Delhi Court August 2001 Judgments

Shri Mahinder Kumar (Since Deceased) Through His L.Rs. Vs. Smt. Seema

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT591; 2001(60)DRJ436

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The contention of the Petitioner/Tenant is that both the Courts below have committed an error of law in dismissing the Tenant's Objections dated 16.12.1999, filed under Section 47 read with Order XXI, Rule 26 of the code of Civil Procedure, as well as the additional Objection, dated 30.3.2001. It is strongly contended by Mr. Ravi Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Tenant firstly, that the Respondent/Landlord/owner has concealed that she has other reasonably suitable accommodation; although no such plea had been raised in the Written Statement. The Additional Rent Controller had in fact dealt with each of the properties mentioned by the Petitioner/Tenant and found even on merits, that neither were available to the Landlady. Secondly, it has been argued that two tenants have vacated two rooms and the bona fide need does not subsist. Even on this issue the Additional Rent Controller had returned the finding that on a perusal of the Eviction Order dated 21.7.1998 it i...

Sh. Joginder Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT598; 2001(60)DRJ157

ORDERKhan (J)1. Petitioner claims that he had qualified BE (AMIE) Section A&B; and was appointed Inspector of Works, Grade-II in the Railways on 14.2.90. According to him, he was entitled to six advance increments for possessing higher scientific/technical qualification vide Railway circular No. RBE No. 30/90 dated 14.2.90 but Respondents had declined to grant these to him. He felt aggrieved and approached CAT in OA. No. 2998/97, which was dismissed by impugned order dated 12.8.98, which was dismissed by impugned order dated 12.8.98 with Tribunal holding that incentives provided in the circular were available to employee in service who acquired a higher qualification.2. Petitioner assails this order and insists that higher technical/scientific qualification prescribed by the circular was to be possessed at any time and not necessarily after entry in Railway service. He seeks support for this from a Tribunal order in (OA. 2646/96) decided on 14.12.97 and also from Andhra Pradesh High Co...

Shri P.N. Koul Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ814

ORDERKhan, J. 1. Petitioner was working as Senior Personal Assistant in Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal. After he retired from service on 30.6.1997, he was faced with recovery of some excess amount received by him allegedly on account of wrong pay fixation traced to Fourth Pay Commission recommendations.2. It transpires that Fourth Pay Commission recommended a revision of pay-scales of Senior Stenographer Grade-I from 550-900 to 1640-2900. It also provided that stenographer attached to Senior Administrative Grade and equivalent posts be placed in the scale of 2000-3200 by suitably upgrading the required number of posts of stenographers from lower grades, which be filled up by promotion as per normal procedure. this was followed by DOPT instructions vide OM dated 1.3.88 which also contemplated that posts be filled up by promotion.3. Upon this, petitioner made a representation to President, ITAT and requested for grant of benefit under FR 22-C (old). He was consequently placed in Rs. 2000-...

Delhi Automobiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN749(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Pursuant to the directions given by the court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), the following question has been referred by the Tribunal for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no ground for appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in regard to the charge of interest under section 217(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Factual aspects need not be noted in detail in view of what has been held by this court in Ashok Kumar v. CIT : [1998]231ITR140(Delhi) . In that case a distinction was made between challenge to the chargeability of the interest and quantum thereof. The matter was also examined by the Apex Court in Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]224ITR560(SC) . Keeping in view the ratio of the above decision, the answer to the question has to be in negative, in favor of the assess...

P.N. Koul Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]120TAXMAN175(Delhi)

Khan, J.The petitioner was working as Senior Personal Assistant in ITAT. After he retired from service on 30-6-1997, he was faced with recovery of some excess amount received by him allegedly on account of wrong pay fixation traced to Fourth Pay Commission recommendations.2. It transpires that Fourth Pay Commission recommended a revision of pay-scales of Senior Stenographer Grade-I from Rs. 550-900 to Rs. 1,640-2,900. It also provided that stenographers attached to Senior Administrative Grade and equivalent posts be placed in the scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200 by suitably upgrading the required number of posts of stenographers from lower grades, which be filled up by promotion as per normal procedure. This was followed by DOPT instructions vide OM dated 1-3-1988, which also contemplated that posts be filled up by promotion.3. Upon this, the petitioner made a representation to the President, ITAT and requested for grant of benefit under FR 22-C (old). He was, consequently, placed in Rs. 2,000...

Krishan Lal Yadav Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this application, the applicant has prayed for the following main relief: "(a) Call for the records of the case and set aside/quash the order dated 15.5.2001 (Annexure A-1) or give direction to he respondents to keen in abeyance the departmental enquiry initiated vide order dated 15.5.2001 during the pendency of the criminal case till the defence of the applicant is disclosed in the criminal case." 2. It is an admitted fact that this is the second round of litigation by the applicant against the same respondents--the earlier OA being OA 1383/2001 which was disposed of by the same Bench vide order dated 11.7.2001 (copy placed on record). "The applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents dated 15.5.2001 by which it has been ordered that a regular Departmental inquiry is to be conducted against the applicant on certain charges. He has prayed that the impugned order should be stayed during the pendency of investigation and trial in case FIR No. 299/2001 under Sectio...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Siya Ram Kumar Engineering Works (P.) L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)165; [2002]254ITR358(Delhi)

1. On being moved for reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer in the assessment of the assessed was justified in making the addition of Rs. 30,063 (assessment year 1978-79) and Rs. 96,681 (assessment year 1979-80) by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The factual position is almost undisputed and is as follows :The assessed is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. For the two assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, the previous years ended on September 30, 1977, and September 30, 1978, respectively. Out of the claim of deduction made in respect of the three directors of the company as salary, bonus, commission and house rent allow...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chemical and Metallurgical Design Co. ( ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]254ITR368(Delhi)

1. Pursuant to the directions given by this court, the following question has been referred at the instance of Revenue under Section 256(2) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') for the opinion of this court. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of the notification No. S. O. 3210, dated August 8, 1969, issued by the Central Government, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not applicable to the assessed for the above assessment years ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70.3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the question is confusing and the number of the notification as shown in the question is not correct. We find that the correct notification as noted by the Tribunal is dated June 6, 1967. The dispute related to action under Section 104 of the Act for non-declaration of dividend for two assessment year...

Mr. V.P. Saxena Vs. Mr. Avinash Chander Bhasin

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT16; 2001(60)DRJ385

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. In this Revision Petition the Judgment dated 27.2.1992 of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the 'ARC') has been called into question. An eviction petition had ben filed in 1998 under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control ?Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act'). The ARC has found in favor of the Petitioner in respect of the fact that the Petitioner is the owner of the demised property; that a relationship of Landlord and Tenant existed between the Petitioner and Respondent; and that the premises have ben let for residential purpose only. On the crucial question of whether the Petitioner requires the premises bona fide for its personal use, the ARC was not satisfied at all with the pleaded case and has dismissed the eviction petition. Although, Learned Counsel for the Respondent attempted to assail the findings of the ARC on the issues decided in the Petitioner's favor, I have declined to hear him in this regard for th...

Meera Gupta Vs. Dinesh Chand and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT10; 2002(63)DRJ264

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Property seems to be the genus of family disputes. Late Subhash Chand passed away on 20.3.1991 leaving behind his second wife, Meera Gupta, the appellant herein and his adopted daughter Rashi , respondent No.3 herein to fight over his estate. late Subhash Chand and his first wife Smt. Parkash did not have any issue and had adopted respondent No.3 vide registered adoption deed dated 24.7.1981. It may be added that respondent No.3 is the natural child of respondent No.4 A decade of litigation does not seems to be suffice for these parties.2. The appeal arises from the impugned order dated 28th May, 1999 disposing of the application filed by respondent No.3 herein being is No.11944/92 under Order 12 Rule 6 and under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC for judgment on admission and for the appointment of a Receiver of the suit property.3. The appellant filed suit for partition, rendition of account and for permanent injunction in the year 1991. The appel...