of Education,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT626; 2008(101)DRJ666

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The petitioner prior to seeking amendment in the writ petition, had approached this Court in the year 1993 invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking regularization on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) w.e.f. 12.1.1977 with all consequential benefits including seniority, provident fund, arrears of salary, gratuity, pension and DA etc. The petitioner has also sought quashing of letter dated 26.3.1993 whereby respondent No. 1 i.e. Office of the Directorate of Education had declined to entertain the proposal for regularizing the services of the petitioner on the ground that the candidature of the petitioner along with other such candidates would be considered only when vacancies arise in the school and for which normal procedure for notification of vacancies as per 40 point roster shall be adopted. The petitioner has also sought declaration of Rule 151 of the Delhi School Education Rules as ultra virus bein...

P.V. Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Global Beverages Ag and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2008)BC679; 2008(1)CTLJ158(Del); 148(2008)DLT68; 2008(101)DRJ550

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.IA NO.2236/2007 (Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC)1. The entire controversy in this case centres around the letter of credit dated 07.07.2006 bearing No. FLC / RFC 654563 for US $ 38,134.00 which had been opened at the instance of the plaintiff by the defendant No. 2 in favor of the defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 2 is liable to be restrained from making payment to the defendant No. 1 under the said letter of credit in view of the fact that the defendant No. 1 is an unscrupulous seller and that, if such an injunction were not granted, irretrievable injustice would be caused to the plaintiff inasmuch as the plaintiff would have no means to recover the same from the defendant No. 1 since the defendant No. 1 does not have any assets in India.2. The brief facts are that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1, which is an Austrian company, entered into a distribution agreement on 09.12.2005. By virtue of the said agreement, the plaintiff was...

Smt. Avantika Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Yadav

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ1989; 147(2008)DLT601

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this appeal, the appellants seek enhancement in the compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 77,18,000/- in favor of the appellants and against the respondent along with interest @7.5% per annum on the award amount from the date of institution of the petition till the date of realisation. Feeling not satisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellants have preferred the present appeal and sought enhancement in the said compensation to the extent of Rs. 3,67,20,000/- as claimed by them in their petition moved under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellants are also aggrieved with the interest rate and have claimed interest @9% per annum in place of 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal.2. The conspectus of facts relevant for deciding the present appeal in brief are that on 30th August at about 8.00 a.m., the deceased Shri Alok Aggarwal along with his wife and son, appellant Nos.1...

Cce Vs. Kamal Auto Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR460

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25^th April 2005 setting aside the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 29/11/05 and allowing the appeal of the respondent.2. The dispute relates to Service Tax under the Finance Act 1994. It is stated that the respondent, M/s Kamal Auto Industries, is engaged in the business of sale of Two Wheel/Four Wheel motor vehicles. Besides selling the motor vehicles it also renders the services as Direct Selling Agent and Direct Marketing Agent for financial institutions like ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank etc. viz. processing papers, evaluation of customers falling in the category of Business Auxiliary Service. For facilitating purchase of motor vehicles, it receives service charges from such financial institutions. The case of the Revenue is that the respondent is liable to pay Service Tax on the amount charged in lieu of such Business Auxiliary Service. Indeed, the respondent paid Service Tax on a part...