Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 18 of about 223 results (0.021 seconds)National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanju Bala and ors.
Court: Delhi
J.R. Midha, J.1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 22,76,000/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4.2. The accident dated 9th April, 2006 resulted in the death of Tilak Raj Sharma. The deceased was survived by his widow, two minor sons and mother who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.3. The deceased was aged 38 years at the time of the accident and was working as a driver with Himachal Roadways drawing a salary of Rs. 9,329/- per month. The learned Tribunal took the future prospects into consideration by taking the average of Rs. 9,329/- and Rs. 28,000/-, 1/3rd was deducted towards his personal expenses and the multiplier of 15 was applied to compute the loss of dependency at Rs. 22,41,000/-. Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded for loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded for funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded is Rs. 22,76,000/-4. The learned Couns...
Tag this Judgment!Ex Ld. Raj Pal Singh Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The present petition has been transferred from Honble Delhi High Court to this Tribunal on its formation. 2. None appear for the petitioner. 3. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that respondents may be directed to grant him the service pension from the date of discharge i.e. with effect from 19.11.1993 along with arrears of pension after declaration to the effect that he is entitled for grant of his service element of pension and the impugned show cause notice dated 12.10.1993 has no effect on his right for service pension. 4. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of present petition are that petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 24.07.1981 and on completion of initial Military training, he was ordered to be posted in the operational unit of Army and at the time of discharge, he was posted in No.64 Cavalory, c/o. Basic Training Regiment, A.C. Centre and School, Ahmednagar. While in service, he was served with show cause notice dated 12.10.1993 for his discharge f...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Col. Jagmohan Singh Versus Union of India Through the Secretary an ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. In both the petitions, common questions of law and facts are involved and so, they are taken together for disposal by this common judgment. In these petitions, the prayers are confined to limited issues. T.A No.442 is filed for quashing the GCM proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that those proceedings are based on frivolous charges. The basis of the charge against the petitioner is the complaint of a transport contractor without any supporting evidence. The trial is being conducted in violation of the statutory provisions where his rights are being prejudicially affected. Even under the scheme of the Army Act, the Judge Advocate plays a very important role in the conclusion of the trial in a fair manner providing necessary assistance in the conduct of GCM. If the Judge Advocate is not legally qualified, there would not only be an unfair trial causing irreparable and irretrievable injury to the accused person, but at the same time, he would also be disqualified from act...
Tag this Judgment!Ex Major Rakesh Tomar Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The present petition has been transferred from Honble Delhi High Court to this Tribunal on its formation. 2. Petitioner by this petition has prayed to quash the order of the respondents to treat his disability only aggravated by military service. It is also prayed that by virtue of para 2 of the policy dated 30.08.2006, he may be given the benefit of service element in cases of the officers released from service before 30.08.2006 for being ultra virus to the Constitution of India as well as contrary to the settled legal position. In alternative, he prayed that respondents may be directed to grant him service element of disability pension with effect from 30.08.2006. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of present petition are that petitioner was selected for grant of short service commission in Indian Army after he qualified by the written test conducted by the Union Public Service Commission and interview. Thereafter, on exhaustive and thorough medical checkup and ...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Jaipur Ii Vs. M/S Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per S.K. Gaule: Heard both sides. 2. Revenue is in appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order No. 343-344(HKS)CE/JPR-II/2007 dated 4.6.2007 whereby Commissioner (Appeals) while relying upon the Tribunal’s decision in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. reported in 2007 (7) STR 26 (Tr-Del.) rejected the Department’s appeal filed against the order in original dated 30.3.2007 vide which the demand of service tax of Rs.739668/- was confirmed along with interest and penalty of Rs.1000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 was imposed. 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of man-made yarn of synthetic and artificial staple fibre falling under Chapter 55 of the CETA, 1985. They were also registered under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 as Goods Transport Operator. They have utilised the cenvat credit earned on various inputs, capital goods and service tax paid on input service. The Department sought to disallow the cred...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Jaipur I Vs. M/S Rohit Surfactants Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per S.K. Gaule: Heard both sides. 2. Revenue is in appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order in appeal No. 14(RKS)ST/JPR-I/2008 dated 24.1.2008. 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of detergent powder and cakes falling under Chapter 34 of CETA, 1985. They are availing cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the manufacture of final product, Spent Sulphuric Acid also gets generated as one of the product. The respondent cleared Spent Sulphuric Acid valued at Rs.583610/- to M/s Jubilant Organosys Ltd.,Gajraula for manufacture of fertiliser against the certificate dated 6.6.2006 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Divison, Hapur under Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 read with Rule Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. The Department asked the respondent to pay an amount equal to 10% of the price of Spent Sulphuric...
Tag this Judgment!Col. Harcharan Singh Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The present petition has been transferred from Honble Delhi High Court to this Tribunal on its formation. 2. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that by way of appropriate writ order or direction, respondents may be directed to promote the petitioner to the rank of Brigadier with effect from 03.12.2001 with all consequential benefits of pay and allowances, seniority and all other consequential benefits. It is also prayed that order cancelling the promotion of petitioner to the rank of Brigadier which is totally arbitrary and discriminatory may be quashed. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of present petition are that petitioner was granted commission with SSC-16, though had been selected for SSC-15 as a special case on account of his participating in 1972 Olympics. He represented the Country in two Olympics, three World Cups, two Asian Games where the Country won Bronze Medal in Olympics, one Gold, one Silver and one Bronze Medal in Hockey World Cup and two Si...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Vallabh Steels Ltd. Vs. Cce, Ludhiana
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
PER S.K. GAULE; The appellants filed this appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order No. 386-388/CE/Appl/Ldh/2007 dated 18.12.2007. The appellants are neither present nor they have made any request for adjournment. In these circumstances appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Ludhiana Vs. M/S. Ludhiana Gardens
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
PER S.K. GAULE; Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 112/CE/Ldh/09 dated 16.6.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty imposed on the respondents from double the amount to equal the amount of service tax involved in this case. 2. The respondents are engaged in providing service as Mandap Keeper. They were surprised by the Anti-evasion officers of Central Excise department. It was alleged that they have suppressed the taxable value. Therefore, demand was confirmed and the lower authorities has imposed the penalty of twice the amount of service tax involved under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty of double the amount to equal the amount of service tax. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Contention of the appellant is that the respondents have suppressed and concealed the quantum of service tax. The penalty under Section 78 had to be levied and the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Ghaziabad Vs. M/S. Hindon Forge (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per S.K. GAULE: Heard both sides. Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 65/CE/GZB/08 dated 29.2.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ghaziabad. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Rough Forged Goods of iron and steel falling under sub-heading 7207.90 and 7307.00 respectively of first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents re-exported the rejected goods and they have paid CVD and Special Excise duty (SED). They took credit of both the duties whereas they were entitled to avail Cenvat credit of CVD only and not SED. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 5,40,625/- pertaining to Special Excise duty, Rs. 1,86,958/-, Rs. 98,000/-, Rs. 4688/, Rs. 9878/-, and Rs. 1,15,851/- and imposed penalty of equal amount. The respondents filed appeal against order-in-original passed by the lower authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original so far it is concerned with the confirmation o...
Tag this Judgment!