Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments

Shri Pradeep Singh Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)93ITD514(Delhi)

1. This is a direct appeal to the Tribunal against the order of the AO Under Section 154 dated 09.11.2000 rectifying the original order Under Section 158BC dated 28.11.1997.2. At the outset of the hearing, the ld. Sr. DR Shri Sanjay Kumar has strongly objected to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that no direct appeal to the Tribunal has been provided by the Statute Under Section 253(1) against the order of the AO Under Section 154 where the search has taken place prior to the first day of January, 1997. He drew our attention to Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 253, which provides a direct appeal to the Tribunal against the only order of the A.O. passed under Clause (c) of Section 158BC and no appeal has been provided against any other order of the A.O. It has been contended by him that right of appeal, being a statutory right, cannot be availed by any person unless such right has been conferred upon him by the Statute. Accordingly, it was pleaded that in the abs...

Anil Singh and ors. Vs. N.D.M.C.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT571

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions it has been prayed that appropriate writs, orders or directions may be issued to the Respondents for the regularization of the services of the Petitioners with all benefits as are being given to regular teachers and for prohibiting the Respondents from terminating their services. According to the Petitioners they have been engaged as Teachers by the NDMC on contractual tenures which has generally been extended on more than one occasion. The submission is that on the average these Teachers have served for about three years. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submit that the Petitioners have been engaged on contractual basis and it had been clarified that the engagement would not confer any right on them to claim regular appointment. On every occasion when the contract was renewed it had also been clarified that the extension would continue for the tenure or till posts are filled-up on regular basis, whichever is ea...

Col. Jaswinder Singh, Avsm Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT6; 2005(80)DRJ209; 2006(1)SLJ214(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1547/1981, which was disposed of on 23.2.2000. The appellant herein filed the aforesaid writ petition in this court seeking the following reliefs:(a) issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Respondents and quash the order / letter No. 30399/1908 dated 10th July 1980 and order/letter No. 30386/R/MS (X) dated 25th May 1981 and declare that the Petitioner is continuing and discharging his duties on the upgraded post of Director Pioneer Corps in the rank of Brigadier with effect from 1.4.81; and permit the Petitioner to work on the upgraded post of Brigadier up to 30.6.1983. (b) issue an order of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to retire the petitioner after 30th June 1981 and allow him to work on the present post in the rank of Brigadier till the decision of this Hon'ble Court,(c) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x(d) x x x x x x x x x x x ...

Prakash Anthony Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT426; 2005(80)DRJ346

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, by this writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 27th July/11th August, 1999, imposing the penalty of removal from service as well as order dated 12th October, 2000, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal from service was rejected. Petitioner also seeks exemplary costs and such other orders, as are deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances.2. Petitioner, a graduate and having registered with the Employment Exchange, Shahdara, applied for being appointed to the post of Assistant Typist with the respondent company in response to an advertisement issued by the respondents. Petitioner declared himself as a Member of the Scheduled Tribe and was selected and issued appointment letter dated 31st December, 1987 on this basis. Petitioner had submitted an identity card issued by the Employment Exchange, Shahdara, where he was registered, showing him as a member of the Scheduled Tribe. Petitioner also submitted a ...

Commissioner of Police, Vs. Regional Secretary, Board of Secondary Edu ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT659; 2005(80)DRJ727

Vijender Jain, J.1. This petition can be disposed of at this stage itself as we have perused the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal(for short `the C.A.T.'). The C.A.T. relying upon Deepti Prakash Benerjee vs . S.N.Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences : [1999]1SCR532 has held that the principles of natural justice were violated if the service of the respondent was terminated on the ground that he had submitted forged certificate and no opportunity was given to him to explain as to whether the report which had been received by the petitioner regarding the forgery was correct or not. The case of the respondent was that he was not at fault as he had lost the original certificate and had been denied the copy of the certificate which was lying with the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that there was no question of giving any show cause notice to the respondent as the service was terminated implicate under proviso of Rule 5 (1) (a) o...

Can FIn Homes Limited Vs. Mitre Specialised Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT639; 2005(80)DRJ739

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By and under is NO. 6274/2004 defendant No. 2 seeks to amend written statement filed, by incorporating paras 4 and 5 to the existing paras 1 to 3 of the preliminary submissions and to amend paras 6 and 10 of the existing written statement as proposed in paras 3 and 4 of the application.2. By and under is No. 8265/2004, plaintiff prays for a decree on admission purported to be made in the written statement by defendant No. 2.3. Suit under Order 34 CPC is for sale of the mortgaged property bearing No. 878, East Park Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi for recovery of Rs. 95,63,550/- being the amount due as per the plaintiff as on the date of the suit. Case of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 is the borrower. Defendant No. 2 is the owner of the property in question. Defendants 3 to 5 are stated to be guaranteers. As per the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 entered into a memorandum of understanding on 1.7.1988 whereunder property of defendant No. 2 was to be developed by ...

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Century Tubes Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT655; 2005(80)DRJ689

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. This is defendant No. 3's application under Order xxxvII Rule 3(5) seeking leave to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff. 2. It is stated in the application that defendant No. 3 neither stood as guarantor nor executed any document to secure any amount to the plaintiff. It is stated in the application that defendant No. 3 never signed any cheque forming, basis of the plaint. It is stated that defendant No. 3 resigned as a Director of defendant No. 1 on 2.11.95, much prior to the date when transactions took place between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1.3. Matter had been listed before me on 4.2.2005. Since the suit pertains to the year 1998 and request was made for adjournment, I had declined and required parties to file written submissions within three days. Unfortunately, till date, neither party has filed any written submissions.4. Suit is for recovery of Rs. 2,36,02,600/- (Rupees two crores, thirty six lacs, two thousand and six hundred only). Pendente lit...

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Sh. Mohinder Pal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT693; 2005(80)DRJ677

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Objections have been filed by the respondent under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act,1940 to the award dated 20.9.1990 published by Shri R.N. Tankha, Sole Arbitrator appointed to decide the disputes and differences between the parties.2. When the award was published, petitioner filed the suit above captioned being a petition under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act,1940 praying that the arbitrator be directed to file the award in this Court and the same be made a rule of the Court.3. On receipt of the award from the learned arbitrator, notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties. Respondent has filed objections to the award by and under IA. No. 2729/91.4. It is rather unfortunate that these proceedings have been remained pending in this Court for over 14 years. On 17.1.2005, counsel for the objector sought adjournment. Noting that the matter had remained pending for over 14 years, I declined adjournment but ga...

Ravi Kumar Khemka Vs. Sunil Kumar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant having suffered the impugned order dated 12.1.1998 to make the payment of Rs. 17,627/- towards the value of 500 shares purchased by it from the respondent and interest @ 15% payable from 1.3.1996, has directed this appeal. The appellant had given offer to the shareholders of the company in compliance with the Stock Exchange Leasing Guidelines/Agreement and Security and Exchange of India and in pursuance of the said offer the respondent sold 500 shares to the appellant company along with transfer deed. Instead of making the payment of the value of the shares the appellant returned them. According to the appellant, due to the time taken during the process of transfer of shares it could not pay the amount in time and returned the shares to the appellant vide letter dated 28.3.1996 and, therefore, was wrongly held guilty for deficiency in service. 2. We have perused the open offer floated by the appellant, the offer opened on 1.2.1996 and closed on 29.2...

Union of India Vs. Suresh Mahajan and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of deficiency in service inasmuch as not issuing the tickets for four persons on the basis of reservation booking form, the appellant, who is Railway Department, has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the respondent vide impugned order dated 11.11.1997, passed by the District Forum. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The solitary plea raised by the appellant is that the question of deficiency in service does not arise as the train number mentioned by the respondent on the reservation booking form was the train from Jammu Tawi to Delhi and not from Delhi to Jammu Tawi. According to the reservation booking form the respondent clarified that they wanted to travel from New Delhi to Jammu Tawi. Merely because the train number was mentioned as 2404 relating to the train starting from Jammu to Delhi does not mean that the respondents did not inform the booking clerk that they wanted to travel from New Delhi to J...