Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 8 of about 223 results (0.020 seconds)Nirmal Industries Vs. Dhanju Ram and anr.
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. Pursuant to the earlier order dated 20th April, 2010, the parties have arrived at a settlement.2. This petition has been preferred with respect to the award dated 12th March, 2001 of the Industrial Tribunal holding the termination by the petitioner of the services of the respondents workmen to be illegal and unjustified but granting the relief only of payments by the petitioner of compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in lump sum to the respondent Shri Dhanju Ram and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lump sum to the respondent Shri Ram Jattan. This Court vide interim order had stayed the operation of the award. The counsel for the respondent workmen states that the respondent workmen have not challenged the said award.3. On the last date, the petitioner and the respondent workmen were directed to appear in person today. Though the legal representatives of the petitioners are stated to be present but the counsel for the respondent workmen states that the respondent workmen...
Tag this Judgment!Director General (Prison) Vs. Sh. Hari Shankar
Court: Delhi
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, Director General (Prison) has impugned the order dated 9th September, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 523 of 2009, titled as 'Sh. Hari Shankar v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.', allowing the original application of the respondent and setting aside the penalty of reduction by three stages with cumulative effect for a period of three years imposed upon the respondent pursuant to an enquiry proceedings and setting aside the order dated 20th August, 2007 of the disciplinary authority and Appellate Order dated 20th February, 2008.2. The respondent while working as a Warder was issued an imputation of misconduct alleging that on 17th February, 2004, he was posted in UT Office was found absent during the relevant time as he arrived in the Jail at 07.06 hours instead of 07.00 hours.3. The petitioner contended that the respondent while performing duty in Central Jail No. 1 on 17th February, 2004 wa...
Tag this Judgment!Jagir Singh Vs. Gurmeet Kaur
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Heard counsel.2. The present order will dispose of the Preliminary Issue No. 2, i.e. whether the suit is liable to be dismissed in view of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The issue was framed by Court on 12/01/2004. The suit claims declaration and consequential relief in respect of property No. D-69, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016 (hereafter called 'the suit property').3. The unamended suit contended that by sale deed dated 12th September, 1967, the suit property bearing No. D-69, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016 was purchased from Sh. Ashok Mansukhani by the plaintiff and late Shri Hardev Singh i.e the predecessor and the defendant.4. The plaintiff claims that he had contributed one half of the cost of the said property and all along it was understood and agreed that he would be half owner of the said property. It was further held that in December 1974, the plaintiff was in India and the defendant Sh. Hardev Singh sought to raise a dispute about his o...
Tag this Judgment!Food Corporation of India Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ...
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. This writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 4th September, 2002. A Special Leave Petition was preferred by the petitioner to the Supreme Court and which was granted and the SLP converted into a Civil Appeal No. 7482/2003. It appears that the said civil appeal was taken up for consideration along with several other civil appeals, informed by the counsel for the petitioner to be arising from judgments and orders of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Supreme Court disposed of all the said appeals vide common order dated 28th July, 2009.2. The question involved in all the aforesaid matters was of the liability of the petitioner Food Corporation of India for provident fund for the employees engaged through a contractor. The respondent RPFC, owing to the definition of employee in Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 held the petitioner liable for the provident fund for the employees engaged through a contractor a...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 04.05.2007 at about 1:30 PM information was received; informant being the appellant, that his mother had died and as deposed to by ASI Preet Pal Singh PW-12 to whom DD No. 16 recording said information at the police station was handed over, accompanied by Ct.Suraj Prakash he proceeded to the Jhuggi cluster near Rajasthan Udyog Nagar Jahangirpuri and as further deposed to by ASI Preet Pal Singh he saw a dead body of a 60 years old lady ready to be taken to the cremation ground when he reached the jhuggi of the appellant near Rajasthan Udyog Nagar Jahangirpuri. He found abrasion marks on the neck and injury marks on the arms of the body and hence seized the dead body and sent the same to the mortuary.2. Doctor K. Goel PW-5 conducted the post-mortem on the body on 06.05.2007 and noted bruises on the forehead, cheeks, neck and chest of the deceased. He noted two abrasions on the right shoulder top and left shoulder top. He noted lacerated wound over the dorsum of...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Panchkula Vs. M/S. Liberty Shoes Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. PANDA: Revenue has come in appeal with stay application and an application for early hearing. 2. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), against appeal filed by the assessee, noticing that the services received by the appellants from non-resident persons during the period 1.1.2005 to 31.3.2005 were not liable to tax in the hands of the recipient assessee, allowed the appeal. To hold so, learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of the Indian National Shipowners Association vs. U.O.I., reported in 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.). 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents objected to the appeal of the Revenue on preliminary ground that when there is no law there shall be neither adjudication nor recovery under the law, which has been rightly followed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). But such proposition is opposed by the learned D.R. for Revenue. 4. The Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) does not show any legal inconsistency in view of the dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Island Stone (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Cce, Jaipur-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Dr. C. Satapathy: Heard both sides. 2. In this case the impugned orders were signed by the original authority on 26.4.2007, though the order is dated 30.10.2007. Review order has been passed on 28.10.2009. It is the contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants that the impugned order has been passed in contravention of provision of Section 84(5) of the Finance Act, 1994 which describe a period of two years from the date on which the order are sought to be revised has been passed. He also cites decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise vs. M.M. Rubber Co., reported in 1991 (55) ELT 289 (S.C.) in support of his arguments. 3. Heard learned D.R. 4. In view of the specific provision under Section 84(5) of the Finance Act, 1994, and applying the ratio of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M. Rubber Co. (supra) cited by the learned Advocate we find that the order in view has been passed after expiry ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Harshita Handling Vs. Cce, Bhopal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. PANDA: The only dispute in this appeal is whether the activity carried out by the appellants shall be Repair and Maintenance service or Statutory obligation of technical inspection and certification service. 2. When the appellants were periodically testing the cylinders under Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004 framed under Section 5 and 7 of Indian Explosive Act 1884,such a service was construed by Revenue authority as maintenance and repair. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the activity carried out by the appellants was neither maintenance nor repair meant for public but statutory obligation discharged under the Explosive Act, 1884. The testing and inspection is statutory one discharged on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation in terms of work order dated 28.11.2001. In the absence of maintenance or repair the service cannot be called so. 4. Revenue’s argument is that orders have been passed by the lower authorities properly analyzing the wo...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. B.H.E.L. Vs. Cce, Kanpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. PANDA: The short question in this appeal is whether External Erection Service and other services shall fall under the category of Commissioning and Installation services. 2. Revenue made out the case against the assessee on the basis of certain information disclosed in the balance-sheet of the assessee. Pleading of the assessee is that erection was not intended to be taxed during the period 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 since the said service was brought to the ambit of taxation under Section 65(105) (zzd) read with Section 65 (29) of the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 10th September, 2004. There was no suppression of the fact by the appellants for which learned Commissioner (Appeals) while dealing with the appeal of the appellants categorically came to the conclusion that when there was a dispute on classification of service no penalty was imposable on the assessee. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that not only the adjudication has suffered from bar of limitation but has also been be...
Tag this Judgment!Maj. Gen. Hardev Singh, Kc, Avsm Versus Union of India Through the Sec ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Maj. Gen. Hardev Singh has brought this petition for quashing the orders dated 26.8.2009 and 19.2.2010 passed on the non-statutory and statutory complaints respectively and also for directing the respondents to read the confidential report of the period from 1.6.2006 to 30.6.2007 as nine point box grading in IOs endorsement and set aside ROs endorsements with respect to the aforesaid ACR and also to direct the respondents to scrutinise the endorsement of ROs in the rank of Brigadier by comparing them with the endorsement of IOs and other ROs for the past 20 years of service and if aberration amounting to unusual bringing down of the merit is noticed, same be expunged. Simultaneously, prayer has been made to re-assess the petitioner for promotion by holding fresh SSB applying the policy in vogue prior to the new policy dated 31.12.2008 and the new policy be declared to be irrational and arbitrary. 2. The facts, in brief, as unfolded by the petitioner, are: The petitioner was commiss...
Tag this Judgment!