Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 3 of about 223 results (0.020 seconds)Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S Global Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy : Heard the ld. DR. 2. The respondents are not present despite notice. There is also no adjournment request. As such, the ground of appeal advanced by the department remains uncontroverted. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision after taking into account the grounds of appeal advanced by the department and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents. 3. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshwar Tewari Vs. Delhi Jal Board
Court: Delhi
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 05.01.2010 in O.A. No. 1190/2009 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Administrative Tribunals Act has been dismissed.2. Briefly stating the facts of this case are that the petitioner who was working with the respondent was served with a memorandum bearing No. DJB/VIJ/DISP/MINOR/99/CS-76/4487 dated 14.12.1999 whereby he was informed that an action was proposed against him under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Statement of imputation of misconduct was also framed against the petitioner stipulating:i) It was alleged that the petitioner had allowed mutation of 11 Water connection installed at 6, Alipur Road, Delhi on 06.03.1996.ii) It was further alleged that while passing the orders allowed the mutat...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Shekhar Suman
Court: Delhi
Anil Kumar, J.1. This is an Application by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 12th January, 2010 under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner/applicant has contended that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in holding that the Railway Administration was required to give job on completion of course to the respondent.2. It is contended that the review of order dated 6th July, 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal was sought on the ground that the job could not have been given to the respondent as the scheme had already been elapsed and the petitioner/applicant had only undertaken to reimburse the money spent on the course to the respondent without giving any undertaking to give him the job after the completion of the course.3. For seeking the review of order dated 12th January, 2010 and to contend that the petitioners are not liable to give the job to the respondent, the petitioners have also relied on the copy of review applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Ram Chet Vs. Renutrol Limited and anr.
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner workman impugns the order dated 4th March, 2003 of the Industrial Tribunal dismissing the complaint of the petitioner against the respondent employer under Section 33A of the I.D. Act. The petitioner in the complaint stated that the respondent employer, during the pendency of industrial dispute No. 76/1991 & industrial dispute No. 77/1991, with the following reference:Whether there was a lock out with effect from 15th March, 1991? If so, whether the workman shown in Annexure-A are entitled to wages for the lock out period and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?without holding any enquiry or serving any charge-sheet on the petitioner workman had dismissed him from employment to victimize him because of trade union activities. It was further stated that though an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act had been filed by the respondent employer on 3rd September, 1991 but the same had been withdrawn in or about the year 1996 a...
Tag this Judgment!Central Tibetan Schools Administration Vs. Vinod Kumar
Court: Delhi
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, Central Tibetan Schools Administration has challenged the order dated 5th November, 2009 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi in T.A No. 813/2009 titled as Sh. Vinod Kumar v. Central Tibetan Schools Administration, quashing of order dated 4th April, 1996 and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent, however, declining the prayer of respondent for grant of wages and other consequential benefits during the intervening period.2. The respondent had filed a writ petition in the High Court against the termination of his services first as a UDC by order dated 11th April, 1990 and later his services as a LDC by order dated 4th April, 1996 without conducting any enquiry and only by payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. In the writ petition filed by the respondent, he had sought quashing of both the orders with a direction for payment of salary, increments and all other allowances and benefits from the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Navrang Lal
Court: Delhi
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioners/Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway & Ors. have impugned the order dated 1st August, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA 1821/2005 titled as Navrang Lal v. Union of India and Ors., allowing the application of the respondent for protection of his last drawn pay in the construction division before he was repatriated to his parent division with Northern Railways, Bikaner, Rajasthan.2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the respondent was appointed as daily rated casual mate w.e.f. 11th January, 1977 in the scale of Rs. 210-270. Temporary status in the grade of 225-308 was granted to him and thereafter he was regularized as Gangman in Group-'D' post on 31st March, 1997.3. The respondent continued to work as a mate in Construction Division till he was repatriated to his substantial post in the parent division on 23rd June, 2001. After repatriation to the parent division, petitioner N...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Upadhyay Vs. the Hindustan Paper Corporation
Court: Delhi
Indermeet Kaur, J.1. Petitioner S.C. Upadhyay was appointed as a Sales Supervisor with the respondent namely Hindustan Paper Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'HPC') on 30.9.1980. After seven years of service, he was confirmed to the post of Assistant Manger (Sales) with effect from 1.8.1987. On 30.6.1992, he was promoted as Depot Manager (Sales). During the course of his employment, in the intervening period between the year 1993 to 1994 he had allegedly committed irregularities amounting to a serious misconduct. This was during the period when he was posted as Depot Manager (Sales) and functioning as Incharge of the Delhi depot. Allegation was that the petitioner individualy and/or in conspiracy with K.A. Khan, DGM (Sales) as also the authorized clearing agent M/s Chawla Brothers of Delhi along with other dealers/stockists caused wrongful loss to the corporation with a view to cause wrongful gain for himself as well as to the dealers and clearing agents which ran into several c...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saroj Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Suresh Kait, J.1. Instant appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2008 convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. For the former offence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for the latter to undergo RI for a period of one year. The third accused namely Sri Niwas was not committed to trial since he was declared a Proclaimed Offender.2. On 31.07.2005 at about 5:45 AM Anwar PW-2 made a call from his shop at No. 100 and informed that a dead body was lying near railway level crossing, Bakner, the same information was received by Ct.Satender Kumar PW-1 posted in PCR which is Ex.PW-1/A. Information was passed on to police station Narela by Ct.Satender Kumar. Police Station Narela registered DD No. 30-A, the same is Ex.PW-19/A.3. The investigation of the case was entrusted to SI Ishwar Singh PW-14 who reached at the spot ...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Sharma Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Manmohan Singh, J.1. By the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Sh. S.R. Sharma has prayed that this Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/directing the respondent No. 1 to reimburse to him medical expenditure incurred by him towards the treatment of his son amounting to Rs. 5,07,917.10/- with interest @ 18% per annum.2. The petitioner holds the post of a Senior Assistant, Administrative Branch, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and is a Medical Facility Card holder which entitles him to avail of medical treatments for his family and himself.3. The brief facts leading up to filing of the present writ are that the petitioner's son Sh. Kaushal Kumar Sharma suffered from drowsiness, high grade fever and loss of consciousness on 20.06.2007 whereafter he was rushed to Batra Hospital, New Delhi. Vide letter dated 26.06.2007 the petitioner informed respondent No. 2 District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as regards his s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gillette Diversified Operations Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
V.K. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.04.2008, whereby it allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/assessee being ITA No. 5342/Del/2004, against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) for the assessment year 2000-2001 and dismissed the Cross Appeal filed by Revenue, being ITA No. 3099/Del/2005.2. The respondent company, which is engaged in the business of leasing of equipments, filed a return declaring loss of Rs. 4,71,54,210/- for the assessment year 2000-2001. Since 1st January, 2000, the appellant company amalgamated with Gillette Diversified Operations Private Limited (GDOPL). The assessee company had purchased shares of WSIL on 4th April, 1996 for a sum of Rs. 7,92,70,381/-. Those shares were sold on 30th December, 1999 for a consideration of Rs. 7,88,76,000/-. However, due to application of cost index, the cost of these shares for the purpose of computation of capital gain worked out to Rs. 10,11,0...
Tag this Judgment!