Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 5 of about 223 results (0.022 seconds)In the Matter Of: Ex Hav Suresh Chander Versus Union of India and Othe ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant filed a writ petition (civil) No. 8333 of 2009 in the Honble Delhi High Court for quashing the release order dated 10.7.2006 (Annexure P-4) by which he was directed to be discharged with effect from 31.1.2007 vide Rule 13 (3) item 1 (iii) (v) and for reinstatment in service with all consequential benefits with effect from 1.2.2007. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 12.10.2009. 2. The applicant was enrolled in the Army on 2.3.1988. It is stated that while serving in high altitude area the applicant was placed in low medical category P-2 (permanent) on 22.3.2006. He was served with a show cause notice on 1.5.2006 for discharging him from service being low medical category P-2 (permanent). The applicant contends that he replied stating that he wished to continue in service but was released from service with effect from 1.2.2007 (Annexure P-4). The applicant maintains that low medical category army personnel cannot be relieved without holding an inv...
Tag this Judgment!Novelty Cinema and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and a ...
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioners by this petition impugn the order dated 25th November, 1982 of the respondent No. 1 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) holding the petitioners liable for deposit of provident fund of the workers engaged in the canteen and cycle stand at Novelty Cinema, Delhi and also the consequent order dated 19th April, 1983 determining a sum of Rs. 89,801.30p to be due and demanding the same from the petitioners. This Court by an interim order stayed the recovery subject to the petitioners furnishing a bank guarantee.2. The petitioner No. 1 M/s Novelty Cinema near Old Delhi Railway Station is stated to be owned and run by a partnership concern of the petitioners No. 2 to 4. Cinematographic films were exhibited in the said cinema and the same was covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioners had given some space in the premises of said cinema to one Sh. P.C. Mathur for running a canteen and anothe...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhdev Turi @ Samim Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Inter alia, Krishan Lal Chhabra PW-7 has deposed as under:My son Vikas used to live at 7/11 Jawala Nagar along with me and he was running a factory of a grill fancy items at 27/47 Main Road, Jawala Nagar. In the same premises I used to run Kiryana shop.Accused Saddiq and Shamim both present in the court (correctly identified by the witness) used to work in the factory of son Vikas. Shamim was working in the capacity of helper and Saddiq was karigar. Both of them are the resident of Bihar and they used to live G-24, Jagat Puri in a rented room.On 10.4.2000 both accused persons came to the factory of my son and after entering to the factory they started working there. They were having the key of the factory in their possession. At about 8:00 p.m. night on that day as there was no electricity both the accused persons came outside the factory and remained sitting there for about one hour and after that they went inside as the electricity resume in that area. I close...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. In a prolix and repetitive judgment spanning 47 pages, the learned Trial Judge has returned a verdict of guilt against the appellant and has convicted him for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC. Not only is the decision prolix and repetitive, but points of consideration which arose with respect to the evidence led have not even been discussed. Further, the cursory manner in which the evidence led has been noted has compelled us to paraphrase the instant decision for guidance of the learned Trial Judges that given the situation in which we all Judges find ourselves i.e. hard pressed for time, it is desirable that the Courts of Original Trial pen decisions as briefly as possible without compromising on noting the evidence led and after highlighting the issues, discuss the principles of law applicable with reference to precedents if any and straightaway proceed to give reasons for their decision. If on the same point 20 judgments are ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Jalandhar Vs. M/S International Tractors Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy : No one is present on behalf of the respondent. There is also no adjournment request. 2. Heard ld. DR Shri Anil Khanna, who states that in respect of the same respondent and on the same issue, there is a precedent order in favour of the Respondent vide CCE Jalandhar Vs. International Tractor Ltd. reported in 2007 (220) ELT 155. He further states that the Department had filed an appeal against the cited order but there is no stay obtained on that order. In view of the fact that the issue stands decided by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent and no stay order has been obtained against the same, we follow the ratio of same in this case and dismiss the appeal of the department....
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S Mayur Leather Crafts International and Another
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy : Heard both sides. We find that the lower appellate authority has recorded in his finding that the original authority has denied the exemption in toto without giving any reasons for denial. He has also recorded that the assessee-respondent has not been allowed cross-examination to prove their view points before the original authority. As such, we find that the lower appellate authority has come to the conclusion that the principles of natural justice has not been followed by not passing a speaking order and not allowing cross-examination. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, since the principles of natural justice have been violated by original authority, the same cannot be cured at the appellate level and the matter has to be re-decided by the original authority. Hence we dispose of the appeal directing the original authority to re-decide the matter following the principles of natural justice and to give an adequate opportunity of hearin...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Ludhiana Vs. M/S Deeps Tools Pvt. Ltd.
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.708/CE/CHD/REV/LDH/2007 dated 19.12.2007 vide which the appeal of the Department against the order of the original authority dated 12.12.2006 was rejected. 2. None appeared for the respondent in spite of notice. Heard the learned DR who reiterates the grounds of appeal. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused records. The relevant facts are that the respondents use copper wire for hanging the spanner in nickel solution for electroplating. After repeated use, the copper wire which is not usable any further is cleared as copper scrap. Show cause notice was issued alleging that copper scrap has arisen during the course of manufacture and therefore, duty is payable and penalty is imposable. The original authority dropped the proceedings on the show cause notice, after accepting the contention of the party both on merits and on the issue of limitation. On appeal by th...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Meerut-ii Vs. M/S Century Laminating Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Dr. Chhitaranjan Satapathy The respondents are not present. There is also no adjournment request. 2. Heard the ld. DR who states that the lower appellate authority had passed the order in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, we are of the view that the matter should be re-decided by the original authority after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the respondents and following the principles of natural justice. The appeal is disposed with the above direction....
Tag this Judgment!M/S Singh Alloys P. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy: Heard the ld. DR. No one is present on behalf of the appellants. There is also no adjournment request. As such, it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!M/S the Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 148-CE/MRT-II/2007 dated 26.7.07. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant, a manufacturer of De-natured Ethyl Alcohol, Fusel Oil and Carbon dioxide, receiveed duty paid M.S. Shapes and Sections and duty involved was Rs.2,28,906/-.They took 50% of the said amount, that is Rs.1,14,454/-, as credit on capital goods during the month of September 2005. The original authority held that M.S. Shapes and Sections do not fall under the category of capital goods and hence disallowed the cenvat credit based on show cause notice dated 24th August, 2006.The appellant, on being informed of the objection by the Department, reversed the credit taken by them before issue of show cause notice. They also did not take the balance 50% of the credit. The original authority apart from confirming the demand of duty amounting to Rs.1,14,454/- along with interest imposed equal amount as penalty in terms of Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit ...
Tag this Judgment!