Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Jesus and Mary College Vs. University of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT138

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The petitioner, an aided minority educational institution, has filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:(a) A declaration that Clause 7(4A) of Ordinance xviii of Delhi University is ultra virus and unconstitutional;(b) A declaration that amended Clause 7(4A) of Ordinance xviii of Delhi University does not apply to the Petitioner;(c) A writ of certiorari to quash an Order dated 13.2.2006 passed by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions2. The main issue that arises for determination in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is obliged to constitute a Selection Committee for filling up the post of Lecturer in different subjects, in accordance with the amended Clause 7(4A) of Chapter xviii of the Delhi University Ordinance.Background Facts3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner issued an advertisement in the newspapers on 21.6.2005 inviting applications for the post of Lecturer in different subjects. The petitioner...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Del)115; 137(2007)DLT40; [2008]303ITR95(Delhi)

1. The Revenue has filed these Appeals against the Order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleting the agricultural income in the sum of Rs. 4,34,000/- declared by Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Rs. 4,55,700/- declared by Shri Vijay Gupta respectively. Both these assessed had also assailed the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Sections 147-148 of the Income-Tax Act (IT Act).2. The case of the Revenue is that the AO had received information from the DDIT (Investigation), Faridabad that while carrying out post search enquiries relating to a third party, Shri Anand Prakash, the sole proprietor of M/s. Jai Trading Company had deposed that he was providing bogus/false transactions purporting to relate to sale/purchase of foodgrain items and that the cash deposits with him were from parties who had approached him for 'accommodation entries' in the form of agricultural receipts. The enquiries with the banks on whom cheques were drawn and c...

G. Udayan Dravid and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT583; 2009(93)DRJ624

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. These two petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') are essentially for the same relief, i.e., quashing of the FIR No. 62/2004 under Section 406/120B IPC registered at police station Kapashera. The petitioners have sought quashing in one petition on the ground of compromise / settlement arrived at between the petitioners on the one hand and the complainant bank (ICICI Bank Ltd) on the other. Quashing of the FIR has also been sought on merits in the other petition. However, both the petitions are taken up together and, thereforee, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. There is no dispute that the FIR referred to above came to be registered at the instance of the complainant bank on account of the alleged non-payment of the loans taken by the petitioners for 14 vehicles which stood hypothecated with the complainant bank. There is also no dispute that the petitioners and the c...

Ram Dhari Vats Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT505

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Manager at the Narela Branch of Syndicate Bank ('Bank'), New Delhi. He was issued a charge sheet on 25.11.1996 for a disciplinary enquiry under Article 6 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1996. Broadly, the charge was that the petitioner had abused his official position during his tenure as Manager in the Baghpat Branch of the Bank in Uttar Pradesh between 17.8.88 and 21.5.92 and sanctioned/released six loans amounting to Rs.60,000 in a manner detrimental to the interests of the Bank.2. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 6.7.1998 held charge No.1 to be partly proved, charges 2 and 3 not proved and charges 4, 5 and 6 fully proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and found all the charges to be proved. By a letter dated 20.10.1988 the Disciplinary Authority enclosed a copy of the report of Enquiry Officer, the tentative view thereon ...

Tule Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT619

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The lands of the petitioners herein along with certain other people consisting of 26 sets of land were acquired under the provisions of the defense of India Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Compensation was offered to the land owners who were not satisfied with the compensation and thus sought arbitration in terms of Sub-section 2 of Section 37 of the said Act. The learned Additional District Judge who was appointed the arbitrator gave the award on 31.10.1969. Twelve sets of affected persons who were not satisfied filed a CM(M) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the said award. In terms of the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 05.01.1981 the award was set aside and remanded back for re-consideration on account of certain evidence not being included for consideration while making the award. It is thereafter periodically that the other owners of the land who had not challenged the award dated 31....

Dav College Managing Committee Vs. Surender Rana and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 135(2006)DLT307

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The Appellant, the Dayanand Anglo-Vedic College trust and Management Society, Chitragupta Road, New Delhi has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 8.2.2006 passed in C.W.P. No. 1249/2002 wherein the Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on merits by its order dated 8.2.2006. Aggrieved by the said order the Appellant has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant is a unit of Dayanand Anglo-Vedic College Trust Management Society, Chitragupta Road, New Delhi registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. For the management and control of all its institutions the Trust has formed a Committee which is known as the DAV College Managing Committee.3. The appellant institution is being exclusively run by this trust from its own funds and resources without any financial aid from Respondent No. 2 or any other Government agency.4. The respo...

Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Abid Malik

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

O.P. Nahar, Chairperson. - By virtue of this Revision Petition, the Enforcement Directorate invoked the powers of this Tribunal under the provisions of section 52(4) FER Act, 1973 for the purpose of examining legality, propriety and correctness of the adjudication order No. ADJ/914/DZ/2004/AD(SRB)/9197 dated 27-12-04 passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate whereby the respondent is absolved of the charges of making payment of Rs. 5,60,000 to or for the credit of one Shri N.N. Gupta resident outside India from whom the respondent Abid Malik took a gift cheque of Rs. 5 lakhs from his NRI account No. 320170459 maintained with American Express Bank, New Delhi. We have heard Shri A.C. Singh, ALA on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate and Shri S.K. Mittal, Chartered Accountant on behalf of the respondent. Shri S.K. Mittal, Chartered Accountant has also filed written submissions which are taken on record. 2. According to Shri A.C. Singh, ALA for revisionist, the adjudicating a...

Cce Vs. Star Paper Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC20

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 30^th September 2004 that allowed the appeal of the respondent.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are respondent were paying duty on wrapping paper captively used by them and were availing modvat credit. Demand was raised on the appellant reversal of modvat taken by them in excess of Rs. 800 per metric ton. Issue was settled in favour of the respondent subsequent to which respondent filed refund claim. The said refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority and the matter was taken upto Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the adjudicating authority should consider the matter fresh in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Solar Pesticides. The adjudicating authority in the denovo proceedings again came to the conclusion that respondent is not eligible for the refund of the amount claimed by them on the grounds of unjust enrichment. On an appeal, Commission...

Shakti Fabricators Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the denial of modvat credit of Rs. 91,050/- and imposing a reduced penalty of Rs. 15000/-.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not supplied copies of the relevant documents including their reply to the show cause though they were repeatedly requested for, on the ground that the file of the case was lost in the office of the authorized representative of the appellant. It was further submitted that the Commissioner had relied solely on the report of the Assistant Commissioner dated 19.12.1996, which was referred to for the first time in the order dated 26.10.2004, and, therefore, since that report was not supplied to the appellant, there was gross violation of principles of natural justice.3. It appears from the impugned order, that the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied upon the report-dated 19.12.1996, made by the Assistant Commissioner having bearing on the fact...

Dsm Anti Infectives India Pvt. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC506

1. This appeal is directed against order in original dated 11/10/04 that imposed penalty on the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are appellant were manufacturers of Bulk Drugs falling under Chapter 29. Appellants were clearing the goods on payment of duty to their suppliers. Supplies made by the appellant during the relevant period were rejected by their purchasers, which were brought back to their factory for re-conditioning, re-making under Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Subsequent to such re-conditioning and re-making, appellant removed the said goods without payment of duty, as provided under Rule 173H. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding the duty on such clearances on the allegation that the activity undertaken by the appellant on the returned goods, amounts to manufacture of goods as per Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The adjudicating a...