Delhi Court March 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dr. V.T. Prabhakaran Vs. Director, Indian Agricultural Statistics Rese ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-2012
S.C. SHARMA, ACTING CHAIRMAN: 1. Instant Original Application has been instituted for the following reliefs: “(i) Quash and set aside the IASRI Order dated 29.10.2010 as arbitrary and illegal. (ii) Direct the respondents to pay the applicant penal interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of his retirement to the date of actual payments of leave encashment and GIS. (iii) Pass such other Order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in circumstances of the case.” 2. The pleadings of the parties may be summarized as follows: It has been alleged by the applicant that he worked as Principal Scientist at Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute (IASRI), New Delhi, and he retired on superannuation on 28.02.2009 after serving the ICAR for nearly 40 years. At the time of his retirement, a disciplinary enquiry was pending against the applicant. It is not necessary to enumerate the charges for which the enquiry was pending against the applicant. How...
Jugal Kishore Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-2012
SHAILENDRA PandEY, MEMBER (A): 1. In this OA, the applicant, who is working as a Head Parcel Clerk in the Railways, has challenged the order of the disciplinary authority dated 15.12.2009 (Annexure A1), imposing a penalty of reduction of pay from Rs.17100/- to Rs.9300/- for a period of ten years with postponing of his future increments, and the order of the appellate authority dated 29.03.2010 (Annexure A2), in terms of which his appeal against this order has been rejected. He has sought the following reliefs: i) as an ad interim measure a direction to restrain the respondents from sparing the applicant on transfer to Lucknow Division till the final disposal of this application. ii) to allow this application and quash the impugned orders. iii) to award any other or further relief which this Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. iv) the cost of these proceedings may be granted in favour of applicant and against the respondents. During arguments,...
Rameshwar Prasad and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicants were appointed as Group-D Cooks in the respondent department on different points of time. They were getting originally the pay scale of Rs.200-250. It was revised to Rs. 800-1150 from 01.01.1986 and then to Rs. 2610-4000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Consequent on the implementation of the recommendations of the VI-th Central Pay Commission, the applicants have been given the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with the grade pay of Rs.1800 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 2. Although the applicants have sought for pay parity with similar employees appointed cases in other departments even from the time the IV Central Pay Commission recommendations were implemented from 01.01.1986, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants confined his arguments to grant of grade pay of Rs.1900 which is made available to the other Group-C employees of the Government w.e.f. 01.01.2006. He draws our attention to the Notification of Department of Personnel and Training dated ...
Sh. Geeta Ram Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India Through Secretary and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) The applicant has challenged the order of dismissal dated 10.08.2007 of the disciplinary authority (DA), the order of rejection dated 16.10.2007 of the appellate authority (AA) and the second order of rejection dated 12.05.2009 of the reviewing authority and has prayed for quashing of the impugned orders and for a direction to the respondent authority to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The applicant was absorbed in the respondent organization in 1985. He was promoted as Head Constable in 1993 and thereafter as ASI in 2001. He was charge-sheeted on 13.08.2003 on the allegation that during the period from 22.10.1991 to 14.05.1992 when he was acting as Constable and Assistant to Malkhana Incharge in SIC-I Branch of CBI, New Delhi he had made interpolation and alteration in the records. Although he had received 21,800/- as seized amount from an accused person, later he handed over a sum of Rs. 2180/- only to one V.K.Sareen, Head Cler...
Sandeep Yadav, Group And#8216;cand#8217; Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A): 1. The applicant is working as Grade-II, Delhi Administration Subordinate Service (DASS) Officer in the Education Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi. On 23.05.2002, a charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to him. According to the Inquiry Officer the charges against CO stand proved to the extent mentioned and in terms of findings given above. On this basis respondent no.2 imposed the penalty of reduction in pay by three stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect w.e.f. 01.05.2009 vide order dated 28.04.2009. The applicant being aggrieved preferred an appeal dated 29.06.2009 to the Appellate Authority. The appeal was turned down on 04.07.2011 after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The advice of the UPSC was supplied to the applicant along with the appellate order. Accordingly, the present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following re...
Shri R.D. Gupta Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Union of India Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
ORAL: JusticeS.C.Sharma: Instant review application has been moved for review of the order passed in OA No.2041/2009 on 14.06.2011 by the Bench comprising Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, the then Chairman and Hon’ble Dr. R.C. Panda, Member (A). Being aggrieved by the order passed by this Tribunal, this review application has been moved. 2. We have ascertained from the applicant that whether there are any grammatical and clerical mistakes in the order passed by this Tribunal, the applicant, who is present in person, namely Shri R.D. Gupta stated that there is no clerical or grammatical mistake in the order, but the mistake is of fact and law. It has been stated by the applicant that numerous points were raised by the applicant in the OA as well as in the written submissions but nothing has been stated about the points raised by him. It has also been argued by the applicant that reliance has been placed on false affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal has not cared...
M/S Pan Parag India Ltd. (Formerly M/S Kothari Products Ltd.) Vs. Cce, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: 1. All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of a same impugned order passed by Commissioner in de-novo proceedings vide which he has held as follows: S.No. Name of the Notice Duty confirmed Penalty imposed 1. M/s KPL Rs.19.37 crores and interest Rs.19.37 crore 2. M/s EKTA NIL Rs.1 crore 3. Shri Deepak KothariNIL Rs.1 crore 4. Shri Mithesh Kothari NIL Rs.1 crore 5. Shri D.R.Arora NIL Rs.1 crore 2. The said impugned order stands passed by the Commissioner in terms of earlier order of the Tribunal vide which the matter was remanded with the directions to re-adjudicate the matter. 3. As per the facts on record, M/s Kothari Products Ltd. [formerly known as M/s Kothari Products Ltd.(KPL)] are engaged in the manufacture of Sada Pan Masala, Gutka and Mawa. The appellants have four factories at different places but the present appeal relates to their Kanpur factory. Supari and Kattha are main raw materials for the manuf...
Cc, Amritsar Vs. Neeldhara Transfers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri R.K.Gupta, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Naveen Bindal, ld. advocate appearing for the respondents.2. As per facts on record, the respondent imported a consignment of second hand used 4 colours offset printing press to set up printing press. The same was declared in the bill of entry as Used 4 Colours Offset Printing Press Model Adast 745P Stream feeder Console Technotrans Alph. A.D.Powderspray Device. The said machine was imported from France. Along with the bill of entry, the respondent filed invoice, packing list, bill of lading etc. and FOB value was declared as Euro 15,000. 3. The price declared by the respondent was enhanced by the assessing authority on the bill of entry itself to Euro 56,100. The said enhancement was done on the basis of Chartered Engineer’s certificate...
Compact Tools Vs. Cce, Indore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Both sides agree to dispose the appeal to reduce dispute. Ld. Counsel says it was disclosed to the Deptt. that due to financial crisis duty could not be deposited duly. There was no circumstance for evasion at all to invite penal consequence of law. 2. Ld. Representative for Revenue says that the order does not show quantum of duty payable and interest for which the order is not executable. Ld. DR for the Revenue also says that when the order has created a liability, it is only mathematical calculation required to determine the figures for discharge. That can be done if the matter is remanded. Duty liability is crystal which should be discharged followed by interest. Penalty was also to follow. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. Finding dispute on a very limited issue as above, dispensing predeposit by this common order, it is undisputed that liability as to the duty has arisen and that is to be paid to the Treasury. If any default was made to make ...
M/S. Garg Ispat Udyog Ltd M/S. J.D. Gupta, Managing Director Vs. Commi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
Per Archna Wadhwa (for the Bench), J. 1. Duty of Rs. 40,96,119/- stands confirmed against M/s. Garg Ispat Udyog Ltd. along with imposition of penalty of identical amount. In addition, penalties of varying amounts stands imposed upon the other applicant appellants. 2. After hearing both the sites, it is seen that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the stay order passed by him vide which M/s. Garg Ispat Udyog were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.20 lakhs. It is seen that the said appellant had already deposited an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs towards duty. However, inasmuch as the appellants did not comply with the said directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) to further deposit an amount of Rs.20 lakhs, all the appeals stand dismissed for non-compliance. 3. For better appreciation, we reproduce relevant paragraphs from the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals): “7....
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »