Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

R.D. Jaglan S/O Sh. Chandgi Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Validity of transfer and posting order dated 13.09.2006 is challenged in the present application.2. Factual matrix is that applicant, initially appointed as Section Engineer in the year 1981, is presently working as Sr. Section Engineer (P. Way) Special, Northern Railway, Rohtak. He was transferred and posted as SSE (PW) TRT Rohtak vide DPO letter dated 12.08.2002. After completion of work at Rohtak, he was transferred to Baraut w.e.f.20.05.2003. From Baraut, he was further transferred to Shamili w.e.f.01.03.2004. Vide letter dated 10.06.2004, he was transferred back to Rohtak and joined duty on 10.12.2004. He was temporarily deputed to assist Sr. DEN/V and sent back to Rohtak on 18.1.2005. In the year 2004, Respondents decided to recover penal rent of Rs. 7,213/- per month, declaring him to be unauthorized occupant of Government accommodation and, therefore, he filed OA No. 3001/2004 before this Bench, which was allowed vide order dated 22.02.2005. The Railways filed Writ Petition...

ito Vs. Jagdish Chandra Virmani

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals preferred by the revenue against a common order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Dehradun dated 15-1-2004 for assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1998-99, involve a common issue and the same therefore, are being disposed of by this single consolidated order.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are as follows: The assessee is an individual who is engaged in the business of construction of apartments and sale thereof. During the years under consideration as well as the intervening year relevant to assessment year 1997-98, shopping complex known as Shrishti Complex was constructed by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 1997-98, the said complex constructed by the assessee was referred by the assessing officer to the valuation cell for the purpose of valuation of cost of construction. The Valuation Officer vide his report dated 20-5-2000 determined the value of said constructi...

Hotel Naveen Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 4-4-2002 taking the following grounds of appeal: 1.That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified and erred in confirming the following additions as made by learned assessing officer in the assessment As Long-Term Capital Gain Assessed as value of Goodwill on its presumed transfer The assessment of these three sums of Rs. 1,14,570, Rs. 1,12,196 and Rs. 93,016 being erroneous, unjust and untenable, be kindly deleted. 2. That alternatively, but without prejudice to other grounds, the additions as made by the learned Income Tax Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are very excessive. 3. That the learned assessing officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are not justified in not accepting and allowing assessee's claim for depreciation, which be kindly allowed. 4. That the several additions/ disallowances have been made on contradictory grounds and even over-...

Draegerwerk Aktiengesellschaft Vs. Usha Drager Pvt. Limited and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC487; (2007)1CompLJ391(Del); 136(2007)DLT355; [2007]75SCL355(Delhi)

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present petition under Section 433(f) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by Draegerwerk Aktiengesellschaft (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, for short) for winding up of M/s Usha Drager Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company or respondent No. 1, for short). Subsequently, vide amended memo of parties dated 5.11.2005, RKKR Infotech Pvt. Ltd. was made a party to this Petition. The said company has been hereinafter referred to as the respondent group or Usha group.2. The petitioner is seeking winding up of the company on 'just and equitable' ground for the reason that the petitioner and the respondent group are both holding 50% shares in the company and there is complete deadlock between them. It is stated that the substratum of the company has been lost in view of the irreconcilable differences between the two groups. It is further stated that the business of the company...

Dinesh Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ652

J.M. Malik, J. 1. In this case the appellant/accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.20,000/- in default of which he was further sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for one year for raping a child aged about nine years under Section 376 IPC. Aggrieved by that order, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. The key argument urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant has two prongs. He drew the attention of the Court towards the MLC of the prosecutrix, which was proved on the record as Ex.PW2/A. Its relevant extract is reproduced as hereunder:Pt. Says she was playing outside her house when her neighbour whom she calls Dinesh Uncle gave her some sweets & called her inside his room. He allegedly raped her. This incident took at about 10 AM on 25.6.2000. The alleged rapist is her neighbour. She gives a history that the same person has tried to sexually abuse her twice before.No external injuries over the body. Perineum - No p...

P.K. Bids Was Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]3SCL514(Delhi)

Manju Goel, J.1. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 were both working as Executive Directors with the Reserve Bank of India (in short the 'RBI'), under the provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The petitioner claims that he was senior to respondent No. 3, having been appointed a month earlier than her. He is challenging the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Deputy Governor and his non-selection for the post.3. The provisions regarding Deputy Governor appear in Section 8(1)(a) and Section 8(4) of the RBI Act, which are as under:8. Composition of the Central Board, and term of office of Directors.(1) The Central Board shall consist of the following Directors, namely(a) a Governor and not more than four Deputy Governors to be appointed by the Central Government;(b) ...(c) ...(d) ...(2) ...(3) ...(4)The Governor and a Deputy Governor shall hold office for...

Chandra Mohan Gururani Vs. the Director of Education and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT323

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 17th May 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge. The facts of the case are as follows:(a) It is pleaded that in the year 1999 the appellant being senior most lecturer/PGT in the school was entitled to be promoted as Vice Principal but still he was not promoted. He thereforee, made a representation on 12th July 1999 through proper channel explaining that he had completed 28 years of service and was the senior most for the post of Vice Principal but in vain. It is submitted that in the absence of Principal he was even made to officiate as the Principal. The school Principal also wrote to the authorities about the outstanding performance of the appellant. It is alleged that a number of PGTs have been appointed as Vice Principals and even as Principals despite not holding a degree of B.Ed., in government as well as aided schools but the appellant was being given step motherly treatment and was having discriminated against. The E...

Bharat Engineering Enterprises Vs. D.D.A. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR90(Delhi); 136(2007)DLT379

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioner, a partnership firm was awarded the work of 'Construction of 1200 MIG houses in PKT GH-14, Group IV at Paschim Vihar including water supply, sanitary, installation & internal development of land SH : Pile Foundation for Ground IV-Providing bored compaction under reamed pile foundation' and an agreement was executed between the parties in that regard. The respondent No. 1, in the course of execution of the work as also on completion thereof, failed to make payments to the petitioner giving rise to disputes between them. The petitioner, in the circumstances, invoked arbitration clause seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes and an arbitrator was, as a result, appointed vide letter dated 20th February, 1991.2. The arbitrator entered upon the reference and made his award on 15th June, 1993.3. On petitioner filing instant petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, pursuant to a direction, the arbitrator filed the award and...

Standing Conference of Public Enterprises Vs. Government of Nct of Del ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ616

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 20.1.2004 passed by Industrial Tribunal I, directing the payment of 50% back wages to the petitioner from 15.2.1988 till 30th September, 2001 i.e. date of reference and 100% wages from 1.10.2001 till July, 2002. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent was employed as a foreman by the Public Enterprises Services Association( in short 'the PESA') on 16th July, 1985. His initial appointment was for a period of three months on ad hoc basis. PESA was a body created for monitoring, construction and completion of twin towers project of an office complex, sought to be constructed for housing various public sector undertakings under one roof for effective coordination between various public sector undertakings. PESA was a baby of the petitioner itself and created with the object of construction of twin towers in Laxmi Nagar. A lot of irregularities were detected in the working of P...

Tirupati Lpg Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Notification No. 50/2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003, as amended from time to time, exempted goods specified and cleared from a unit located in the industrial growth centre or industrial infrastructure development centre etc. etc. The exemption was available only to new industrial units which have commenced commercial production on or after 7-1-2003 or industrial units existing before 7-1-2003 but which have undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than 25% on or after 7-1-2003.2. The appellant in the present case claimed the exemption notification in regard to LPG cylinders and ACSR conductors. Under the impugned order that claim remains rejected mainly on the ground that the expression "unit" in the notification meant "factory" and that the appellant did not qualify for the exemption when their production is measured as from a factory.3. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the Commissioner is in error in equating 'uni...