Delhi Court November 2001 Judgments

Smt. Lipika Dutta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the action taken by the respondents in issuing the order dated 6.3,2000 whereby her representation against her termination under Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 1965 Rules), has been rejected by a non-reasoned order. She has also challenged certain other actions and orders of the respondents in not permitting her to resume her duty before the expiry of period of notice issued by Office Order dated 6.3.2000, in which it has been stated that she will stand struck off from the rolls of the Ministry with effect from the afternoon of 17th February, 2000 by which date, according to her, she had reported for duty.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant had worked as LDC from 26.12.1986 upto 28.12.1990 with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), after which, according to her, she was promoted as ad hoc Stenographer Grade 'D'. According to the learned Counsel fo...

Additional Director of Income Tax Vs. M.D. Memorial Charitable and

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. Since common issue is involved in both these appeals, the same are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. The only issue common to both the appeals relates to the levy of penalty under Section 272A(2)(e) on account of late filing of the return.2. The assessee is a charitable and educational society. The penalty proceedings were initiated under s, 272A(2)(e) for the years under consideration on the ground that the assessee had not filed the return of income within the period specified under Section 139(4A). The explanation of the assessee was that the only activity of the trust is running of the recognised school whose income is exempt under Section 10(22) of the IT Act, 1961. This explanation was not accepted by the AO and accordingly penalty of Rs. 51,200 was imposed for asst. yr. 1992-93 and Rs. 14,700 for asst. yr. 1993-94.3. The matter was carried before the CIT(A), who has held that the assessee-trust is exempt under Section 10(22) of the IT Act con...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. (No. 2)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]254ITR412(Delhi)

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, two questions, which are in the following terms, have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 35(2)(iv), the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessed was entitled to claim depreciation in the assessment year 1972-73 in respect of scientific equipment of the value of Rs. 1,47,305 purchased during the immediately preceding year after the expenditure in respect thereof had been allowed in full under Section 35(2) in that preceding year ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessed was engaged in the business of production of limestone and was hence entitled to deduction under Section 80I of the Act ?' 2. Although the questions are requ...

Mahabir Singh and Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT3; 2002(61)DRJ863; [2002(94)FLR828]

D.K. Jain, J. 1. By these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek stay of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them by virtue of two sets of memorandums, both dated 15 November 2000, till the trial in criminal cases lodged against them is completed. 2. Since the cases are interconnected and arise out of the same incident, resulting in the said proceedings against the petitioners, with the consent of counsel for the parties, both the cases are being disposed of finally by this common order. 3. Petitioner Mahabir Singh (in CWP 7572/00) was posed as Head Constable in Railway Protection Force (for short 'the RPF') and petitioner Ishwar Singh (in CWP 7601/00) was posed as Constable in the same Force at Ghaziabad post. The allegation against both is that though belonging to the RPF, on 3 February 1999, they impersonated as belonging to the Government Railway Police staff and extorted Rs. 70/- as illegal gratification and misappropriat...

Rohit Dhawan Vs. G.K. Malhotra and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi151

O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. On 2nd October, 1999 parties entered into an agreement under which the defendant company was to manufacture two herbal medicines for diabetes management under two brands namely 'Glunorm' and 'dbNorm' which work as co-adjutants for diabetic therapy and the plaintiff was to have the exclusive selling and marketing rights in respect of two brands all over the world. Relevant portion of terms and conditions contained in agreement II dated 2nd October, 1999 are as under:-This agreement is in addition to Agreement-I.This agreement is being signed between Platinum Remedies Pvt. Ltd. (PRPL involved in the manufacturing of herbal medicines/products represented by Mr. G.K. Malhotra s/o Mr. K.L. Malhotra r/o A-5B, 365, SFS Shanti Kunj, Paschim Vihar,New Delhi-110061.AND Sree Bankey Bihari Impex P. Ltd. (SBBI involved in the trading and distributors of various products) represented by Mrs. Veena Dhawan r/o 169, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-100062 with the following terms and conditio...

Azad K. Kapoor and ors. Vs. Government of National Capital Territory o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT672

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioners by this writ petition seek a direction to respondent No. 3 for quashing of Annexure-F dated 8.10.96 and Annexure-J dated 2.12.96. Annexure A is the letter, by which the DDA informed petitioner No. 2 that the request for change of flat from Vivek Vihar Phase-II, Jhilmil to another place has been examined by the competent authority and cannot be acceded to. Annexure-J is the show cause notice by which DDA called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the allotment of the flat be not cancelled in view of the breach of the terms and conditions.3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be noticed. Petitioners had applied for allotment of a MIG flat under the New Pattern Housing Scheme in the year 1979. Petitioner No. 1 has been allotted flat No. 22-C and petitioner No. 2 has been allotted flat No. 23-B at Jhilmil vide allotment letters produced as Annexures B...

Mohd. Afzal Vs. the State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002CriLJ1426; 95(2002)DLT684; 2002(61)DRJ422

R.C. Jain, J. 1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for quashing of externment order dated 28th July, 2000 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District under Sections 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') thereby directing the petitioner to remove himself beyond the limits of National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of two years with effect from 5th August, 2000. 2. Externment proceedings under Section 47 the Act were initially commenced against the petitioner with a notice dated 15-2-1994 issued under Section 50 of the Act. However, before the notice could be acted upon and the proceedings could be taken to logical conclusion the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in several cases and remained confined in jail. Consequently upon his acquittal in the criminal cases and on his release the proceedings were revived and three supplemen...

Prabha Arora Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT861

Manmohan Sarin, J. Rule. 1. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner's father Shri Jagdish Chand Janveja had got himself registered with the respondent for an MIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979. The registration was done vide registration No. 28677, Priority No.9110 on 4.6.1980. In due course, an allotment-cum-demand letter bearing No. M.O.24/(395)/90 RO/NP dated 14/21.2.90, for a MIG flat under the Hire Purchase scheme was issued. Petitioner's father by the said letter was allotted a flat bearing No. 40, Block-A, Pocket-4, Sector 18, Rohini at a disposal cost of Rs. 1,55,800/-. Apart from the registration amount, Petitioner's father had duly deposited a sum of Rs. 26113.70 in response to the aforesaid allotment-cum-demand letter. Challan for the same has been produced. Petitioner's father had also submitted requisite documents required vide his letter dated 30.4.1990. 3. It is the petitioner's case that her father ...

Brahler Ics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)497; 96(2002)DLT309; 2002(62)DRJ470; 2002(2)RAJ388

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the action of respondents 1 to 4 ordering fresh price bids in respect of supply of Digital Wireless Interpretation System in the Parliament Library Building and further seeks the grant of the said contact on account of its bid being the lowest and its fulfilling all the qualifications prescribed in the Notice Inviting Tender.2. This writ petition avers as under:The petitioner is a Company which has German collaboration and its German Principles are the leading manufacturers of Conference Public Address System renowned all over the world. The respondent No. 1 is Union of India; respondent No. 2 is the Director General (Works), CPWD, New Delhi; respondent No. 3 is the Chief Engineer, Parliament Library Project, CPWD, New Delhi, respondent No. 4 is the Executive Engineer, Parliament Library, CPWD, New Delhi, respondent No. 5 is M/s Hi-Tech Audio System Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, respondent No. 6 is M/s Sonic International, Delhi and respondent N...

B. Dharam Singh Babek Singh Finance (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(Del)930

ORDERM.K. Chaturvedi, J.M.This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, and relates to the assessment year 1988-89.2. The following four grounds taken in this appeal are reproduced here as under :'(1). That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding the findings of the learned Assistant Commissioner that appellant has earned a capital gain of Rs. 3,43,113 is purely on non-appreciation of the factual and legal position in respect thereof and, thereforee, unjust, uncalled for and legally untenable.'(2). That without prejudice to the above, the action of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in also holding that capital gain relates to the year under appeal is again without any basis or material and, thereforee, uncalled for and illegal.'(3). That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the facts of the case, evidence filed and Explanationns rendered...