Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 33 of about 331 results (0.020 seconds)Radhey Shyam Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner, working with the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC), by this writ petition impugns the action of respondent IOC of seeking to recover back the House Rent Allowance (HRA) paid to the petitioner w.e.f. 1st January, 1997 to 31st January, 2003; the petitioner seeks further direction for payment to him of HRA from 1st February, 2003 onwards.2. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Clause 7 of the Memorandum of Settlement between the respondent IOC and its workmen, HRA is payable on revised basic pay effective 1st January, 1997, without production of rent receipt and merely upon the workmen furnishing a certificate that they have incurred expenditure on rent/contributed towards rent/residented accommodation etc; that he was being so paid HRA w.e.f. 1st January, 1997; however...
Tag this Judgment!Central Government Employees ... Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner No.1, a Union (of which petitioner No.2 is the Secretary) of about 400 workers employed with Kendriya Bhandar, earlier known as Central Government Employees Consumer Co- operative Society Ltd. (respondent No. 3), a Society originally registered under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act and now registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act seeks a declaration that its members are civil servants of the Central Government and further seeks a direction to the Government of India to pay to them the same pay scale, other allowances and benefits as being paid to the employees of the Central Government. I may notice that though in the prayer paragraph a direction to treat the petitioner union as civil servants similarly to the employees of the Central Services Sports Control Boar...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Shri Mohan Lal (Deceased)
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner DTC by this writ petition impugns the dismissal by the Industrial Tribunal of its application under Section 33 (2)(b) of the ID Act seeking approval of its action/order dated 6th July, 1993 of dismissal of the deceased workman Shri Mohan Lal whose legal heirs are now the respondent no.1. The workman Shri Mohan Lal died on 24th December, 1998 during the pendency of the application under Section 33(2)(b) before the Industrial Tribunal and his legal heirs were substituted in his place. The Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 7th August, 2002 on the preliminary issue framed as to the validity of the domestic inquiry preceding the order of termination of service, held the domestic inquiry to be vitiated for the reason of the petitioner DTC, though having placed the record of the domestic in...
Tag this Judgment!Dev Nandan Tati Vs Babu Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. Appellant has filed this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') seeking condonation of delay of three days in filing the appeal on the ground that delay in filing the appeal was due to miscalculation of days by the counsel and the same was not intentional. No reply to the application has been filed by the Respondents.2. Mr. Vivek Shama, counsel for the Respondents has submitted that application is not supported by an affidavit of the counsel who mis- calculated the days in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation and therefore, the application deserves dismissal.3. True that there is three days delay in filing the appeal. The impugned judgment and decree is dated 1st April, 2003 and the appeal was filed by the appellant on 15.07.2003. There were certa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalanadhar Vs. M/S. Overseas Healthcar ...
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. 200/CE/APPL/Jal/2008 dated 23.4.2008 by which the order of the original authority confirming the demand of Rs.29,079/- along with interest and imposition of penalty of Rs. 29,079/- stands set aside. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned DR submits that the respondents have initially taken credit on the Epoxy/ hardeners and binders treating them as capital goods and original authority did not agree with their contention. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), they claimed that the said items should be considered as inputs which stands accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vishakhapatnam vs. Shree Sarvaraya Sugars Ltd. reported in [2002 (150) ELT 634 (Tri-Bang.)] wherein it has been held that epoxy-thinner is not eligible to credit as inputs in terms of Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. Learned Advocate for the responden...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Kanpur Chemical Agencies Vs. Cce, Kanpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy : Heard both sides. 2. Shri R. Santhanam, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant states that the impugned demand which relates to M/s Birla Corporation Ltd. M/s Kanoria Chemical and Industries Ltd. only for procuring orders on their behalf. He states that the appellant had not rendered any clearing and forwarding agent service in respect of these two clients. As such, the appellants are not liable to pay Service Tax in respect of procuring orders as held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai reported in 2006 (3) STR 321 (Tri.-LB). 3. Heard the ld. DR who states that the appellant had not submitted copy of the agreement to which the ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that there was no written agreement. 4. After hearing both sides and taking into account the cited decision of the Larger Bench, we are of the view that as contended by the appellants, since in respect of M/s...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Srinathji Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziaba ...
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. 106/CE/GZB/2007 dated 30.4.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellants received shapes and sections falling under chapter sub heading 7216.10 and took credit as capital goods; they used such shapes and sections to fabricate moulds; moulds were exempted under notification No. 67/95 dated 16.3.95 as they were used within the factory of production. The original authority held that the goods cannot be treated as capital goods and denied the credit amounting to Rs.38,052/- and ordered recovery of the same along with interest and imposed Rs.38,052/- as penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority. 4. Learned advocate submits that the moulds are included in the definition of the capital goods. The definition of the capital goods also included parts, components and accessories used for capital goods. There is no dispute that the shapes ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S G.M.K. Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Ghaziabad
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. 78-CE/GZB/2008 dated 27.3.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant received consignments of HMS scrap which were imported under 16 bill of entries dated 24.2.2005 to 28,.8.05. After receiving the consignments in the factory premises, the appellant weighed the consignments and recorded the stock as found. In respect of 13 bill of entries, the shortage of stock was found to be less than 2 percent compared to weight declared in the bill of entries. However, in respect of consignments covered by 3 bill of entries, the shortage was substantial. In one case as against 233.320 MT the quantity received in the factory was 211.564 MT and in the second case as against the total quantity of 93.920 MT as per bill of entry, the quantity received was 88.120 MT and in the third case, the quantity of 71.935 MT as per bill of entry, the quantity received was only 64.670 MT. H...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Hira Steels Limited Vs. C.C.E., Raipur
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. 54/RPR-I/2008 dated 25.5.2008. 2. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority in so far as the same relates to denial of credit amounting to Rs.37,522/-and ordered for recovery along with interest and imposition of penalty of Rs.37,522/-. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. The learned SDR submits that the issue relates to denial of credit amounting to Rs.7092/- on welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance. He also submits that these welding electrodes have not been used directly in relation to the manufacture of the excisable goods. Therefore, the credit is not available. 5. As regards the credit on other items, the same relate to plates, M.S. angle, M.S. channels, steel rounds, ferricast, stainless steel which were used for fabrication of supporting structures and hence the same is not eligible. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions. As rega...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Sep Om Prakash Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant had filed WP (C) 1593/1997 in the Honble Delhi High Court praying that the orders of his discharge be quashed and he be reinstated in service. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 04/9/2009. 2. The applicant was enrolled in the Army on 5/05/1981 as Mess Waiter with stipulated colour service of 22 years and 3 years in the reserve. The applicant contends that provisions of Army Act Section 13 and 14 and Regulations for the Army Para 134 (Annexure -1) make it clear the enrolment of a person in the Army is a nature of contract wherein a soldier recruited has to serve specified number of years according to the contract. On completion of the terms of engagement the enrolled person is required to be discharged under Army Rule 13 (Annexure P-2). Army Rule 13(3) iii (v) specifies all other classes of discharge. This clause is all encompassing and has been misused by military authority to discharge enrolled persons from the Army much before completion of the...
Tag this Judgment!