Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Constable Ravi Kumar S/O Shri Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 24.12.2004 (Annexure A-1) by which a penalty of forfeiture of 5 years of approved service permanently, resulting in reduction in pay by 5 stages, was imposed on him. He has further challenged the order of the Appellate Authority dated 04.04.2005 (Annexure A-2), whereby the aforesaid penalty was modified to forfeiture of two years of approved service permanently. The applicant has also sought quashing and setting aside the Findings of the Enquiry Officer communicated vide letter dated 13.10.2004 (Annexure A-3), with all consequential benefits.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Constable in the Office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, 3rd Battalion, DAP, Vikaspuri, was placed under suspension along with three others on the allegation that they had indulged in corrupt activities in connivance with UTP Ranbir Kumar Singh. A primary inquiry was conducted under Rule 1...

Shri Inder Pal Singh S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. By virtue of this OA an order passed on 19.5.2004, transferring the applicant on inter-division basis as well as an order passed by the respondents on 23.12.2004, whereby he has sought extension of benefit of the decision of this Tribunal in Om Prakash v. Union of India and Ors. OA-1755/2004 decided on 23.8.2004 has been denied to him, are impugned in the present OA.3. Learned Counsel for applicant states that in a joint inquiry when Shri Om Prakash, who had been transferred on inter-division basis, the decision of the Tribunal (supra) and its ratio deci dendi clearly covers the present issue. As the respondents have tried to sit over the decision of the Tribunal without its being overturned by the High Court, remains the binding precedent and has to be followed by this Bench.4. Learned Counsel for respondents while referring to the counter reply would contend that the distinguishing features in the present case are that Shri Om Prakash was in the immediate subordination of Deputy ...

Sanjay Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ521

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 691 of 2001 seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1999 arising out of FIR No. 249/1999, Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi dated 20.07,2001 whereby the learned judge has held the appellant guilty for offence under Sections 302/366/376 IPC and further by his order dated 21.07.2001 has sentenced the appellant under Section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days; under Section 366 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days and under Section 376 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was given to him.2. Brief facts of ...

Shri Mashkoor Ahmad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ310

Manju Goel, J.1. Admit.2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.12.2004 of the President of India whereby the penalty of recovery of 50% of leave encashment and forfeiture of 50% of the gratuity paid to the petitioner on his retirement has been imposed.3. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent No. 3, The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the `NSIC') which works as per the policies laid down by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 3's function is to help small industries in various ways including providing them with loan facilities. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent No. 3. On 27.8.2002, he was served with a Memorandum informing him that the President had proposed to hold an inquiry against him. The substances of imputations of misconduct were set out in the Articles of Charge. A statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in suppo...

S.D.S. Mongia Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Del)357

ORDER1. The petitioner has made the following prayers in this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India:(a) quash the impugned order dated 20-11-2002 condone the delay in filing the revision petitions for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991 92 and 1993-94 and hear the same on merits;(b) quash the impugned order dated 20-11-2002 of the respondent No. 2 holding that so far as assessment year 1990-91 was concerned, the revision petition could not be entertained as an appeal had been preferred by the assessed for that assessment year;(c) direct the respondent No. 2 to condone the delay in filing the revision petitions for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1993-94 and hear the same on merits;(d) direct the assessing officer, Ward No. 24(l), New Delhi, to exclude the income in respect of amount received by the petitioner as pension from LIC (which is exempt from tax under Section 10(13)(ii) of the Act), from the assessable income for the above said three years, i.e....

Kuppa S/O Shri Kali Parmal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ507

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13th November, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 80/1994. The Appellant was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC). He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also payment of fine.2. The broad facts of the case are that on 25th March, 1994, on the date of Holi festival, the Appellant threw some coloured water on Smt. Mariamma, wife of the deceased Kali Machhiwala. This was objected to by her and by Kali Machhiwala leading to an exchange of hot words between them and the Appellant. Thereafter, Kali Machhiwala slapped the Appellant who then went to his jhuggi which was about 20 paces away and brought a knife with which he stabbed Kali Machhiwala on the left side of his chest and shoulder. The victim started bleeding profusely and fell down. His wife, Smt. Mariamma tried to stop the bleeding with her s...

Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. R.N. Ba ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ357

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This is a reference under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 ('Act') made by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ('Council') in respect of certain disciplinary proceedings in which the Council found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct and recommended that the name of the Respondent be removed from the register of Members for a period of 6 months.2. The facts in brief are that the Respondent is a partner of a firm M/s. R.N. Bahl & Company, who were the auditors for the Indian Bank Mutual Fund ('IBMF'). In relation to the audited accounts of IBMF for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92, certain irregularities were noticed by the Committee to Enquire into the Securities Transactions of the Banks and Financial Institutions ('the Janakiraman Committee') in its Report No. 5. By a letter dated 2.11.1994, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ('Institute') sent the comments of the Janakiraman Committee to M/s. R....

Sarla Aggarwal Vs. the Director of Education and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ696

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This LPA challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th April 2002 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on two grounds that (a) no aid was being received by the respondent No. 2 Shri Hanuman Mandir Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as the 'school') from respondent No. 1 Director of Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'DOE'), on the presumption that the appellant was over aged. The appellant was working with the respondent No. 2 school on the basis of letter dated 11th July 1998 solely on the basis of the aid being received from respondent No. 1 which aid was not received. The learned Single Judge on the basis of above finding and the finding that the letter dated 11th July 1998 not having been disclosed amounted to a material suppression dismissed the writ petition.2. The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:(a) The appellant was the writ petitioner who was working as an Assistant T...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shanker Lal Ved Prakash

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)47; 2009(93)DRJ350; [2008]300ITR243(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The following substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal:Whether ITAT was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer had not satisfactorily discharged the burden of proof resting on him vis-a-vis the service of Notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 within the statutory period prescribed under the said provision?2. We have heard arguments at great length on this sticky but significant question of law. This provision prescribes that no Notice shall be served on the assessed after the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the Return is filed. In the present case, the assessed filed his Return declaring an income of Rs. 41,98,800/- on 29.8.1997. The Assessment Order was eventually framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 23.2.2000 at Rs. 58,36,860/-. Thus, notices served on the Appellant after 31.8.1998 would be devoid of legal efficacy by virtue of this proviso to the said sub-section. Undisputedly, the Notice iss...

Shashi Bala Vs. the State of Nct

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT553

P.K. Bhasin, J. 1. This Appeal has been filed by the convict Shashi Bala to challenge the judgment dated 10.02.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.100/01 whereby she has been held guilty under Section 302 IPC and the order dated 13.02.2004 whereby she has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.2. Appellant Shashi Bala along with her husband Surender Kumar were charged under Section 302/34 IPC for the murder of one Satish Kumar. During the trial before the trial court appellant's husband Surender Kumar expired and so the case against him stood abated.3. The prosecution case is that the deceased knew about the extra-marital affair of the appellant Shashi Bala with his ustaad Pramod Kumar. The appellant's husband also knew about the relationship between her and Pramod Kumar and to avoid that relationship becoming known to every one through the mouth of ...