Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 23 of about 331 results (0.011 seconds)Rameshwar Dayal Gupta Vs Abaskar Construction P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the respondent for issuance of a writ/ order in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ against the award dated 24.09.2004 passed by Labour Court VIII, Delhi in I.D. No. 262/2002 by which award the Labour Court held that the respondent management had committed no illegality by issuing the retirement letter dated 16.11.2001 to the petitioner.2. Concisely, the facts leading up to the filing of the present writ are that the petitioner was employed as an accountant by the respondent in 1972 vide appointment letter dated 15.06.1972 after his interview with the Managing Director of the respondent Sh. B.P. Jain. The petitioner worked with the respondent management dutifu...
Tag this Judgment!Prashant Rathi Vs State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for transfer of the case entitled 'State vs. Prashant Rathi' in respect of FIR No.216/2002, lodged by the father of the deceased wife of the petitioner under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC with Police Station: Shakarpur, stated to be pending before the Court of Shri Sanjay Garg, ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, to another Court in the same District.2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite order dated 07.11.2009 passed by the learned ASJ, Sh. Sanjay Garg, the matter could not be transferred to another Court as the District Judge-VI does not have the power to do so and, therefore, he returned the file to the same Court. However, a perusal of the paper book shows otherwise. Vi...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.Ex.and Cus., Raipur Vs. M/S Vandana Rolling Mills Limited
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. 222/RPR-I/2007 dated 29.10.2007, by which the order of the original authority rejecting the refund claim of Rs.17,010/-, of excess paid the interest was set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief. Cross-Objection No.196/08 is connected to this appeal. When the matter was on Board on 10.3.10, it was represented on behalf of the Department that the present appeal should be tagged to the Appeal No.E/796/08. On the said date, none appeared for the respondents. By a letter dated 6.7.10, the learned Advocate for the assessee submitted that the present appeal should be tagged to Appeal No.E/796/08 pending before the Division Bench. 2. It is ascertained that the appeal No.E/796/08 has been disposed of more than 2 years back (the learned Advocate in the present appeal represented the party in Appeal No.E/796/08 as well). Therefore, the prayer for adjournment of the case and tagg...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Raipur (C.G.) Vs. M/S Radha Madhav Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: 1.1 Appeal No.E/956/07 is by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 188/RPR-I/2006 dated 16.10.2006. Cross-Objection No.E/CO/28/10 is connected to this appeal filed by respondent after receipt of the notice of appeal on 25.01.2008. There is nearly 1 year 11 months delay in filing the cross-objection. The application No.E/COD/24/2010 is seeking condonation of delay in filing the cross-objection on the ground that the clerk of the assessee has misplaced the file and papers of the present matter. 1.2 As the reasons adduced for the delay are not convincing the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, cross-objection is also to be dismissed. 3. Learned SDR fairly submits that identical issue involving the same respondent has been disposed of by allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the original authority keeping all the issues open in Appeal No.E/958/07 vide order No.722/2010-SM(Br.) dated 5.7.10. 4. None a...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Delhi Iv Vs. M/S Pt. Rati Ram Engineering Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This appeal is by the Department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 13/CE/Appl/DLH IV/2008 dated 3.3.2008, by which the order of the original authority dated 29.3.07 was set aside. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The matter is before the Tribunal for the second time having been remanded to the original authority by Final Order No.A/175/2003-NB/SM dated 28.1.2003. 4. The relevant facts, in brief, are that on 18.3.98, when the officers visited the factory premises of the respondent, they ascertained shortage of 327.417 MT of inputs which was based on the details like opening balance of stock as on 1.4.96, quantity of inputs received from 1.4.96, quantity of input used and the finished product manufactured and adopting per piece requirement on uniform basis. The original authority, in terms of the remand order examined the issues and came to the conclusion that out of the total shortage of 327.417 MT of raw materials alleged, taking into account the discrepancies p...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sagar and anr. Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1. By this appeal the appellants have assailed an award dated 21 st April, 2009 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,98,343.00 and held that responsibility of paying this compensation was on the owner of the scooter since there was a breach of terms of insurance policy as the driver, who was son of the owner of the scooter, had no licence to drive the vehicle.2. The appellants have assailed the award on the ground that the accident had occurred due to sole negligence on the part of deceased. The deceased was driving the scooter without wearing helmet and without having driving licence. He had hurriedly taken a wrong turn through an illegal cut in middle verge of the road and hit the scooter of appellant no. 2. Due to this act of the deceased, the appellant no. 2 sustained injuries and the scooter also g...
Tag this Judgment!ishan Institute of Managemnet Vs National Council for Teacher Educatio ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?ORDER.1. Though no notice of this petition has been issued to the respondents as yet but the counsel for the respondents was called for yesterday and has been heard today.2. The petitioner had applied on 30th December, 2003 to the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) established under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, for recognition for imparting educational course of Basic Training Certificate (BTC). The NRC vide its order dated 14th November, 2006 found the Institute of the petitioner fit for grant of recognition for imparting education in the BTC course to 50 students, subject to the condition of appointment of qualified staff through duly constituted selection committee and subject to certain other conditions. It is the case of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Balraj Singh Vs Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (ORAL)1. At a departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer returned a finding of guilt against the petitioner and co-delinquent employees Constable Krishan Pal and Kanwar Pal.2. After complying with the procedures of the law and considering the response of the petitioner to the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority inflicted the penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of 5 years permanently.3. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal filed and hence the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal.4. From the pleadings before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the impugned order dated 16.12.2008, it is apparent that the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that there was no legally admissible evidence against him to return the verdict of guilt. The sai...
Tag this Judgment!Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs Bishan Singh Chauhan
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (ORAL)1. Rule DB.2. Heard for disposal.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that in view of the findings returned by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide impugned order dated 02.02.2009 the matter needed to be remanded before the Disciplinary Authority and no finding could be returned that it is a case of no evidence.4. We find merit in the submission urged by learned counsel for the petitioner.5. A perusal of paragraphs 17, 18 & 19 of the impugned decision shows that what has been found to be faulty with the report of the enquiry officer is the fact that certain evidence which is beneficial to the charged officer has been totally ignored to be considered by the enquiry officer and as a result thereof the report stands tainted.6. In view of para 17 to 19 of the impugned decision, it cannot be said tha...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar and anr. Vs State (N.C.T) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? YesORDER.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order on Sentence dated July 5, 1997, whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 449 and 302 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each or to undergo R.I. for one year each in default under Section 302/34 of IPC and were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each or to undergo R.I. for 6 months each in default under Section 449/34 of IPC.2. On 20th December 1993 at about 8.42 AM Police Control Room informed Police Station Srinivas Puri that one person had been stabbed in 11/25 Nehru Nagar and had died on the spot. The information was recorded vide DD No. 3A of the Police Station. On receipt of copy of DD, Inspector Ram Kishan, SHO ...
Tag this Judgment!