Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

R.C. Aggarwal Vs. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corpora ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ703; 2006(3)SLJ238(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, has sought for a quashing order against the respondents' letters dated 3.1.2003 and 6/11-5-2005 and a direction that his lien in the post of Financial Controller and Secretary with the first respondent (hereafter called DTTDC) be continued.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Financial Controller and Secretary with the DTTDC in 1991. His services were governed by Staff Service Rules, in respect of various issues, and as regards conditions of the service not provided for, those applicable to employees of the Central Government governed his employment. On 5.9.2000, he was selected by the Public Services Enterprises Board for the post of Managing Director, Hotel Corporation of India (hereafter called the Corporation) for five years. On 7.9.2000, he wrote to the DTTDC requesting that he be allowed to retain his lien for a period of his appointment as Managing Director of the Corporation. The ...

Shri S.P. Goyal Vs. the Director of Income Tax (investigation) Governm ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Del)169; 128(2006)DLT559; [2007]288ITR595(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By an order dated 17.01.2003, the following issues were framed for being decided at the outset:-1) Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 293 of the Income-tax Act ?2) Whether this court has territorial Jurisdiction ?3) Whether the action of the Director of Income Tax (Chandigarh) under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on the plaintiff was illegal and without jurisdiction and hence bad in law ?Thereafter, by an order dated 22.09.2005, this court observed that it would be appropriate if issue Nos. 1 & 2 are set down for hearing in the first instance before the question of recording of further evidence can be considered. Accordingly, on 23.11.2005, arguments were heard on the preliminary issues 1 & 2. This order shall dispose of the said issues.What is the plaintiff's case?2. Before the issues are considered, it would be necessary to point out that the plaintiff has filed this suit for damages to the tune of Rs. 36 lakhs on account of alleged lo...

Smt. G. Bharati Tarak Rao Vs. Director of Education and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT50; 2006(86)DRJ578

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these writ proceedings, a direction to quash the order of the fourth respondent (hereafter called the school) appointing the respondent No. 7 as Vice Principal, has been sought for.2. The petitioner joined the services of the school, an aided minority institution, on 9.7.1968. She was selected and appointed on 5.9.1971 as a Trained Graduate Teacher(TGT). The school was upgraded to secondary level in 1983. It is claimed that as per the seniority list drawn on 27.3.1990, the petitioner was the senior most teacher. In the list, the seventh respondent was at Sl. No. 4.3. Pursuant to the proceedings of the Selection Committee, the petitioner's name was approved for promotion as a Vice Principal and an order was issued to that effect on 10.1.1990. The petitioner accepted the post. On 9.1.1992 she was reverted to her substantive post as TGT. She preferred an appeal to the Delhi School Tribunal under provisions of Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act. By its...

Ms. Pamela Bhandari Vs. Gas Authority of India Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT699

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the relief claimed is the setting aside of a decision by respondent (hereinafter called 'GAIL') dated 28th December 1999 disallowing the petitioners' expenditure incurred for the angioplasty treatment of her husband and consequential directions that claims in the sum of Rs. 4,46,170/- and Rs. 1,23,200/- respectively be granted. The other directions sought is for remitting the pay revision arrears and other claims of the petitioner along with appropriate interest.2. The petitioner, an Indian Revenue Services (IRS) Officer was deputed to GAIL as its Chief Vigilance Officer for the period from June 1997 to July 2000. Sometime during this period, her husband, Shri. Anil Bhandari was diagnosed for serious coronary disease, chest pain and he underwent coronary angiography on 1.4.1999. He had undergone an angioplasty procedure about 10 years earlier in 1989. This time the diagnosis/ the recommendation ...

Qayyum Khan Vs. Dda and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT418; 2006(86)DRJ688

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The dispute in these proceedings encapsulates one among the several facets of that seemingly unending saga of problems, spawned by of partition of the country. The issues raised exemplify that the woes of one generation are also passed on to the next, challenging the judicial process to throw up lasting solutions. The petitioner claims restoration of a half share in Khasra No. 591, Jungpura, which had been taken over by the Custodian of Evacuee property on the assumption that the owner had lost his life during the violence which occurred at that time. Chand Khand, father of the petitioner, was the owner of inter alias half share measuring 422 sq. yards falling in Khasra No. 591, Bhogal, Jungpura (hereafter called the suit property). He was also owner of other adjacent properties bearing khasra No. 593 and 594.2. As part of the arrangements made at the dawn of Independence, for management and administration of properties which had fallen vacant, (left behind by th...

D.B. Mathur Vs. Cement Corpn. of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT410

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The Petitioner has sought for a mandatory order to the Respondent No. 1 (hereafter called as `the CCI') that he ought to be promoted as Joint Senior Manager (Electrical) from 1.7.1990 he; also seeks quashing of an order transferring him to Charkhi Dadri Unit, on 15.6.1992.2. The Petitioner joined the services of CCI as a Senior Electrical Engineer on 24.9.1994. He was promoted as Deputy Manager (Electrical) on 28.1.1983 and subsequently as Manger (Electrical) on 24.10.1986. The promotion from the post of Manger (Electrical) is to the post of Joint Senior Manager (Electrical). Pursuant to a selection process held in 1990, the names of several candidates, including the petitioner, were considered; they were also interviewed. The petitioner was not promoted. Later in another selection process held by the DPC in November, 1991 the Petitioner's name was considered once again. However, he was overlooked for promotion. The Petitioner alleges that he had an outstanding r...

Mohammad Qaseem Vs. Coal India Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT177; 2007(2)SLJ280(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, under Article 226 seeks appropriate directions that the scale of pay, fitment method and postponing date of increment, as per the office memorandum of the first respondent dated 10.09.96 be declared illegal and arbitrary. Consequential directions have been sought to fix his pay correctly; for disbursement of increments at 4% per annum and restoration of increment in accordance with what was being earned by him previously.2. The Coal Mines Authority Limited (CMAL) was established and incorporated, consequent upon nationalization of coal mines; it was later renamed as the Coal India Ltd. A common coal cadre was formulated for administration of the Executives of the erstwhile corporate entities. On 13.01.86, the terms of the common coal cadre were amended in respect of various conditions of service, as regards the date of increment, it was provided that annual increments in the executive grade would be released on 1st January or 1st July, each year, ...

Hans Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 134.2.2004 wherein the findings in Order-in-Original were upheld.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the authorities intercepted a truck loaded with M.S. Bars. The officers directed the driver to produce the duty paying documents, for which the driver could not do so, hence the officers seized the goods along with truck. On follow up action the factory of the appellant was visited and stock taking was done and the officers found shortage of the finished goods and raw materials, vis-a-vis recorded balance in RG1. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation of the seized goods, and demand of duty on the shortage of the finished goods.The appellant contested the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority, in his order in original confiscated the seized goods and imposed redemption fine, and confirmed the demand on the finished goods found short and also imposed penalty on the app...

N.N. Seth and ors. Vs. Renu Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(87)DRJ459

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.1.2004.2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. By means of the writ petition, the petitioner prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the suspension order dated 26.5.2000 annexure 'I' to the writ petition, the order dated 13.6.2000 extending the suspension period for another one month vide annexure 'L' to the writ petition and the suspension orders dated 13.7.2000 & 29.7.2000 vide annexure 'M' to the writ petition.5. The petitioner also challenged the orders dated 24.11.2000, 25.4.2000 approving the extension of the suspension. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents No. 3 to 6 to pay full pay and allowances for the period from 27.5.2000 onwards.6. The writ petitioner ...