Delhi Court September 2004 Judgments

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Oriental General Insurance Co.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)92TTJ(Delhi)300

1. As certain common facts and connected issues are involved in these 12 appeals, the same have been heard by us together and are being decided by this consolidated order for convenience.2. The assessee in these appeals is a public sector undertaking and, therefore, the parties require permission/approval of Government of India, Committee on Disputes (COD), for prosecuting their respective appeals before the Tribunal. The necessary permission/approval of COD has been filed in all these appeals except in Revenue's appeals being ITA No. 5035/Del/1998 and ITA No. 3910/Del/2000, being the appeals filed by the Revenue on 9th Oct., 1998, and 20th Sept., 2000, respectively, against the orders of the learned CIT(A)-m, New Delhi, and learned CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi, dt. 21st July, 1998 and 31st July, 2000, in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders under Section 143(3) for asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1997-98. In the absence of COD approval for these two appeals filed by the Revenue ...

Akbar Sekh and ors. Vs. Mousumi Factory Agency and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT431; 2004(77)DRJ264

1. This appeal is filed impugning the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19th August, 2004. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the learned Single Judge has not followed the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3. In support of his contention that the appeal is maintainable learned counsel for the appellant has cited : AIR2000SC3032 and has contended that the appellant has got a choice either to file an appeal or to take recourse to file an application for vacation of the stay before the learned Single Judge, thereforee, his appeal is maintainable. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no reason has been given for coming to a prima facie conclusion for grant of ex-parte stay before learned Single Judge. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has cited : [1993]3SCR522 . 3. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There cannot be any dispute that there is a power to gra...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shyam Singh S/O Shri Tara Chand and

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT343

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 8th November, 2001 passed by the Labour Court in ID No.78/96. 2. The question that was referred for adjudication is as follows:- Whether the removal of Sh. Shyam Singh from service is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?3.The allegation against the Respondent/workman, a bus conductor with the Petitioner, was that on 6th June, 1993, he collected the fare from four passengers who were on a journey in the bus but did not issue tickets to them. This was discovered when the bus was checked for ticket less passengers by the checking staff of the Petitioner that is, Inder Singh and Mahender Singh who also gave a report about the incident. 4. On the basis of the above report, the Respondent/workman was issued a charge sheet on 24th June, 1993 and after a departmental enquiry, his services were terminated by an order dated 18th July, 1994. 5.The P...

K.R. Builders Private Limited Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT12

Vikramajit Sen, J. IA No.6102/20041. In the Judgment in I.A. 3246/03 in CS(OS) 714/01& Counter Claim No. 646/2001 titled as M/s. Texstyles and others versus M/s. Kiran Overseas Export Limited and another, I have already articulated the opinion that after the expiry of ninety days from the date of the service of the Defendant the Court does not possess any discretion or power under Order VIII Rule 1 in enlarging time for the purposes of filing the Written Statement.2. Two Judgments have now been shown to me which require to be discussed in deference to the views of my learned Brothers. In Dr. Sukhdev Singh Gambhir vs . Shri Amrit Pal Singh & Others, : AIR2003Delhi280 the delay in filing the Written Statement after approximately four and a half years had been condoned. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Topline Shoes Ltd. vs. Corporation Bank AIR 2002 SC 2487 had also been relied upon but this view may not hold sway in view of the subsequent decision of a Larger Bench reported ...

Siraj Khan and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT201

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioners Siraj Khan, D.S.Pundir and B.S.Rawat were working with respondent no.2 i.e Handicrafts and Handloom Export Corp. Petitioners seek by the present writ petition direction to respondents to grant them notional promotion to the post of Deputy Marketing Manager w.e.f 1.1.1997, 1.7.1999 and 1.7.1997 respectively according to the promotion policy of the year 1985-86 and release their pecuniary benefits. 3. The grievance of the petitioner emanates from the promotion policy introduced w.e.f 18.10.1995. The said policy is contained in the office order dated 30th October, 1995. It gave inter alias the revision of pay scales. The said office order specifically provides that existing Time Bound Promotion Policy stands scrapped w.e.f 18.10.1995 and replaced with vacancy oriented Promotion Policy. The previous policy was one primarily based on time bound promotion. 4. Learned counsel for ...

Kamal Educational and Welfare Society (Regd.) and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nc ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 4(2004)DLT115; 2004(77)DRJ605

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The six captioned petitions have a common factual backdrop and raise the same issue of law. They are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Petitioners are societies registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860. Inter alia, one of the object of the societies is to impart professional and vocational education.3. Kalka Education Society has established an institute by the name of 'Kalka Institute of Research & Advanced Studies'. Petitioner Kamal Education & Welfare Society has established an institute by the name of 'Trinity Institute of Higher Education'. Petitioner Mother Teresa Institute of Management has established an institute by the name of 'Mother Teresa Institute of Management.'4. The said three institutes are affiliated with the third respondent Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. Affiliation has been granted by respondent no.3 to the first two institutes for conducting BIS/BCA courses as per course curriculum of respondent no.3 institu...

Smt. Prem Lata and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT613

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. This is a second round of litigation. The first round ended when order dated 1.4.2003 was passed by this court in WP(C) No. 6630/2003 and other connected petitions. Said order reads as under:-'This is a batch of writ petitions dealing with the issue of allotment of platforms in Janta Market at CSC, Paschim Vihar, A-4, near Plot Nos. 40 to 47. The petitioners are aggrieved by the cost of the platforms.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the beginning of the demand letter it is stated that the said letter has been issued in response to the tender deposited by the petitioners, which is not correct since the petitioners had not submitted any tender.Mr.Sabharwal, learned senior counsel for respondent No.3/DDA, does not dispute the position, but states that the petitioners have been treated at parity with tender cases.It is also not disputed that grievances of the petitioners are under consideration before the respondent authorities and the whole matte...

Dev Rani Sharma Vs. Mcd and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)SLJ412(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner--Smt. Dev Rani Sharma, widow of late Sh. D.D, Sharma, assails the order dated 30.10.1998, terminating her services. She seeks reinstatement into services with retrospective effect and all consequential benefits, such as arrears of pay allowance, seniority, further promotion etc.2. Petitioner's husband late Sh. D.D. Sharma, who was employed as Upper Divisional Clerk (UDC) in the Health Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, expired on 29.3.1995, leaving behind the petitioner with School and College going children. Petitioner sought compassionate appointment. In the event, petitioner was offered the post of Craft Teacher on compassionate grounds by the Labour Welfare Department-respondent No. 3 of the MCD. The offer is contained in letter No. 4345/IND/MC/95 dated 28.8.1995. The post of the Craft Teacher was in the scale of Rs. 1200-2040 plus allowances. A condition relevant for this writ petition is condition No. 13, which reads as follows :It (appo...

Aallanz Automobiles Vs. M.K. Jain

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is a Maruti dealer. The respondent purchased a Maruti Zen LXI MPFI Car with Stereo system and Central Locking from the appellant on payment of Rs. 3,75,000/- by way of two receipts, one dated 10.10.2002 for Rs. 1,75,000/- and another dated 25.10.2002 for Rs. 2,00,000/-. In spite of having received payment of Rs. 3,75,000/- the appellant issued invoice bearing No. 21216 for Rs. 3,62,830.50 towards the price of the car. The respondent alleged that the appellant had offered to give discount of Rs, 9,000/- in the price of the car, free comprehensive insurance for one year, registration and road tax, etc. and accessories worth Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant denied having given such a promise. 2. Vide impugned order dated 2.8.2004 the appellant has been ordered to refund Rs. 12,179.30 with 9% interest from the date of payment which he had received over and above the actual price of the car. 3.We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order as the Distr...

B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs. Mohan Lal Gaur

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 21.6.2004 whereby the appellant was directed to withdraw the misuse charges from the date of its levy, crediting all the payments made by the respondent, remove LPSC proportionately and also compensation of Rs. 1,000/- besides cost of Rs. 500/-. 2. Admittedly no notice was served upon the respondent before levying misuse charges and further that in spite of the respondent having made request to correct the bill the appellant did pay any heed and, therefore, the respondent was forced to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of illegal bill raised by the appellant. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant that the respondent had made payments of electricity without any protest on various occasions and did not challenge the misuse charges levied on his electricity bills in 1991 and is, therefore, estopped from challenging the bills is difficult to accept as misuse charges were deposited in order to avoid disc...