Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 24 of about 331 results (0.015 seconds)Joginder Singh Vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner desires that the judgment and order dated 8.5.2009 as also the order dated 9.7.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing O.A.No.1590/2008 and RA No.106/2009 respectively, be set aside and as a consequence O.A.No.1590/2008 be allowed. It is further prayed that as a consequence of allowing O.A.No.1590/2008, order dated 29.5.2008 passed by the first respondent be set aside and a direction be issued to said respondent to include the name of the petitioner in Promotion List F (Exe.) with effect from 30.11.2007 with all consequential benefits including seniority, pay and allowances.2. Briefly noted, the relevant facts, giving rise to the claim of the petitioner are that he joined service under the first respondent in the police department and as of the year 2007 was functioning as ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Hightech Electrothermics Vs M/S Indo Arya Central Transport and Hy ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.(Oral)1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant M/s Hightech Electrothermics and Hydropower Ltd. against the impugned judgment dated 27.3.2010 whereby the judgment of the Trial Judge dated 16.11.2009 had been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff i.e. M/s Indo Arya Central Transport Ltd. stood decreed.2. Factual matrix of the case is as follows:- i. Plaintiff and the defendant are both companies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Defendant had booked a consignment of 405 metric tons of ferrosilicon packed in jute bags with the plaintiff. The said consignment was to be delivered from Pallakad (Kerala) in an intact and safe condition at Hissar (Haryana).ii. Defendant acknowledged the bills of the plaintiff and had agreed to make the payment in terms of the agreement dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangat Ram Sharma (Since Deceased Lrs).Vs Dda and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The short grievance raised in the writ petition is to the denial of arrears of salary payable to the deceased petitioner on account of the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner being set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal.2. It is not in dispute that where a Government servant is compulsorily retired in exercise of power conferred by FR-56j and the same is set aside resulting in the Government servant being reinstated in service, FR-56jj (i)&(ii) is applicable. The same reads as under:(jj)(i) If on a review of the case either on a representation from the Government servant retired prematurely or otherwise, it is decided to reinstate the Government servant in service, the authority ordering reinstatement may regulate the intervening period between the date of premature retirement and the d...
Tag this Judgment!VipIn Kumar Vs Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.8.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing OA No.2020/2005.2. The challenge before the Tribunal was to the order dated 21.2.2005 passed by the Disciplinary Authority inflicting penalty of compulsory retirement from service upon the petitioner as also the order passed by the Statutory Appellate Authority being the order dated 13.6.2005.3. It is not in dispute that vide memorandum dated 20.2.2002, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner listing two articles of charges. It is also not in dispute that prior thereto a charge sheet on same facts was issued against the petitioner and an inquiry was held which was ultimately found to be not in compliance with law by the Central Administrative Tribunal when OA No.2294/2001 was filed, ...
Tag this Judgment!Uoi Vs Jagmohan Sharma
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. At the outset it may be recorded that Ashok Kumar, the respondent in W.P.(C) No.3992/2008, whose identity has been established with reference to the ID card issued by the Election Commission of India (photocopy whereof is taken on record under his signatures) as also the PAN card issued by the Government of India (photocopy whereof is taken on record under his signatures) states that notwithstanding he having won the battle against the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, his consent be recorded that he withdraws his claim and thus we proceed to declare that as regards Ashok Kumar, the petitioner stands relieved from the rigours of the impugned order dated 09.07.2007 allowing O.A. No.1829/2006.2. The issue raised has thus to be considered vis-a-vis Jag Mohan Sharma, the respondent in W...
Tag this Judgment!Uoi and anr. Vs Shri H.Phani Raju
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The petitioner, Union of India, is aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing OA No.1658/2009 filed by the respondent, who is a member of the Indian Revenue Service, having joined in the year 1998.2. The issue before the Tribunal was to the legality of the order dated 12.6.2009 transferring the respondent to the Tamil Nadu region, by treating as if he was still posted in the Mumbai region.3. As per the respondent, he had already been transferred to Andhra Pradesh region vide order dated 10.9.2007; where, as per the transfer policy of the petitioner he was entitled to remain for a period of 16 years.4. From the pleadings before the Tribunal, it may be highlighted, that it was not the case of the petitioner that notwithstanding the respondent being trans...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise,m/S. Vanasthali Textiles Indus. Ltd. Ja ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 43(RKS)ST/JPR-I/2008 dated 17.3.2008 by which order of the original authority denying the Cenvat credit on mobile phone services amounting to Rs.35,276/- was upheld. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the show cause notice was issued alleging that service tax paid on mobile phones are not eligible for credit. He submits that the same is eligible to be taken as credit as settled by various decisions of the Tribunal for eg. decision in the case of CCE, Bangalore I vs. Conzerv Systems (Pvt.) Ltd. reported in [2009 (13) STR 638(Tri-Bang.)]. The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the show cause notice and held that the phones are in the name of individuals and such finding is without any basis. 4. Learned SDR reiterates the findings and reasoning of Commissioner (Appeals). 5. On perusal of the show cause notice, it is seen that the credit was sought to be denied...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.and C.Ex., Kanpur Vs. Shri Govind Das, Authorised Respondent, Sign ...
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. 400-CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 23.1.2008 by which the order of the original authority in imposing an amount of Rs.2000/- as penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, on the authorised signatory was upheld. 2. The Department is of the view that there is minimum of Rs.10,000/- as penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. This issue is no more res integra as settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Bhopal vs. Rama Wood Craft (P) Ltd. reported in 2008 (225) ELT 348 holding that there is no minimum penalty prescribed under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The wordings of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 are similar to those Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in so far as the same relates to stipulation of quantum of penalty. Therefore, it emerges that there ...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.and C.Ex., Kanpur Vs. M/S Bunny Polyplast (India)
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. 31-CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 29.1.2008 by which the order of the original authority imposing an amount of Rs.2,50,409/- as penalty equal to the duty under Section 11AC was set aside. 2. Heard both sides. 3. On 10.3.06, the officers visited the factory premises of the respondents and found substantial shortages of finished goods valued over Rs.15 lakhs. The details of shortages found are as follows:- Sl.No. Description of goods Shortage (in pairs) Rate per hour Value (Rs.) Excise Duty (Rs.) Edu. Cess (Rs) Total duty (Rs.) 01 PU Sole 5500 115.00 6,32,500 1,01,200 2,024 1,03,224 02 PU Sole 8500 75.00 6,37,500 1,02,000 2,024 1,04,040 03 PUSole 4100 64.48 2,64,368 42,299 846 43,145 TOTAL 18,100 15,34,368 2,45,499 4,910 2,50,409 The partner Shri Rohit, in his statement under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 given on 10.3.06 admitted that the finished goods would have been cleared...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Shah Afzal Vs Medical Council of India and anr
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? YES ORDER1. This judgment shall dispose of three writ petitions. Two of them have been filed by Mohd. Shah Afzal and one on behalf of MCI. We shall refer to Mohd. Shah Afzal as the petitioner for the sake of convenience in all the three petitions and the Medical Council of India shall be referred to as the MCI, the other parties being the University of Delhi, which shall be referred to as the Delhi University, and the Union of India.2. The petitioner is an orthopedically handicapped person and has a locomotor disability concerning his lower limbs to the extent of 64%. He has, on more than one occasion, applied for admission to the MBBS course of the Delhi University against seats reserved for persons with disabilities and claims his right under Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Prot...
Tag this Judgment!