Delhi Court July 2003 Judgments

G.S. Tawarmalani Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ113CAT

1. Reliefs sought in this O.A. by the applicant (Shri G.S. Tawarmalani) are as below: "(i) Order that the date of 30.6.1999 given in the impugned notification No. 28017/7/99-EC.I/EW.I dated 6th June, 2001 is arbitrary and ultra vires and deserves to be substituted by the date 1.1.96. (ii) Direct the respondents to place the applicant in the revised scale of the Rs. 24,050-26,0007- with effect from 1.1.96, with next date of increment on 1.2.96, as admissible and release the consequential payments including the consequential retirement benefits becoming due to the applicant in terms of Para 4(a) of the O.M. dated 30.6.99. (iii) Direct the respondents to fix the salary of the applicant at Rs. 26,0007- per month for the period 1.11.96 AN to 30.11.96 in the scale admissible to the post of the Director General, under FR 49, and release the consequential payments including the consequential retirement benefits becoming due to the applicant. (iv) Direct the respondents to allow to the applica...

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Saboo Minerals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)623; 2003(3)ARBLR185(Delhi); 106(2003)DLT92; 2003(71)DRJ166; 2003(3)RAJ354

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT. 2. On a reference being made to the Arbitrator, the award was made on 17.4.2000. The award was admittedly received by the appellant on 20.4.2000. The appellants moved an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (in short referred to as the 'Act' ) before the arbitrator for correction of the award, on 19th July, 2000. Notice of this application was issued by the Arbitrator to the respondents. On being pointed out by the respondents that an application under Section 33 of the Act could be filed only within 30 days, the Arbitrator dismissed the application on 15.9.2000. Objections to the award under Section 34 of the Act were thereafter filed by the appellants on 27.11.2000. Since under Section 34 of the Act, objections could be filed within three months of the date of receipt of the award by the party and if the party is prevented by sufficient cause from making an application within the period of three months, the Court could entert...

Smt. Bimla Gupta Vs. D.D.A. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)448; 106(2003)DLT54; 2003(70)DRJ349

S.K. Mahajan, J.ADMIT.1. The appellant had entered into an agreement to purchase of DDA flat from respondent no.2. Since the agreement was entered into between the appellant and respondent no.2 before the expiry of the period of 10 years, respondent no.2 filed a suit in this Court alleging, inter alia, that the agreement was void being in violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment of flat by the DDA to respondent no.2. While the suit was pending, the period of ten years expired and the suit was, thereforee, withdrawn by respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 then applied with the DDA for transfer of this flat to the appellant and while this application was pending the appellant is also stated to have applied for transfer of the flat to her. On these applications being made, the respondent/DDA issued a show cause notice to respondent No.2 as to why the allotment of flat to him be not cancelled. On this notice being issued the appellant filed a suit for mandatory and permanent inju...

Anilma Associates and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 106(2003)DLT262; 2003(70)DRJ243; 2003(90)ECC716; 2003(3)RAJ400

ORDERS 23. (i) An order for banning/suspension passed for a certain specified period shall be deemed to have been automatically revoked on the expiry of that specified period and it will not be necessary to issue a specific formal order of revocation, except that an order of suspension/banning passed on account of doubtful loyalty or security consideration shall continue to remain in force until it is specifically revoked. (ii) An order of banning for the reasons mentioned at para 16 (ii) above may be revoked if, in respect of the same facts, the accused has been wholly exonerated by a Court of Law. (iii) A banning/suspension order may, on a review, be revoked by the Competent Authority if it is of the opinion that the disability already suffered is adequate in the circumstances of the case.' 13. Reading of para 14 makes it clear that banning by one Ministry can be passed when the offence alleged against a firm is not considered serious enough to merit a banning order by all Ministr...

M.M. Kumra and anr. Vs. Jitender Mohan Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)507; 106(2003)DLT151

R.C. Jain, J. 1. The order of the learned Trial Court dated 25th November, 2002 is under challenge in this revision petition. By means of this order, the learned Trial Court has disposed of an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151, CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent for amendment of his plaint. The plaintiff wanted to alter his relief of permanent injunction to that of a mandatory injunction and add a relief for damages. 2. The application has been allowed. The impugned order is sought to be challenged primarily on the ground that the suit for permanent injunction had become anfractuous as the petitioner-defendant had already erected the gates in question and, thereforee, the very cause of action for the suit has come to an end. In the opinion of this Court, this is a wholly misconceived submission inasmuch as it is well established proposition that an amendment based on subsequent events can always be taken into account and allowed to be incorporated in...

Jaswant Lal Chug and Bros. Vs. N.C.E.R.T. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)125; 107(2003)DLT620; 2004(1)RAJ132

B.A. Khan, J. 1. This appeal raises an interesting issue viz., whether this Court was incompetent to decide appellant's objections filed under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award when the value of the subject matter was less that Rs. 4. lacs.2. Learned Trial Judge has held so and transferred the proceedings to the District Court on the ground that since pecuniary jurisdiction of District Court was raised from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 5 lacs by amendment in the Punjab Courts Act, this Court had lost the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.3. It all started with appellant filing a petition (S. No. 2686-A/90) under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in this Court. In this, reference was made to the sole Arbitrator (Secretary of respondent No. 1) by order dated 27.11.1995. An award was passed on 26.11.1997. Appellant thereafter applied for filing of the award in this Court which was done. Appellant then filed objections to this award under Sections 30/33 of the Old Ar...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.J. Knitting and Finishing Mills P. Lt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)269; 2004(73)DRJ446; [2004]266ITR582(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) is directed against an order, dated 24 December 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) in ITA No. 1775/Del/1997, pertaining to the assessment year 1986-87. According to the Revenue, the order of the Tribunal involves the following substantial questions of law:'1. Whether the order of the ITAT dismissing the appeal of the Revenue is perverse and contrary to the relevant material on record and passed without considering the reasoning and basis given by the Assessing Officer disallowing expenditure of Rs. 53,400/- allegedly paid as salary to the wives of the two directors ?2. Whether the ITAT was right in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue against deletion of Rs. 53,400/- allegedly paid as salary to the wives of two directors though the principle of rest judicata is not applicable to income tax proceedings.3. Whether th...

Sita World Travels (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Del)82

ORDER1. Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, who has put in appearance on advance notice, submits that the petitioner has rushed to this Court without waiting for the decision of the AO on the preliminary issue raised by them with regard to his jurisdiction to take recourse to reassessment proceeding under s. 147/148 of the IT Act, 1961. Learned counsel submits that in view of the decision of the apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO and Ors. (2003) 259 ITR 19 , the AO shall dispose of the objections, filed by the petitioner with regard to his jurisdiction to reopen the assessments under s. 147/148 of the Act, by a speaking order, before proceeding with the reassessment proceedings in respect of asst. yrs. 1996-97 and 1997-98,2. In view of the aforenoted stand of learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Syali, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to take recourse to appropriate proce...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gupta Brothers

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)264; [2004]265ITR621(Delhi)

D.K. JAIN J.1. This is an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The challenge is to the order, dated May 31, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), in I.T.A. No. 4524/Delhi of 1997, pertaining to the assessment year 1993-94. According to the Revenue, the said order involves the following substantial questions of law :'(a) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without giving its own finding ?(b) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and thereby deleting the trading addition of Rs. 11,15,967 made by the Assessing Officer ?(c) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the trading addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of estimated sales after rejecting t...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. R.K. Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. This revision petition has been filed by Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order passed by the District Forum (East), Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi-110092 dated 22.5.2000. Vide impugned order, the learned District Forum has reviewed its own order dated 17.11.1999 and amended the order passed earlier. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent, Shri R.K. Gupta filed a complaint in the District Forum challenging the bill raised by the appellants, MTNL for the period 16.7.1998 to 15.9.1998 regarding telephone No. 2251929. This bill included an amount of Rs. 17,860/- as telephone rent for the period 1.3.1991 to 1.6.1998. The complainant challenged the claim of the telephone (sic.) deposited the bills raised by the MTNL. The complainant deposited Rs. 740/- which according to him was the correct amount of the bill. Unable to get any relief from the appellant, M...