Delhi Court January 2010 Judgments

Jitendra Pal Singh Vs. Lt. Governor Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT591

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to issue direction to respondent No. 3 to comply with Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.2. Brief facts as per the petitioner relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was a teacher in the respondent No. 3 school for the about last 30 years and attainted superannuation on 31.3.2005. He never voluntarily opted for Contributory Pension Scheme (CPF) scheme offered by the respondent and the option of pension was never given as required under Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act and the Rules framed there under and that for the same the present petition is filed.3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner never opted for CPF scheme and once having not opted the said scheme the petitioner is entitled to the pension as applicable to the Government teachers in terms of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act ...

Jai Karan Singh and ors. Vs. Delhi and District Cricket Association

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT743

Manmohan Singh , J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (referred to as 'CPC' for brevity) being I.A. No. 1787/2009. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration and injunction with the following prayers:[a] pass a decree of declaration declaring that the Defendant acting through its Executive Committee and or office bearers, has no right whatsoever to distribute complimentary tickets and or passes or duty and gold cards, etc.; and[b] pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant acting through its Executive Committee and or any office bearers and from any person representing defendant from printing, publishing and or distributing any complimentary tickets or passes or any duty or any gold cards etc., for the purpose of entry of any person into the stadium, for any event/match whether national or international;2. When the suit and the pending applications were ...

C.S.T.,delhi Vs. M/S Avery India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: Appeal No.ST/513/2008 is by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 11-ST/DLH/2008 dated 10.4.2008. Cross-Objection No.ST/CO/310/2008 is related to this appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1. The relevant background facts are that the respondents were issued with a show cause notice dated 10.102003 proposing service tax under the Head Consulting Engineering Service in respect of services received by them from Overseas Company and by order dated 31.5.05, the original authority confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest and imposed penalty under various Sections. On appeal by the party, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 17.1.2006 set aside the order of the original authority and the said order of Commissioner (Appeals) has been upheld by the Tribunal vide order dated 10.1.2008 thus rejecting appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3.2. In the meanwhile, the respondents filed refund claim date...

Commissioner of Central Excise Meerut I Vs. M/S. Gupta Transformer Pro ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 251-251A-/CE/MRT-I/2007 dated 28.12.2007. 2. Heard the learned Jt. CDR. None appeared for the respondents inspite of notice. 3. Original authority on a finding of clandestine removal of excisable goods by the respondents confirmed a demand of duty of Rs.76,013/- along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944; in addition, he imposed a penalty of Rs.76,013/- on Shri Rajeev Gupta, partner of the respondents firm. On appeal by the parties, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the charge of clandestine removal and confirmed the duty demand to the tune of Rs.35,213/-. She set aside the separate penalty on the partner. She also reduced the penalty imposed under Section 11AC from Rs.76,013/- to Rs.10,000/- on the ground that the respondents have paid the duty involved on clandestine removal of goods before issue of show cause notice. 4....

C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. Mithila Mellables (P) Ltd. and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: All these appeals by the Department arise out of a common order in appeal No. 421-427/CE/CHD/07 dated 25.9.2007 passed by Commissioner (Appeals),Chandigarh. 2. Heard the learned SDR for the Department and Shri Atul Gupta, Company Secretary for the respondents. The respondents in Appeals No.E/3080/07, 3081/07, 3083/07, 3084/07 and E/3085/07 are importers who imported heavy melting scrap under concessional rate of duty. These importers were registered under Section 6 of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules as dealers with a view to pass on Cenvat credit as first stage dealers. The respondents in Appeals No.E/3079/07 and E/3082/07 are manufacturers of iron and steel products who claimed to have received the inputs from the above-mentioned registered dealers. 3.1. The facts of the case are that on the basis of information that the said importers registered dealers have diverted the imported goods and issued only invoices and based on such invoic...

Secretary General, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT305; 2010(1)KarLJ472

Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2nd September, 2009 of the learned single Judge (S. Ravindra Bhat, J) in the writ petition filed by the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, 'the CPIO') nominated under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, 'the Act') questioning correctness and legality of the order dated 6th January, 2009 of the Central Information Commission (hereinafter, 'the CIC') whereby the request of the respondent No. 1 (a public person) for supply of information concerning declaration of personal assets by the Judges of the Supreme Court was upheld.PREFACE2. The subject matter at hand involves questions of great importance concerning balance of rights of individuals and equities against the backdrop of paradigm changes brought about by the legislature through the Act ushering in an era of transparency, probity and accountability as also the increasing expectation of the civil society tha...

Tahira Begum Vs. Sumitar Kaur and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT443

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. This petition, originally preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was at the time of hearing on 11th November, 2009 and vide order of that date converted into a Revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and heard as such. The petition has been preferred by a landlord aggrieved from the order of the Additional Rent Controller granting leave to the respondents/tenants to contest the petition for eviction filed by the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. One of the requirement of Section 14(1)(e) is of the landlord also being the owner of the tenancy premises. The Additional Rent Controller has granted leave to defend to the tenants only on the ground that the pleas of the respondents/tenants qua ownership raise a triable issue.2. The petitioner/landlord along with the petition and the respondents/tenants along with reply to the petition before this Court have filed as annexures thereto, copies of the record...

Shri Raj Chawla Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]154CompCas16(Delhi); [2010]97SCL373(Delhi)

V.K. Jain, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 24(1) and 27 of Securities & Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.2. The petitioner was a Director in M/s Fair Deal Forests Limited, till 30th March, 1997 when she resigned from the Directorship and also submitted Form-32 with Registrar of Companies. In order to regulate entities, which used to issue instruments such as Agro Bonds, Plantation Bonds, etc., Government of India decided to treat such schemes as Collective Investment Schemes and brought them under the purview of SEBI Act, 1992, with the object of protecting the investors and promoting legitimate investment activities. Securities & Exchange Board of India (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 were thereafter framed by SEBI. Vide its letter dated December 15, 1999/December 29, 1999 and also by way of a public notice, SEBI directed M/s F...

Canara Bank Vs. Rajiv Tyagi and Associates and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT523; (2010)157PLR1

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the defendant No. 1 in a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,68,796/- with interest and costs instituted by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. The petitioner /defendant No. 1 (hereinafter called Bank) is aggrieved from the order dated 28th March, 2009 of the trial court dismissing the application of the Bank for permission to serve interrogatories on the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. This Court while issuing notice of this petition vide ex parte order dated 20th July, 2009 which remains in force stayed further proceedings in the suit before the trial court. 2. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff, in the plaint in the suit from which this petition arises, pleaded that it was rendering legal advice and services to the Bank; that it was an empanelled lawyer /law firm with the Bank; that the Bank had devised a schedule of fee for engaging advocates for handling legal matters before various courts/fora...

Dr. Nathu Lal Vaishi and anr. Vs. G.S. Kamal Advocate and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT751

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. This appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the 'Act') is preferred against the judgment/order dated 6th February, 1995 of the Additional District Judge dismissing the petition filed by the arbitrator/respondent No. 1 herein under Section 14 and 17 of the Act for making the arbitration award dated 17th September, 1992 a rule of the Court. The said arbitration was between the appellants on the one hand and the respondent No. 2 on the other hand. Neither of the parties preferred objections to the arbitral award before the Additional District Judge. The respondent No. 2 has not opposed the present appeal also. Notwithstanding, there being no objection to making the award a rule of the court, the Additional District judge dismissed the petition inter alia on the ground that the arbitration award was contrary to law and also being required to be registered and being not registered could not be made a rule of the court. Aggrieved the...