Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments

M/S Inder Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: These two appeals by the same appellant arise out of a common order in original and common order in appeal. Accordingly, same are disposed off by this common order. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellants are manufacturer of M.S. ingots falling under sub-heading No.7206.90 of CETA, 1985. They were issued with 4 show cause notices as detailed below: Sl.No. SCN No. and date Period covered Duty demanded 01. V(17)171-Dem/96/2020 dated 20.09.96 April, 96 to June , 96 Rs.6,06,020/- 02. V(15)198-Dem/96/2319 dated 01.11.96 July, 96 to September, 96 Rs.3,62,952/- 03. V(15)36-Dem/97/371 dated 03.02.97 Oct. 96 to Dec. 96 Rs.80,387/- 04. V(15)210-Dem/97/1409 dated 25.06.97 Jan. 97 to April 97 Rs.4,64,630/- Total Duty Demanded Rs.15,13,989/- The basis for issue of the show cause notices was the order passed by the Collector, Kanpur in respect of M/s Alfa Castings Pvt. Ltd. treating average electricity consumption per M.T. of M.S. ingots as 100...

Cce, Delhi Vs. M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

The Registrar is expected to know that Division Bench consists of two Members and, therefore, whenever any explanation is sought for, he is required to place two copies before the Division Bench; he, however, has failed to do so in this matter. Registrar is, therefore, directed to place a copy of the explanation on the second file of the Bench forthwith. 2. The explanation refers to certain alleged lapses on the part of the Court Master and then recording about service of notice to the parties. One fails to understand as to how the matter relating to recording about service of notice can be expected from a Court Master when that is the job essentially of a Clerk working in the registry’s office who actually issues the notice and receives the intimation about the service thereof. The Court Master’s job essentially relates to the proceedings in the Court. This being an elementary thing, one fails to understand as to how the job relating to recording about service of notice wa...

C.C.E., Delhi Ii Vs. M/S Estocorp (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: E/2749/07 is an appeal by the Department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No.103-CE/DLH/2007 dated 31.7.2007. Cross-Objection No.284/2007 is connected to the above appeal. 2. None appears for the respondents. There is a communication dated 1.9.2009 addressed to the Assistant Registrar seeking decision of the appeal on merit. Heard the learned SDR. 3. The original authority held that education cess payable on the final product manufactured by the respondents should have been paid either out of credit accruing out of education cess paid on inputs or through cash and not out of credit accruing out of basic excise duty paid on the inputs and accordingly, demanded duty of Rs.78,798/- along with interest and imposed equal amount as penalty. Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal by the party set aside the order of the original authority following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries vs. C.C.E., Jammu reported in 2007 (207) ELT 673...

icici Bank Limited and Another Vs. Daksh Exim Solutions (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. In a complaint case No. 117/2008 filed by the respondent (complainant) against the OP Bank(revisionist), the OP failed to file the written reply despite that the Forum provided him seven opportunities on 10.12.2008, 19.1.2009, 13.2.2009, 19.3.2009, 27.4.2009, 25.5.2009 before striking off its defence on 23.7.2009 observing that neither the cost was paid nor reply was filed even today, fixing 19.10.2009 for the ex parte evidence. 2. The OP filed the reply on 19.10.2009 which was objected by the complainant pleading that the defence of the OP was already struck off, and no application for recall was given in this behalf, and the OP hereafter filed the recall application instantaneously which the District Consumer Forum fixed for hearing for 15.12.2009. 3. The District Consumer Forum on 15.12.2009 dismissed the recall application and fixed the case for 1.2.2010. The OP on 1.2.2010 applied before the District Forum for cross-examination of the complai...

Ashwani Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. Rule D.B. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent, we proceed to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek the quashing of the order dated 31st July, 2008 and the order dated 23rd March, 2009 passed by the respondents whereby the petitioner's leave period from 16th July, 2007 to 15th November, 2007 (123 days) has been regularised as half pay leave. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents had earlier, vide an order date 25th May, 2008, treated the aforesaid period as commuted leave on medical grounds debitable against 246 half pay leaves. The consequence of the passing of the impugned orders was that the petitioner was made liable to reimburse to the respondents the half pay for the said period of 123 days. We may notice some of the relevant facts at this stage.3. The petitioner joined Central Reserv...

Avtar Krishan Ahuja Vs. Dr. Gurbinder Singh Sadana

Court: Delhi

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 22nd October, 2009 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller dismissing an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC made by the petitioner.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte on 19th January, 2009 and the matter was listed on 20th January, 2009. On 20th January, 2009, the matter was adjourned to 7th March, 2009 and then to 1st April, 2009 on which dated two PWs, namely, PW-2 and PW-3 were examined and discharged. Proxy counsel for petitioner's counsel was present in the court on 1st April, 2009 when the witnesses were recorded, however, he did not act in the case. An application for setting aside ex-parte order dated 19th January, 2009 was moved on 15th April, 2009. In the application, the petitioner took a stand that on 2nd January, 2009 when the matter was transferred to Patiala House Courts before learned Additional Rent Co...

Om Kumar Vs. Suresh Chanchal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By these petitions, the petitioners have assailed an order dated 5th August, 2009 whereby the learned trial court allowed an application of the respondents for leave to defend.2. The petitioners filed a suit for recovery of due amount with 24% interest and damages from the defendants (petitioners herein). In the suit, it was stated that the decree be passed against defendants' servants, employees, legal heirs of the due amount as claimed and damages of Rs. 4,000/- be granted against defendants' servants and employees. The suit was filed against three defendants who were stated to be running a Lucky Draw in the name of 'Adarsh Lucky Scheme and M/s Adarsh Thrift & Credit Society.3. In the application for leave to defend, the defendants had taken the stand that the suit was not maintainable as it was not based on a written contract. No documents were filed and the membership of the lucky draw was in the name of different persons while the suit was filed by diffe...

Uma Bansal Vs. Nuzhat Hassan

Court: Delhi

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has alleged violation of order dated 1st September, 2008 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1829 of 2008. Operative part of the order reads as under:In view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned advertisement dated 09.02.2008 is quashed. This writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to constitute a DPC and consider the petitioner along with other eligible candidates for her promotion to the post of Editor in terms of its recruitment rules. The needful be done by the respondent as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight weeks from today.2. It is not disputed that an LPA was preferred by the respondent against order in W.P. (C) No. 1829 of 2008 before the Division Bench and vide order dated 13th April, 2009, counsel for both the parties submitted that leaving the question of law open, the appellant be allowed to carry out recruitment. The court also observ...

Shri Jagdish Rana and ors. Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioners seek a mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) to upgrade the posts of LDCs to UDCs in the ratio of 40:60 w.e.f. 1st October, 1979 and in the ratio of 50:50 w.e.f. 1st April, 1994 in the office of District & Session Judge, Delhi (respondent No. 3) and in the office of the Judge Small Causes Court, Delhi (respondent No. 4), in accordance with the office memorandums dated 16th October, 1979 and 20th March, 1994 respectively and further in accordance with the recommendations already made by the office of the District Judge Delhi and yet further on the basis of similar up-gradations done in the case of Naib Nazirs in the office of the Administrative Civil Judge, Delhi.2. The petitioners No. 1 & 2 were appointed as and have been working as LDCs w.e.f. 19th July, 1976 and 1st May, 1977 respectively in the office of the Judge Small Causes Court, Delhi. The petitioners No. 3 & 4 were appointed as and have been working...

Mangat Ram Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 168(2010)DLT634,(2010)158PLR40

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 23rd April, 2009 whereby the petitioner was not allowed to lead secondary evidence to prove the originals of documents which were in the nature of power of attorney and agreement to sell.2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was his son. The petitioner was owner of the property in question and has been residing in the property. The property was ancestral property. The petitioner allowed respondent, his eldest son, to reside with him while rest of the family was residing in another house. In the year 2004, the petitioner lost his wife and became dependent on the respondent for his daily needs. The respondent and his second wife started putting pressure on him to sell the property and give money to them so that the respondent could buy a plot in Delhi. The petitioner refused to oblige. However, when petitioner found that res...