Delhi Court October 2006 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.
Madhu Trehan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(113)ECC60; 2006LC60(Delhi); 2006(207)ELT52(Del)
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This writ petition, filed on 30.5.1981, seeks the quashing of an order dated 20.1.1981 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, as modified by subsequent order dated 16.2.1981, in a Customs Revision Application filed by the petitioner to the extent it rejects her plea for exemption from payment of customs duty on 9 items of goods under the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978.2. Rule was issued in this petition at the first hearing on 4.8.1981. Thereafter it was listed only on 28.2.2002 when it was adjourned. At the hearing on 6.1.2006 the following order was passed:WP.(C) No. 1507/1981Mr. Salwan appears for petitioner. He points out that counsel for UOI has not appeared to file a counter affidavit. In the circumstances, we direct Mr. Sidharth Mridul Standing counsel for the Government of India to accept notice for the respondents and to file a counter affidavit. Mr. Salwan shall furnish to Mr. Mridul an additional set of papers wi...
Silk and Textiles Mercantile Traders Assn. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 139(2007)DLT393; 2007(207)ELT482(Del); (2007)6VST444(Delhi)
S. Muralidhar, J.1. These five writ petitions filed by an association of silk and textiles traders in Delhi and its members challenge the constitutional validity of the following notifications:(i) Notification No. F.4 (i)/99-Fin(g) dated 31.3.1999 issued by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), Finance General Department specifying the rate of local sales tax payable under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, as amended by Delhi Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1997, as 3 paise in a rupee in respect of silk fabric.(ii) Notification Nos. F.4(52)/99/Fin(G)/(I) and (II) dated 15.1.2000 issued by the Sales Tax Department, GNCTD, including silk fabrics in the First Schedule to the Delhi Sales Tax Act 1975 and levying sales tax @ 12 paise in the rupee on silk fabrics and garments made of silk thereof.(iii) Notification No. F.4(75)/99-Fin(G)/2095 dated 31.3.2000 issued under Section 4(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, as amended by the Delhi Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 19...
Jitender Singh (Ex. Head Const) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ108
ORDERWhereas, I have gone through the case of absence without leave against No. 81001118 HC Jitender Singh of this unit. He was given an opportunity to show cause vide this office letter No. Estt/Tac/95/Disc/10177 dated 1.11.93 which he has not availed of. I am satisfied that his absence without leave with effect from 10.08.93 (FN) without any reasonable cause and his further retention in the Service is undesirable. I, thereforee, dismiss him from BSF service with effect from 16.11.93 (FN) under Rule 177 of BSF Rule 1969. His absence period from 10.08.93 (FN) to 15.11.93 (AN) shall be treated as 'DIES-ON'2. Amount of deficient Kit/Clothing items and other dues if any will be deducted from his deposits/Pay and allowances, for which separate order will be issued.3. Above individual is SOS from this unit with effect from 16.11.93 (FN).6. The facts of the present case are hardly in dispute. The main question is whether the show cause notice issued by the respondents as well as the order pa...
Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ52
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The petitioner Maya Devi is the wife of late Naik Lal Singh, who was enrolled in the Army on 8th October, 1965. He was subjected to prescribed medical and physical test before his enrollment in the Army by the Competent Medical Authority. He was granted service No. 6361304. He was granted casual leave with effect from 10.08.1981 to 11.08.1981 with permission to prefix 09.08.1981 being Sunday. The husband of the petitioner proceeded for journey on 9th August, 1981 with permission to leave the station. The bus in which the husband of the petitioner was traveling met with an accident. Unfortunately, husband of the petitioner died in that accident. The respondents granted ordinary family pension to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she was entitled for special family pension. On 21st October, 1982, the claim of the petitioner for grant of special family pension was rejected by PCDA(P) Allahabad by saying that the cause of death of the husband of the petitio...
Babu Khan Vs. D.G. of Medical Services (Army) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ256
G.S. Sistani, J. 1. In this case the petitioner applied for recruitment as a soldier G.D. Clerk Category in the Indian Army. As per the requirement of the Recruitment Board, he was invited for a thorough medical examination to be carried out by the Recruiting Medical Officer at Meerut Division. The petitioner was declared medically fit. The petitioner was thereafter called for a written test and he was declared as a successful candidate in the written examination. On 2.12.1999 the Recruiting Officer, Branch Recruiting Office, Meerut Cantt, issued a letter to the petitioner stating therein that he is selected for recruitment as a soldier G.D. clerk category on the basis of merit of the above mentioned examination and he was directed to approach the recruitment office, Meerut on 4.1.2000. The recruitment office at Meerut sent the petitioner to the Head Quarters, M.P. B & Q Area, Jabalpur for undertaking necessary training. During training the petitioner performed his duties sincerely and...
John Tinson and Company (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Del)423; [2008]298ITR407(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The following substantial questions of law arise in this batch of Appeals:1. Whether the AO is duty bound to compute the `annual value of property' or `the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let' as contemplated by Sections 22 and 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only on `standard rent' basis if he disbelieves the rent stated to be receivable by the assessed.2. Whether computation under Section 22 and 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be on standard rent basis irrespective of whether this exercise has been carried out by the Rent Controller.2. Succinctly stated, the Assessing Officer (AO) has not accepted the version of the assessed/landlord/owner that it is receiving a rental ofRs. 50 per month from its tenant Messrs Venkatraman and Co. andRs. 75 per month from the Bhagat Group of Companies. The AO was of the opinion that the assessed had failed to prove that these sums reflected the `actual rent' received by it in the relevant Assessmen...
Modi Distillery Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR192(Delhi); 2007(94)DRJ101
Gita Mittal, J.1. By this judgment I propose to dispose of CS(OS) No. 2716A/1993 and I.A. No. 7365/1995. There is no dispute to the dates and events in this matter. The parties are at variance only on the construction to be put thereon.2. It appears that M/s. Modi Distillery was awarded a contract for supply of country liquor to the Delhi Administration for the year 1986-87 under licenses issued to it in Form L-9 and CLW-1. It was also a licensee for the preceding year 1985-86. The petitioner has pointed out that such licenses were awarded pursuant to exercise of the statutory powers under the Delhi Excise Act and the rules and regulations framed there under. The general and special condition for the supply stipulated that the statutory rules and regulations would govern the supplies made by the licensees. 3. There is no dispute that the power to vary the supply of the liquor was statutorily vested in the Lt. Governor and the Commissioner (Excise) under the provisions of the Delhi Exci...
Mohinder Pal Grover Vs. Vijaya Bank and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ913Del
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated April 25, 2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II of Central Government.2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was working as a peon with the respondent. He committed thefts during the course of his duty, of Rs. 900/- on May 16, 1987 and Rs. 650/- on August 20, 1997. A charge-sheet was served upon him about the misconduct of thefts and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. After the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the enquiry officer found the charges of theft proved and disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from the service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the departmental Appellate Authority, his appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal in the following terms:Whether the action of the management of Vijaya Bank, New Delhi in dismi...
Ex. W.O. S.S. Gautam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 138(2007)DLT132; 2006(92)DRJ467
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. With reference to Regulations 48, 173 and 185 of the Pension Regulations for Army 1961 (Part-I), the competent Authority i.e. Government of India, Ministry of defense (Pension Branch) had issued various letters and circulars declaring Appendix II to be its part including letter dated 18.4.1950, which were made effective from 1.4.1948 in supersession of all previous orders. To this Appendix II, an annexure was made in relation to classification of diseases. These circulars and directions were not limited or restricted in their scope and application and subsequently they were also stated in the letter of Ministry of defense dated 22nd November, 1983 and Corrigendum dated 21st August, 1983 as Annexure 3 to Appendix II. Under these provisions, Hypertension, Psychosis and Psychoneurosis are the diseases, which are affected by stress and strain of service as well as altitude as per these declarations.2. In a recent judgment in the case of Sugna Ram Ranoliya v. Union of ...
Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Limited Vs. Air Liquide Deutschland Gmbh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 138(2007)DLT62
Gita Mittal, J.1. The petitioner M/s Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Limited has filed the present petition under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India praying for initiation for contempt of court allegedly committed by the respondents. In order to appreciate the respective contentions, it becomes necessary to consider the factual matrix briefly.2. According to the petitioner company, which was controlled by the 'Goyal Group', it was approached by M/s Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH and various other foreign parties who were looking at the prospects of entering the Indian market. A Share Purchase & Cooperation Agreement (referred to as the SPC hereafter) was entered into between the petitioner and the M/s Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH (respondent No. 1 hereafter) on the 12th of May, 1995, which was amended in November, 1996, as a result of which, 51% holding of the petitioner company remained with the Goyal Group while 49% shareholding ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »