Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments

Cce Vs. Giriraj Brothers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

3. The respondent has undertaken a series of activities like mining, loading, transporting and unloading of limestone from the mines belonging to ACC on the basis of a contract entered into with them. The Commissioner (Appeals), after taking into account the evidence placed before him, came to a conclusion that the appellant raised bills for transportation of lime stone and the work of loading/unloading was incidental to the transportation of lime stone and accordingly dropped the demand of Rs. 17,112/- and set aside the penalty imposed by the original authority.4. Learned Departmental Representative submits that out of Rs. 71.21 per MT received by the respondent Rs. 50.21 per MT relates to mining activities, Rs. 8.23 per MT is for loading of lime stone etc. He contends that inasmuch as Rs. 8.23 per MT is clearly identified as attributable to loading charges, the same should be treated as charges received for the service of cargo handling. According to him, the definition of the term ...

Kamal Singh S/O Shri Sadhu Singh Vs. Council of Scientific and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

To consider the applicants for recruitment/regularization against any two of these six posts so advertised in view of the order and judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 10th May, 2001 in Original Application No. 320 of 2000.2. It is submitted by applicants that they joined Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (hereinafter referred to as CSIR) on 24.4.1989 and 3.12.1987 respectively as chowkidars. Since they had driving licence for light motor vehicles, they were utilized as drivers. They requested for being appointed as drivers. Respondents got them trade tested through Central Road Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as CRRI). On being found fit and after medial examination, they were appointed as drivers w.e.f. May, 1989 and continued as such till November, 2001. However, respondents were still paying them as chowkidars even though they were made to work as drivers, therefore, they filed O.A. No. 320/2000. This O.A. was allowed on 10.05.2001 by directing the respo...

Mr. R.V. Ghuge, Director Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By an order in the name of the President dated 21.4.2005, applicant had been dismissed from service. The applicant was holding the position of Director, Cabinet Secretariat during that time. Dismissal was preceded with formalities of charge-sheet as well as enquiry as envisaged under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant has sought relief for reinstatement, pointing out that the dismissal order is unconstitutional and void and is not binding. A copy of the order is Annexure P-1, and applicant has also made available the enquiry report, submitted though not in full. The Enquiry Officer was Gurvinder Singh, Additional Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat (R&AW).2. The submissions of the Learned Counsel for the applicant was that the allegations as raised could not have been construed as misconduct, which departmentally was to be enquired into inter-alia, suggesting that perhaps criminal proceedings alone might have been initiated. He has also made further submissions that there was ...

international Metro Civil Contractors Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax/Va ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)12VatReporter202; (2008)16VST329(Delhi)

ORDERIn partial modification of order No. F.8(28)/93-PPR/13368-384 dated 12th September 1994 regarding delegation of powers under Section 46 of the DST Act, 1975, I, Archna Arora, Commissioner, Value Added Tax, Department of Trade and Taxes, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 read with Section 106 of DVAT Act, 2004, do hereby delegate powers vested in Commissioner Sales Tax under Section 46 of the DST Act, 1975 to revise all orders prejudicial to the interest of revenue passed by an Assessing Authority below the rank of Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner, Special Zone in respect of M/s International Metro Civil Contractors, 8, Jantar Mantar Marg, Near Connaught Place, Delhi-110001.This order shall come into force with immediate effect.sd/-(ARCHNA ARORA)Commissioner, Value Added TaxThe other Order No. 34 reads as follows:OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER,VALUE ADDED TAXDEPTT. OF TRADE and TAXES (POLICY BRANCH)VYAPAR BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE...

Commodore V. Ravindra Nathan Vsm Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ165

A.K. Sikri, J1. The petitioner is agitated about his non promotion to the rank of Rear Admiral. The Promotion Board, which held its meeting on 23.8.2006, did not recommend him for promotion to the said rank. Instead his junior (respondent No. 5) succeeded in getting the recommendation of the Promotion Board. 2. The petitioner feels that he was overlooked for promotion because of some adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report written by the then Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief (respondent No. 4 herein) on 1.3.2005 as well as on 6.1.2006. The petitioner had even submitted his statutory petition to the Chief of Naval Staff (respondent No. 2 herein) on 24.3.2006 for expunction of these remarks which was allowed on 22.8.2006 but relief sought for was denied to him. As a consequence, when the Promotion Board met on 23.8.2006, influenced by the said adverse remarks, the petitioner was ignored for promotion. In these circumstances, the petitioner submitted appeal to Central Govt. for ...

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Garg Vs. Mcd and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR107(Delhi); 149(2008)DLT343; 2008(102)DRJ137

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. These are four applications filed for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. All these applications are proposed to be decided by this common order because question of facts and law involved in all of them are identical. 3. Briefly stated the facts of these four cases are as follow: Case No. 1: A.A. No. 23/2007 titled Sh. Rajesh Kumar Garg v. MCD and Anr.4. The MCD had awarded a contract to the applicant for improvement of Footpath in Patparganj Society in AC-43, Shahdara Zone vide work order No. 537 dated 20.02.1998. The tender amount was Rs. 15,06,513/- and the contract amount was Rs.44,51,745/-. The work was to be completed within five months. As per the applicant, the contract work was completed within the stipulated time period of five months where after the work was inspected by the officials of the MCD and measurements were taken in the Measurements Book. The applicant has alleged that the respondents ha...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]301ITR384(Delhi); [2009]183TAXMAN277(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The short question in the present appeal is as to whether the Income Tax appellate Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal') was right in deleting addition of Rs. 15 lacs made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as 'Act') by the Assessing Officer. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessed filed return of income for the assessment year 1999-2000 on 27th December, 1999. The assessment order was passed on 22nd March, 2002 under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act and it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessed had shown an advance of Rs. 15 lacs from one Bhai Manjeet Singh. The assessed was asked to furnish the details of this advance. It was explained by the assessed that this was received towards advance breeding charges. Thereafter the assessed was asked to file confirmation from Bhai Manjeet Singh, which he failed to do so and accordingly the Assessing Officer made this addition of Rs. 15 lacs under Section 68 of the Act.3. Aggrieved agains...

Ramco Rolls Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ422

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30th January, 2008 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed holding that no reasonable ground is made out for setting aside the ex parte award dated 21st September, 2002.2. The termination of the workman, who is one of the respondents herein, was challenged by seeking a reference. The appropriate Government at the instance of the workman made a reference to the Labour Court on the following terms:Whether Shri Prem Kumar has abandoned his job or services or services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect.3. The authorized representative of the appellant entered appearance before the Labour Court and filed a written statement to the claim filed by the workman. Issues were also framed on 27th January, 1999 in the presence of the representatives of the parties and the matter...

Bishno Devi and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ348

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The appellants were tried and convicted on a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC by a judgment dated 30th July, 2005 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for one month. They are in appeal against the aforesaid conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case unfolds that on 13th March, 2000 at about 11.30 am a wireless message was received at PS Nangloi that a man had received 90% burns. Accordingly, a DD entry No. 8A was made in this regard and on a copy thereof being marked to SI Rajpal Singh, he proceeded to House No. B-584, Camp No. 2, JJ Colony, Nangloi, Delhi the place of incident. Later at 1.15 pm, a telephonic information from the duty Constable at Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi was received at the police station regarding admission of one Laxman Singh s/o Ghasi Ram r/o B-584, Camp No. 2, Nangloi, Delhi in the hospital wit...

Anjulika Vinod Dewan Vs. Smt. Vijay Laxmi Chauhan and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ755

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC for leave to deliver interrogatories. One of the questions in the suit is with regard to the property No. 11, Court Road, Gate No. 1, Civil Lines, Delhi-110 054. It is the case of the plaintiff that this property was acquired by the plaintiffs father though purchased in the name of the defendant No. 1. Consequently, it is the case of the plaintiff that she has a share in the property. On this question, the defendants have taken the stand in the written statement that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in this property and that the late Shri Yograj Chauhan (father of the plaintiff and husband of defendant No. 1) did not own any immovable property at the time of his demise.2. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the interrogatories can be issued to the defendants so as to elucidate and clarify the matters in issue. This would also be neces...