Delhi Court April 2008 Judgments

Mehar Healthcare Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 18.2.05.The Appellant imported Digital Blood Pressure Monitors and filed Bill of Entry No. 323430 dated 13.6.2002 declaring the goods as "Tonometer Digital Blood Pressure Monitor"; they declared the value as Rs. 2,73,740/; they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 21/02, Sl. No.94A (List 8C, Sl. No. 72) available to "Tonometer". The goods were examined under first check and were found to be "Digital Blood Pressure Monitor" and not "Tonometer". The Original Authority held that Tonometer was an instrument for measuring intraocular pressure and that Blood Pressure Monitor was not within the purview of the term "Tonometer"; he denied the benefit of aforesaid notification; ordered for confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(m) for intentionally mis-declaring the description of the goods to wrongly claim the benefit of the aforesaid notification and gave an option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of...

Csss Gazetted Officers' Vs. Union Of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The present application filed by CSSS Gazetted Officers Association represented through its President and two other Private Secretaries is directed against DOP&T Order No. 21/41/2005-CS.I dated 29.07.2005 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondents whereby the following decision has been taken: (i) To discontinue the lateral entry of CSSS Officers into Grade-I of Central Secretariat Service (CSS) at the level of Under Secretary; (ii) To allow only those Stenographer Grade 'C' who are Graduates to participate in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the Section Officers Grade of CSS.2. As it transpires from the facts of the case, the Members of the Association are Private Secretaries (PS) (Gazetted Officers) working in the different Ministries/Departments of Government of India belonging to Group-A & B (merged). It is stated that the services rendered by these officers are of great significance as they not only assist the senior Bureaucrats in discharging their pub...

Mrs. Reena Kochhar Wife of Sh Anil Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant had been recruited to the post of Stenographer by the Delhi Development Authority consequent to a process of selection. Vide Annexure P-1, during the year 1991. 13 vacancies of Stenographer (English) in the general category had been advertised. Posts are seen also reserved for SC/ST and Ex-Serviceman. Qualification prescribed was Matric. /Hr. Secondary with minimum speed of 80/40 w.p.m. in shorthand and typewriting respectively.2. After participation in the process of selection, applicant had been selected and appointed vide Notification / Order dated 22.9.2003 as a temporary Stenographer. Annexure P-6, Memorandum showed that the post was temporary and she was to continue till further orders. Her service was terminable without any intimation at any time. Clause 8 of the order reads as following: In case information/declaration found false and applicant deliberately conceals any fact he/she will be removed from the service and action whatsoever authority deems fit will...

Shri Deen Bandhu Gupta S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The principal relief sought for by the applicants who are employed by the CPWD is to quash and set aside the order of the respondents dated 12.5.2006, and for promoting them, taking notice of their seniority position. Reliance has been placed by the applicants on the decision rendered by the CAT, Madras Bench dated 18.10.2000 in OA 403/1999 and connected cases justifying such a demand. The CPWD is the first respondents therein. If the findings as entered into by the Tribunal in the said decision is to be followed, the contentions raised in the application will have to be accepted, prima facie.2. However, alongwith the counter reply affidavit, respondents have made available judgment of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal dated 14.9.2006 in OA 397/2006, where also CPWD was a party. Perhaps, without noticing the earlier decision, the Madras Bench has upheld the validity of the order, subjected to challenge in the present application. Of course, learned Counsel, for the applicants submit...

Hc Rohtash Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1980) envisage both preliminary and regular departmental enquiries. A preliminary enquiry is a fact-finding enquiry. Its purpose is to establish the nature of default and identity of defaulter, to collect prosecution evidence, to judge quantum of default, and to bring relevant documents on record to facilitate a regular departmental enquiry. Resort to preliminary enquiry is made when/where specific information covering the points mentioned above does not exist. In other words, if specific information covering above mentioned points exists, a preliminary enquiry need not be held at all and departmental enquiry can be straightway ordered. However, when resort is made to a preliminary enquiry and that discloses commission of a cognizable offence by a police officer of subordinate rank in his official relations with the public, departmental enquiry shall be ordered after obtaining prior approva...

Shiv Shankar Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant had challenged a charge sheet dated 11.3.1996, whereby the respondent, (Delhi Development Authority) had proposed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. The prayer in the Writ Petition was to quash the disciplinary proceedings, which had followed. The High Court had in CM No. 1002/1998 injuncted the respondents from proceedings with the enquiry. Writ Petition thereafter has been transferred to this Tribunal, in view of the Notification dated 25.7.2007.2. We had heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides. The pleadings were complete. The applicant reiterated the contention that charge sheet was made on misconception of facts and as a matter of fact the Executive Engineer who had been proceeded against almost on the subject had been cleared of the proceedings, when the High Court had observed that such proceedings against him had been initiated after about a decade from the date of the alleged irregularities and it deserved to be quashed. The applicant...

Kulbhushan Sehgal Vs. Sunita Sehgal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ321

Veena Birbal, J.1. By way of present petition, petitioner/husband has challenged impugned order dated 22.02.2008 passed by learned ADJ, Delhi on an application of respondent/wife under Section 24 of HMA, in the petition for annulment of marriage of petitioner/husband, wherein interim maintenance @ Rs. 3200/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 12,000/- have been granted to her. 2. Briefly, the facts leading to the filing of present petition are that petitioner/husband is aged about 77 years. He got married with respondent on 28.12.2006 according to Hindu rights and customs. As per petitioner, it is his third marriage. Petitioner has alleged that his first wife died in the year 1996 and second wife died in the year 2002. The status of respondent/wife was widow at the time of marrying petitioner. The allegations of the petitioner are that respondent/wife had concealed factum of having children from the previous husband while marrying the petitioner and on that ground he has filed pe...

Govind Prajapati Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT435; 2008(103)DRJ493; 2009(3)SLJ296(Delhi)

Manmohan, J.1. The issue that arises for consideration in the present two writ petitions is the scope of judicial review of a charge-sheet by the Central Administrative Tribunal and by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioner, Govind Prajapati and Bhaskar Joshi, have filed the present writ petitions being W.P. (C) Nos. 2341 and 2342 of 2008 seeking quashing of the impugned judgment and orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 19th February, 2008 passed in O.A. No. 1781/2007 and O.A. No. 1881/2007 as well as for allowing of reliefs claimed in the above Original Applications filed before the Tribunal. In essence, the Petitioners seek revocation of their suspension, quashing of inquiry proceedings initiated against them and annulment of appointment of the Inquiry Officer. Since common issues of fact and law arise in both the writ petitions and further as they have been disposed of by a comm...

Kamla and ors. Vs. Director of Social Welfare

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ535Del

J.M. Malik, J.1. Smt. Kamla, the petitioner in this case was appointed as House Aunt w.e.f. June 3, 1996 with the respondent/management. Her services were terminated by the respondent on December 13, 2001. The petitioner approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide its order dated May 7, 2007, awarded a compensation in the sum of Rs. 24,650 in lieu of reinstatement of the job, continuity of service and back-wages as claimed by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner filed the instant petition with the prayers that the order of the Labour Court be set aside, the petitioner be ordered to be reinstated and the respondent be directed to pay back-wages to her.2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated. He has also drawn my attention towards cases in Lachman Das and Anr. v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd and Anr. 1977 Lab IC 82...

Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Om Shiv Dye and Leaf Printe ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008(118)FLR484]; (2008)IIILLJ619Del

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. It is urged by learned Counsel for the appellant that it is settled law that best evidence against a party is the admission of the party concerned, more so when the admission remains unexplained or/and unrebutted.3. It all started when vide letter dated March 12, 1993 the appellant allotted Code No. II-20775-83 to Om Shiv Dye and Leaf Printers. The code was allotted by the appellant to the respondent pursuant to an inspection of the unit of the respondent carried out on January 27, 1993, record of which inspection was reduced into writing vide survey report of even date, Exhibit P.W.1/DA. The same records 10 persons employed and working in the unit. The names of the 10 persons stand duly noted in the report. Parmanand a partner of the unit who was present at the time of the inspection signed the inspection report.4. Dev Anand Sharma, son of Parmanand challenged the coverage of the firm under the ESIC Act and filed a pet...