Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Hans Raj Meena S/O Shri Kishan Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through It ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. In this OA, applicant, who was working as Valve man, seeks benefit of the judgment in OA-8/2004 of the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in Devilal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 10.1.2005.3. Learned Counsel for applicant would contend that having turned down the request of the applicant on representation, no further avenues under the rules are available with him and the only resort would be the Court. Accordingly, it is stated that when in Devilal's case (supra), the directions were subject to the outcome of the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Gopa Ram Valveman SLP (Civil) No.CC 4932 dated 26.4.2004 the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the applicant when the order of the Jodhpur Bench (supra) has already been implemented by the Government suffers from illegality on part of the respondents.4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that there are other departmental avenue...

The Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Sh. Ramesh Aggarwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(1)58; 2006(33)PTC561(Del)

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of the above-mentioned two applications, both of which have been filed by the defendant seeking to oust the present suit from the jurisdiction of this Court. Though the first application is styled as one under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the second as one under Section 21 of the Code, de hors their garb both applications are under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code for return of the plaint on the ground that this Court is not clothed with territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. Although initially counsel for plaintiff sought to urge that Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be invoked only in the appellate and revisional forum and not in the original forum and, in any event, precludes a prayer for return of the plaint, subsequently he contended himself by urging that without prejudice to his aforesaid contentions and assuming both applications to be a case of 'defective labelling', the meri...

Mohd. Mehboob @ Munna Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(93)DRJ398

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal appeals No. 812/2000 and 3272001 seek to challenge the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge in Session Case No. 196/98, FIR No. 21/98 Police Station Sarojini Nagar whereby the learned Judge vide his judgment dated 1st November, 2000 has held the appellants guilty for an offence under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. Further by order dated 3rd November, 2000 sentenced the appellants to undergo life imprisonment together with the fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each.2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Subhash aged about 17 years was alleged to have been taken away by Munna and Furkan, the appellants herein, on the night of 24th January, 1998 from the jhuggi of PW-1 Ram Kali for the purpose of meeting call of nature. The dead body of Subhash was recovered on the following morning by PW-1 Ram Kali, who informed the police upon which the Investigating Office]' PW-14 Mir Singh reached the spot...

M.R. Warerkar Vs. Dda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT699

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue rule. With consent of counsel for the parties the petition was taken up for final disposal.2. The writ petitioner claims a direction for quashing of order/letters dated 5.5.00 and 5.1.01 issued by the Respondent Delhi Development Authority (hereafter referred to as the 'DDA'), requiring him to deposit interest @ 18% on the sum of Rs. 1,10,763/- for the period 4.3.1977 to 3.6.2000 ( hereafter 'the period in question').3. The undisputed facts of this case are that one Shri T.P.Narayanan was allottee/owner of plot No. A-23 Gulmohar Park, Delhi Union of Journalists Cooperative House Building Society (hereafter referred to as the 'Gulmohar Park') . The allottee died on 10.12.1975. As per a Will executed by him, the right, title and interest in the property was bequeathed to the Petitioner, who approached the DDA to record his name. This request was acceded to and the Petitioner's name was mutated by DDA, in its records, by order dated 14.3.1977. Later, the Petit...

Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust Vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemption)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Del)493; 2009(93)DRJ499; [2007]290ITR99(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These four appeals under Section 260A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) are directed against the common order dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), Delhi Bench 'A' in ITA No 3631-3634/Del/98.2. These proceedings concern the penalty levied on the appellant under Section 272A(2)(e) of the Act for the delay in filing income tax returns for the assessment years (AYs) 1990-91, 1991-92, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. The period of delay and the corresponding penalty imposed are set out in the table below:ASSTT YEAR RETURN FILED PERIOD OF DELAY PENALTYON IN DAYS IMPOSED(RS.)1990-91 17.9.1998 2875 2,87,5001991-92 17.9.1998 2510 2,51,0001995-96 17.9.1998 1050 1,05,0001996-97 17.9.1998 655 65,5001997-98 15.9.1998 318 31,8003. The Appellant is a charitable trust which came to be established by a Trust Deed dated 3.10.1983. The appellant was granted registration under Section 12-A of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi - 110 006...

Madan Lal Sobti Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investm ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC364; (2007)145PLR43

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions before the Civil Judge seeking a restraint order against the respondent namely, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited from dealing with the suit property being Flat No. BB/3-C, DDA Flats, Munirka, New Delhi in any manner. The petitioner claimed to be the owner of the property. In the year 1996, the respondent Corporation sanctioned additional term loan of Rs. 64 lakhs to one M/s. EON Polymers Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the borrower'), which was disbursed to the borrower on 15.11.1996. The respondent Corporation had a first mortgage over the borrower's immovable and movable properties apart from the personal guarantee of the promoters. The petitioner filed the suit aggrieved by a letter / order dated 01.11.2003 issued to the petitioner by the respondent Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be r...

Suraj Prakash Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ760

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 8.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby it was directed that charges under Section 498A/306 IPC be framed against the petitioner. The formal charge was also drawn up on the same date. The charge which has been drawn up reads as under:I Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi do hereby charge you accused Suraj Parkash as under:That from Sept./Oct. 2002 till the death of Smt. Archna which occurred during the night of 31.12.02/1.1.03 at your house No. D-99 Rides Line University Campus, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Mourice Nagar, you being the husband of Smt. Archna subjected her to cruelty by giving her beatings and used ugly language to her and by making harassment to her you committed an offence punishable Under Section 498A IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly, on the intervening night 31.12.02/1.1.03 at house No. D-99 Rides Line, Unive...

Phool Singh Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The limited grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 22.2.2003 passed by the District Forum is against the observation of the District Forum that the respondent at the most could charge misuse charges for the three years prior to the application of the appellant for giving NL connection, though , vide said order, the District Forum has quashed the bill pertaining to the misuse charges issued on 15.2.2002 for Rs. 76,560 with the direction to the O. P. to issue revised bill only showing charges for three years prior to 13.11.2000, i.e. the date of meter reader visit reporting about the misuse. 2. The allegations of the appellant in brief were that he had electric connection No. 014-522295/DL/DM and was paying electric bills regularly. On 17.1.2001 he received a notice from the respondent that his electric connection was being misused for commercial purpose. He replied the notice on 7.2.2001 stating that he had already applied for separate NL ...

Dinesh Agarwal and Sharad Agarwal Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC38

1. These two appeals are directed against the order in appeal dated 23.3.2004 which upheld the penalties imposed on the current appellants by the adjudicating authority.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are directors of the company M/s Classic Cement Pvt. Ltd. The said company was investigated for the clandestine removal of goods and for confiscation of the excess found goods in the factory premises during the time of inspection. A common show cause notice was issued to the company as well as to the current appellant for demand of the duty, confiscation of the seized goods and for imposition of penalties.Before the adjudication could take place, the main noticee i.e. the company, went for settlement of the dispute under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, as regards the liability on the company. The designated authority accepted the said application for KVSS and certificate under form 3 was issued to the main noticee to the effect that case is settl...

Rollatainers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant is a manufacturer of Weighing Machines and Packaging Machines. They have been removing those goods after payment of Central Excise Duty.3. On 22-9-99, Supdt. of Central Excise visited their factory and pointed out that the appellant had been removing mixed scrap (as revealed from their books of accounts) without payment of duty. He also pointed out that duty was required to be discharged on those clearances. Thereupon, the appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 87,349/-.4. Subsequently, on 27-11-2000, a SCN was issued alleging that during the period 1-4-94 to 22-9-99, the duty payable on the removal of waste and scrap was Rs. 54,632/-. Thus, there was an excess payment of about Rs. 32,717/- by the appellant. The notice alleged that the appellant was liable to penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act.5. The appellant resisted the allegation relating to penalty by contending that the non-payment of duty on mixed scrap was a bonafide error and there was no ind...