Delhi Court February 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 1 of about 64 results (0.020 seconds)M/S. Heg Ltd. Vs. Cst, Indore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Ld. Counsel Shri Ravi Raghvan mentions that he is engaged in this case and awaiting the Vakalatnama from the appellant HEG Ltd. who were before the Hon ble High Court of M.P. as respondent in CER.1/2002. He expresses the difficulty that he being engaged for the first time in this case, he would require four weeks time to get the file from the appellant and also with the co-operation of Revenue, he shall draw the statement of case for consideration of the Bench. Accordingly, he prays that if the matter is called on 26.3.2010, both sides shall be able to settle the draft and place before the Tribunal for appropriate consideration and finality. 2. We notice that revenue although was in appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, there is no concern shown by them today without coming out with a draft statement of facts for consideration by the Bench. 3. In view of the aforesaid difficulties and the matter having travelled for long time with series of litigation, it would be proper for ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Hotline Cpt Ltd. Vs. Cce, Indore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N.Panda: Vide stay order 27.11.09, the Bench has directed to deposit an amount of Rs.20 lakhs (Rs.ten lakhs) within eight weeks from the date of the order and to make compliance on 12.2.2010. The appellant has made an application for extending the date of compliance on the ground of pendency of writ application No.1228/2010 before Hon’ble High Court of M.P. as well as financial stringency. 2. The application appears to be without proper fees paid and not registered as Misc. application. The appellant is directed to make proper application for consideration, otherwise the prayer shall not be entertained. Matter is fixed for hearing on 29.3.2010. Issue notice....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. C.T.Cotton Yarn Vs. Cst, New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N.Panda: By stay order dt.24.8.09 the appellant was directed to make pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.20 lakhs within six weeks from the date of order with further direction to make deposit of the entire interest due within one month of service of intimation quantifying interest liability till the date of payment. Compliance in respect of penalty was fixed to 16.10.09 and towards interest to 4.12.09. Learned DR Shri B.L.Soni submits that interest liability was quantified by the appropriate authorities on 14.10.09 and that was communicated to Asstt. Commissioner. 2. Today none present for the appellant and there is nothing on record to show that the stay order was complied with. The Registrar of the Tribunal by his order dt.8.2.2010 stated that there was no compliance before him on the date fixed. 3. It is made clear that right of appeal is conditional and failure to fulfil the condition makes, the appeal liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Wtd Sri Italy Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
M.L. Sahni, Member (Oral): 1. The short facts of the case are that the Italy based complainant company which has contract business in India has a Current Account bearing number 01000/071053 with the OP Bank. The OPs cheque books pertaining to that account were got lost and the complainant intimated the OP Bank on 4.2.2003 by sending a written information to stop payments to all cheques which were not encashed by then, duly received. 2. The complainant thereafter on 22.9.2004 requested the OP Bank in writing to furnish the details about the cheques and the statement of account and the OP Bank in turn supplied the statement of account to the complainant. The complainants grouse in the complaint is that on perusing the statement of account, it came to its notice that despite receipt of its intimation to stop the payment, the OP bank had encashed three cheques on 7th July and three cheques on 26th July, 2003 in total six cheques for an amount of Rs. 11,98,081. 3. The complainant thereafter...
Tag this Judgment!S. Janani Vs. Godrej Hi Care Limited
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. Short facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant engaged OP for termite treatment for her residential unit situated in East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Her allegation is that the OP had assured her, that it would do a thorough termite treatment lasting for atleast five years but just after two months in October 2006, termite surfaced in all the doors, shelves of her office rooms, and penetrated the entire wood work in the flat, including the wardrobe of her bedroom. She had therefore to pull down complete wood work in her office room and wardrobe in her bedroom re-done. The complainant asked the OP to pay compensation towards that which the OP refused, and she therefore filed a complaint with a prayer that she be awarded an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation against the OP. 2. OP opposed the claim of the complainant on various grounds and filed written statement. The District Forum repelled the contention of the OP holding that it is not...
Tag this Judgment!Lac VashishthA. M Versus the Union of India Through Secretary, Ministr ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The petitioner is distressed by the DCM proceedings of 23.4.2002 in which he was sentenced to be detained for one month, to be dismissed from service and to be reduced to the ranks. He also seeks quashing the order of the Chief of the Area Staff of 15.3.2006 rejecting his post confirmation petition. He also seeks to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner, who was a Corporal in the Air Force at the time of the offence, was granted leave from 21.4.2001 to 21.5.2001. While at home an accident occurred wherein the petitioners parents lives were in danger and he sent a telegram to his CO for extension of leave, but the same was rejected. Keeping in view the critical situation at home, the petitioner over-stayed leave from 22.5.2001 to 11.7.2001 when he voluntarily rejoined. After rejoining, the situation at home again escalated and he proceeded on leave without any sanction from 24.7.2001 to 30.8.2001. On return, he was tried by a DCM for both these offe...
Tag this Judgment!Jc-338316p Nb Sub Vikram Singh Versus Union of India, Through the Secr ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the illegal action of the respondents, wherein despite being fully qualified and eligible, he has been denied promotion to the rank of Subedar while his juniors have been promoted. He has been denied promotion on the ground that he is lacking adequate number of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). The petitioner pleads that he is not to blame for such deficiency in ACR and that it was the respondents who were responsible for it. 2. Before getting onto the contenting view-points involved in this case, it would be appropriate to go into the background so as to understand the issues and their implications in the correct perspective. 3. The applicant belongs to a trade called Survey Auto Carto (SAC). It is a specialised trade of the Military Survey Group. In normal course, selection to this post was made through direct recruitment. However, at a point of time, since there were large number of vacancies in this trade, it was decided by Army HQs to make up thi...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Wing Commander S Yadav Versus the Union of India and ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant Wing Commander S Yadav had filed a writ petition (civil) 2686 of 1992 before the Honble Delhi High Court. Aggrieved against the censure order dated 3.12.1991 (Annexure P-1) by which he was awarded severe displeasure for a period of 18 months with effect from 25.11.1991 and his non selection for promotion the rank of Group Wg Cdr S Yadav TA 217 of 09 Captain. The same was transferred to this Tribunal on Constitution of the Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act of 2007. 2. In his application the applicant has stated that he was commissioned in the Indian Air Force on 23.6.1968. Only 12 days were given to his unit (No 28 Wing Air Force) to make local purchases of certain items including hard wood ballies and hand over the same to 5 Engineer Regiment for the purpose of constructing targets at Tilpat Ranges for Air Power Demonstration (ADP) scheduled in March 1989. Accordingly Squadron Leader M.B. Mohandas, officer in charge, local Purchase Cell, of his unit made th...
Tag this Judgment!Col. Gln Keshav Versus Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Col. GLN Keshav, the appellant herein, seeks to quash the order dated 3.9.2007 passed by the Controller General, Defence Accounts, New Delhi, which was communicated vide D.O Letter No. AT/I/1216/XIV, declining to grant Compensatory Field Area Allowance (CFAA). He also seeks to grant appropriate direction granting him CFAA from the date of his posting in Leh till date and onwards till being posted out of the sector of Leh in accordance with the Regulations on the subject. 2. According to the appellant, on 19.12.2006, he was posted as Colonel (Works and Planning) in HQ Chief Engineer (Project), Himank for laying and maintaining the operational efficiency of the strategic roads and passes in Leh Sector. As per the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission, since the appellant was eligible for CFAA, he made a claim to the Controller General, Defence Accounts, New Delhi unsuccessfully. The reason for rejecting his claim was based on the administrative instruction dated 13.4.1994, const...
Tag this Judgment!Col. (Now Lt. Colonel) M. NasiruddIn and Another Versus Union of India ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order of promulgation dated 30.10.1991 passed by the General Officer, Commanding-in-Chief (third respondent), whereby the petitioners were removed from service. Prayer has also been made for quashing the General Court Martial (GCM) proceedings convened at JAT Regiment Centre, Bareilly, including the revisional proceedings taken by GCM from 23rd August to 25th August 1991. It is stated that the GCM proceedings against the petitioners are void ab initio and that Army Rule 180 has not been complied with. The rights of the petitioners were adversely affected on account of the non-adherence of DSR Para 518 and the Army Rules 22 to 25, 33 and 34. 2. The facts, as unfolded by the petitioners, are: To carry out the purchase of 1174 Mules at various locations, a purchase board was constituted comprising the first petitioner (presiding officer), one member as ASC representative of HQ 11 Corps, one representative of Receiving Unit and the DRO or hi...
Tag this Judgment!