Delhi Court September 2008 Judgments

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Rati Ram

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT284; [2008(119)FLR828]; (2009)ILLJ629Del

CM APPL No. 12348/2008 (delay) in LPA No. 496/2008Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and for the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.LPA No. 496/2008 and CM APPL No. 12347/2008 (stay)1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th February 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 8800 of 2007.2. The short question is whether an MCD employee who retired prior to 22nd July 2005 is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 ('Act'), in addition to the pension and gratuity under the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 (CCS Rules) which was made applicable to the MCD employees.3. The brief facts are that the respondent was appointed in the MCD on 9th July 1963 and he retired on 31st January 2002 after rendering about 39 years' service. Although the retiral benefits were received by the respondent, no payment was received under the Act. He filed an application before the Control...

Mohan V. Bhatia Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This order of Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Shri R.N. Poddar, Member. 2. This appeal is filed against Adjudication Order No.ADJ/260 to 263/AD(DK)B/94, dated 7-4-1994 passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing penalty of Rs. 1,000 on the appellant besides separate penalties on co noticees for the reason of failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export proceeds in contravention of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973. 3. This Tribunal has received a letter dated 24-7-2008 from Haresh Mehta and Co. stating that the appellant has already paid the penalty amount of Rs.1,000 and requesting this Tribunal to decide the appeal on merit on the grounds stated in the Memo of Appeal. In other words, the appellant does not want to be present or being represented for personal hearing. Accordingly, the appeal papers have been taken up for consideration. 4. Heard Shri AC. Singh, DLA for the respondent and perused the appeal record. The main cr...

Rajiv Tomar, Ex-constable of Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Divergent and conflicting views taken by this Tribunal on the requirement of issuance of notice and hearing the concerned police official before showing him the exit door for his non-disclosure of alleged involvement in a criminal case has necessitated constitution of this Full Bench.2. The bare minimum facts for determining the controversy in issue that may be noted at this stage reveal that Rajiv Tomar, the applicant herein, applied for appointment as Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2005. Having cleared the physical and medical test as also written examination and interview/personality test, he was appointed as Constable in Delhi Police on 28.3.2006 and was sent for training at Police Training College, Jharoda Kalan, Delhi. While undergoing training, he was served with an order dated 29.8.2006 terminating his services applying provisions of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as ...

Dabur India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 219(2008)DLT152

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment dated 31.1.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to in short as the ITAT) in ITA No. 1063/Del/2004.2. Before we consider the submissions made in support of the Appeal the following facts require to be noted:2.1 The Assessee is in the business of manufacturing herbal products and cosmetics. On 30.11.2000 assessee filed its return for Assessment year 2000-01 wherein, it declared an income of Rs 12,15,25,093/-. On 10.5.2001 the return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act as the returned income. However, notices were issued under Section 143(2) of the Act.2.2 In response to the aforesaid notices, hearing was attended by an authorized representative before the Assessing Officer. Details were sought and clarifications were supplied by the assessee. The net result was that with regard to issue, whether in c...

Ex. Wing Commander V. Mehta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT210

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The Air Force personnel deputed to ferry AN-32 aircrafts from Russia to India, utilized the stoppage on the way at Dubai to purchase dutiable and contraband goods and on detection, the same has resulted in disciplinary action against such service personnel including the petitioner.2. The petitioner was commissioned in the Air Force in the Flying Branch on 16.10.1965. A team of 32 personnel was detailed to ferry three AN-32 aircrafts from Russia to India. The team consisted of three Captains, Wing Commander B.S. Bakshi, Flight Lieutenant S. Katoch and the petitioner, who was also a Wing Commander. The team also included one Wing Commander J. Jaggi, who was the Logistic Member and Wing Commander A.K. Chaturvedi as the Engineering Member.It is the common case of the parties that before leaving for Russia all the members were given detailed briefing at the Air Headquarters regarding Custom rules and regulations and each member signed a declaration that he had read ...

N. Chirag Travels (P) Ltd. Vs. Ashwani Kumar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2008)BC379

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this application filed under Section 378, Cr.P.C. the applicant seeks grant of special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 12.9.2005 passed by the Court of Mr. A.K. Sarpal, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1998/1/03 titled as N. Chirag Travels (P) Ltd. v. Ashwani Kumar. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present application are:That the accused Sh. Ashwani Kumar, respondent No. 1 herein approached the complainant M/s. N. Chirag Travels (P) Ltd., appellant herein for purchase of air tickets which were duly supplied and received by him vide invoice No. 4932 for Rs. 20,667/-; invoice No. 4933 for Rs. 23,670/- and invoice No. 4934 for Rs. 13,504/-. The accused as consideration of the tickets purchased and in discharge of his liabilities, signed and issued a cheque bearing No. 486618 dated 6.8.2003 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., S-65, G.K.-I, New Delhi for Rs. 56,690/- from an account maintained by him in the name of M/s....

intercontinental Conslt. and Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008[12]STR689; [2009]19STT320

ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 to the extent it includes re-imbursement of expenses in the value of taxable services for the purposes of levy of service tax. The petitioner also submits that the said Rule is also ultra vires the provisions of Sections 66 and 67 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The petitioner admittedly provides consulting engineering services to its clients. One of its clients being the National Highways Authority of India. The petitioner receives payments for its services but it also receives reimbursement of expenses such as air travel, hotel stay, room rent, boarding and lodging charges etc. The petitioner has been paving service tax on the amount received by it for services rendered to its clients.3. However, the petitioner is not paying any service tax in respect of the expenses re-imbursed to it by its clients. The respondents have issued a show-cause noti...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Har Lal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ1162

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. Present appeal arises out of the award of compensation passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 10.2.2006. Learned Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 12,95,000 with an interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident.2. Brief summary of facts of the case to deal with contentions raised by the parties are as under:That the claimant Har Lal, aged about 50 years, sustained grievous injuries on 20.7.2003 at about 6 p.m. at Delhi-Hapur Road near Achheja village within the jurisdiction of P.S. Hapur Kotwali, Hapur, U.P. when his motor cycle bearing No. HR 33-D 8678 on which he was riding was allegedly hit by a tanker bearing No. UP 14-B 5121 at a fast speed in a rash and reckless manner. The motor cycle was dragged by the tanker to some distance as a result his right hand was severed at the spot. Thereafter, he was taken to Khan Nursing Home, Hapur by the public where he was given first aid and...