Delhi Court March 2004 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.
S.K. Mathur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ286CAT
1. The applicant impugns respondents order dated 21.10.2002 as well as disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Memorandum of even date. He has sought quashing of the above with all benefits. By an order dated 9.12.2003 further disciplinary proceedings are stayed. Applicant while working as Chief Producer was to superannuate on 31.8.2000. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 28.8.2000 issued in the name of the President and was served upon him on 30.8.2000.2. By a letter dated 21.10.2002 post retirement sanction has been accorded by the President to initiate the disciplinary proceedings which culminated into a Memorandum dated 21.10.2002 wherein the applicant has been alleged to have misconducted pertaining to the period 1977-98 admittedly, an event more than 4 years old from the date of sanction accorded by the President. The aforesaid memorandum is assailed by the applicant.3. Learned Counsel of the applicant referring to Rule 9(2)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 cont...
L.G. Electronics Inc. Vs. Additional Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)1029
1. These 8 appeals have been filed by the assessee which is aggrieved by the common order passed by the CIT(A) dt. 30th March, 2001; confirming the order of the AO who had imposed penalty under Section 271C of the IT Act. Except in Appeal No. 2925/Del/2001, which is for the asst. yr. 1998-99 and which has two additional grounds, there are common grounds of challenge to the order of the CIT(A) in all these appeals. The common grounds of challenge-are as detailed below: . "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,67,098 purporting to be under Section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act" for short), far the financial years 1990-91 to 1997-98 in the present case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the learned CIT(A) should have held that the levy of the aforesaid penalty in the present case, which was levied on ...
Ms. Nimmi Tickoo Vs. Govt. of J and K and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT457; 2004(73)DRJ633; 2004(3)SLJ362(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. This writ petition had come up before the Court for hearing as a regular matter on 9.3.2004, when Mr.V.K.Shali, counsel for the petitioner, was heard in part. The matter was kept for today, as none was present on behalf of the respondent. The name of counsel for the respondent Mr.R.M.Tuffail, Advocate, is duly shown in the cause list. None is present on behalf of the respondent today also. In these circumstances, I proceed to decide the writ petition, after hearing Mr.V.K.Shali, counsel for the petitioner and on the basis of pleadings and documents, as available on record.2. Petitioner, Ms.Nimmi Tickoo, had filed the present writ petition, seeking a writ or direction to the respondent/Resident Commissioner, State of Jammu & Kashmir, hereinafter referred to as Resident Commissioner, to frame policy/rules/regularising the allotment of Government accommodation to the employees under the office of Resident Commissioner. Petitioner also seeks quashing of order dated 31...
State Bank of India Vs. National Open School Society, Through Its Secr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi306; 2004(73)DRJ565
Vijender Jain, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the finding of the trial court. Respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,85,970.30. The respondent inter alia, pleaded in the plaint that respondent was authorised to collect fees deposited by the students and according to the respondents a bank account was opened with SBI main branch of the appellant and another account was open in Greater Kailash, Part-I branch of appellant. It was pleaded in the suit that in the account of the respondent the fee and other charges of the students by various institutions were deposited and the respondent was utilising the amounts which were credited in the said account. The respondent also averred in the plaint that at no time they executed any document seeking any overdraft facility from the appellant bank. The respondent had to file a suit on account of the mistake of the appellant's officials as an amount in excess of Rs.22.23 lakhs was shown in the account of the res...
Lal Chand Pradhan and ors. Vs. Asgar Ali and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT613; 2004(74)DRJ35
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Court of First Instance has considered the Preliminary Issue of the maintainability of the suit filed by the present Respondents keeping in view the provisions of Section 46 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It has also declined to grant any interim injunction. The First Appellate Court, however. has issued the injunction prayed for, restraining Defendants No.1 to 16 from using their furnaces for making pottery by burning unapproved and polluting fuels.2. The fuels that can be used have been itemised in the Notification No. F.25(258)/SC/LC/DPCC/96/651 dated 27.8.1998. For convenience, this Notification is reproduced below:'In pursuance of the provisions of clause (d) of Section 2 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Nb.14 of 1981) read with Notification No.1egal 158 (4)/90 dated the 15th March, 1991 of the Central Pollution Control Board, the Delhi Pollution Control Committee hereby approves the following fuels a...
Shri Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT459; 2004(73)DRJ646
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner who was working as Secretary to Chief Operation Officer of Northern Railway and during his service had been allotted the accommodation at C-3/B, Basant Lane, New Delhi. Petitioner admittedly retired on 30.6.1997. Under the Rules, petitioner could have retained the quarter for a period of four months on normal license fee and for further four months on double the license fee. Petitioner however continued to occupy the premises. 2. Respondents themselves were negligent in not promptly initiating proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, leaving the petitioner to continue to enjoy the premises inasmuch as the Estate Officer's Order of eviction came to be passed only on 20th January, 2004. 3. Petitioner seeks to challenge the said Order as also the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge dated 19.2.2004 in appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Estate Officer did not afford a reasonabl...
Social Jurist, A Lawyer's Group Vs. Union of India (UOi) and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi278; 110(2004)DLT419; 2004(73)DRJ578
B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. On 20.2.2003, a Division Bench of this Court made an order as under in CM No.2116/2003:-'Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that NIMESULIDE and formulations containing NIMESULIDE deserves to be looked into by the Drug Technical Advisory Board as regards the safety aspect and also to see whether the same are duly approved or not, both for use by adults and children. In the light of what has been stated in the petition, we would like the Drug Technical Advisory Board to go into the entire aspect and submit a report. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that as per the mechanism evolved by the Supreme Court in Drug Action Forum & Others, WP [C] No.693/1993 decided on 23.2.2001, DTAB meets at least once in six months and the expert committee appointed by DTAB meets 5-6 times in a year. Accordingly, he states that at least three months time is required by DTAB to examine the whole issue and prepare its report. In case the petitioner so ...
Sita World Travels (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Del)83
1. The Court issued notice to the officer who made the impugned order. In our earlier order, we have reproduced the paragraphs of judgments delivered by the Courts. It seems that the officer has been made to understand what the law is by the counsel appearing for the Revenue and he has tendered an unconditional apology stating that a mistake has been committed and such mistake shall not be repeated in tax proceedings. Once the Court has pointed out the course to be followed, the AO or the subordinate officers including the Tribunal cannot justify their order by stating that Court has not observed certain aspects or the question has gone unanswered by the Court. His duty is to follow the orders and the law of the land. Judicial discipline is required to be maintained.2. Anyhow, in view of the apology, we discharge the notice,3. In the writ petitions, learned counsel has instructions to state that the impugned orders be set aside with a direction to the AO to pass a speaking order within...
Sita World Travels (India) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN351(Delhi)
ORDERThe court issued notice to the Officer who made the impugned order. In our earlier order, we have reproduced the paragraphs of judgments delivered by the courts. It seems that the Officer has been made to understand what the law is by the counsel appearing for the revenue and he has tendered and unconditional apology stating that a mistake has been committed an such mistake shall not be repeated in tax proceedings. Once the court has pointed out the course to be followed, the assessing officer or the subordinate officers including the Tribunal cannot justify their order by stating that court has not observed certain aspects or the question has gone unanswered by the court. His duty is to follow the orders and the law of the land. Judicial discipline is required to be maintained.2. Anyhow, in view of the apology, we discharge the notice.3. In the writ petitions, learned counsel has instructions to state that the impugned orders be set aside with a direction to the assessing officer...
Cce Vs. Arpit Cement (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC110
1. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under Chapter 25 of the CETA Schedule. Prior to 1.4.98, they were availing Modvat credit on inputs and clearing their final product on payment of duty. From 1.4.1998, they started clearing their final product without payment of duty by availing the exemption under Notification No. 16/97-CE dated 1.4.97 (as amended) vide their declaration filed under Rule 173B. Rule 57-H (7) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required that any Modvat credit taken in respect of inputs lying in stock and inputs used in final product lying in stock on the effective date of option for full exemption from duty in respect of final product be reversed or an amount equivalent to such credit be deposited. The original authority found that the respondents had not reversed such credit and accordingly confirmed against them a demand of Rs. 64,676 under Rule 57I of the aforesaid Rules. That authority also imposed a penalty of equal amount on the par...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »