Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Sushil Suri and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]303ITR86(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These revision petitions are taken up together as they arise from the same proceedings. Out of the petitioners, only Mr. Neeraj Jain is not a director in the company known as Dr. Morepen Ltd. The petitioners are aggrieved by the summoning order dt. 30th March, 2005, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, after cognizance has been taken of the offence punishable under Section 276B r/w Section 279 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of the financial years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05.2. The short point raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that Section 276B is the punishing section for, inter alia, default in depositing the tax deducted at source under various provisions contained in Chapter XVII-B of the IT Act. Essentially, when a 'person' fails to pay to the credit of the Central Government, the tax deducted at source by him then he is, by virtue of Section 276B, punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term wh...

Chandan Singh Sharma Vs. Panchsheel Hospital

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This is a case of medical negligence. Vide impugned order dated 13.6.1997 the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation on account of medical negligence on the part of the respondent was dismissed. 2. Feeling aggrieved appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Allegations of appellant were that respondent was guilty of medical negligence firstly by not diagnosing the disease and spot where from the pain originated and carried a blind operation at the center line of abdomen/belly right from top of bottom and secondly during the process of operation when the appellant was unconscious his two teeth were removed and thirdly the respondent did not remove the stitch/prolene from the operated portion even after the repeated visit to the respondent as a result of which the wounds remained unhealed and painful and these prolene were later on removed by the respondent hospital as a result of which the appellant developed a hernia and other operation at GTB Hospital...

Sabharwal Security Consultants Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC101

1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal dated 27.2.2006 that upheld the penalties imposed on the appellants vide order in original dated 30.11.2004.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are registered and are engaged in the business of providing security service. For the period October, 2001 to March, 2003, the appellant delayed the payment of service tax to the authorities and also did not file return during the period. The authorities issued show cause notice to the appellant for the confirmation of service tax and imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 77 besides demanding interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant resisted the show cause notice. The adjudicating confirmed the demand appropriating the amount that has been paid by the appellant during the pendency of the case before the lower authorities and also imposed penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant made an ...

Nand Lal Singh S/O Gyanchand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant in this case seeks the benefit of higher replacement pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 on the basis of order dated 30.10.2003 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 464/2003 in the case of one Shri Kanwar Pal Singh who it is claimed was similarly situated as the applicant. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 25.11.2005 which does not include his name in the list of officers between Sl. Nos. 13 and 14 who have been granted scale of pay of Rs. 8000-13500 be quashed, and the applicant be placed in that pay scale from 14.12.1998 in terms of the Ministry of Home Affairs order dated 30.10.2000, along with consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances.2. It is submitted that in terms of Ministry of Home Affairs order dated 30.10.2000 the applicant had completed four years in the pre-revised entry pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 (revised Rs. 6500-10500) following his promotion from Delhi Administration Subordinate Services (DASS) to Grade-II of DANICS unde...

income Tax Officer Vs. Sanjay Kumar Goel

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Delhi)823

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dt. 10th Jan., 2003 of the learned CIT(A), Ghaziabad, relating to asst. yr. 1999-2000.2. The assessee is an individual. He derives income under the head 'Salary' and is an employee of M/s Jagdambay Food Products. He also derives income from business of M/s Bhagwati Traders, dealing in wholesale of Aata, Maida, Suji etc. In the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the asst. yr. 1999-2000, the assessee filed statement of affairs wherein he had credited a sum of Rs. 11,00,000 in his capital account as gifts received. The gifts were received from 10 different persons. The dates and names of the donors are as follows: Name Date of gift Amount 1 2 35. Smt. Rashmi Rani Mittal 19-1-1999 1,00,000 Smt. Rashmi Rani Mittal 27-2-1999 1,00,000 3. It is not in dispute that the assessee in the reassessment proceedings filed copies of gift deeds, acknowledgement of return of income ...

Adeeb Ahmed Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ451

Anil Kumar, J.Rule1. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. The learned Counsel for the parties also contended that no other affidavits are to be filed by the parties.2. The petitioner had appeared in the annual examination for Class XII in 2006 and he has sought re-evaluation of all his papers by an external examiner with random comparison of his answer books with the answer books of some of the successful candidates and he has also sought direction to respondents to hold interview test for admission to B-Tech, JMI, 2006 in case the petitioner is declared pass in Senior School Certificate Class XII Examination, 2006 after re-evaluation.3. Brief facts to comprehend the controversy are that the petitioner appeared in the Senior School Certificate (Class XII) Examination 2006. On declaration of the result of the petitioner, he failed in Physics, Chemistry and Computer Science where he has been awarded 13, 15 and 11 marks respectively out of 70 m...

Prakash Kumar Ashiyana and ors. Vs. Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ512

Anil Kumar, J.Rule.1. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal. The counsels also contended that no further affidavits are to be filed on behalf of the parties.2. The petitioners have qualified 10+2 in vocational engineering stream and claim admission directly to second year/III semester of the diploma course run by the respondents in the present petition. The petitioners have claimed that the eligibility conditions laid down by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are contrary to the eligibility conditions prescribed by respondent No. 3, All India Council for Technical Education, and are, thereforee, void and are not applicable to the petitioner and they seek quashing of the same.3. Brief facts to appreciate the controversies between the parties are that the petitioners passed their Senior Secondary Examination in vocational stream subjects with 60% or above marks. The percentage of marks of the petitioners are as follows:Name Stream % of MarksPrakash Kumar Ashiy...

Smt. Sheela Gehlot Vs. Smt. Sonu Kochar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ498

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant / plaintiff and is directed against the order dated 6th September, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application of the appellant / plaintiff filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as CM No. 3769/2005. The aforesaid appellant / plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell allegedly entered into between the appellant / plaintiff and the respondents / defendants No. 1 and 2 in respect of the property No. 60, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi measuring 819 sq. yds. or, in the alternative, for recovery of damages in respect of the said property. Along with the suit the appellant / plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an ad interim injunction in respect of the aforesaid suit property. An interim order was also granted on the said applicati...

Syndicate Bank Vs. Sanjay Kapoor

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(112)FLR427]; (2007)ILLJ947Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the award dated 23.2.2004 whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent workman with 50% back wages.2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent/workman was working as a clerk with the petitioner bank. He was having a Saving Bank Account in the same branch where he was posted. Because he was working in the same branch he was well versed with the bank record ledgers etc.. He made fake entries in the ledger containing his account and by falsification of account he withdrew an amount of Rs. 5410/-. When the matter was discovered, he was told by the bank that he had overdrawn amount from his saving bank account. He then deposited this amount back with the bank. However, a charge-sheet was served upon him in respect of falsification of account and withdrawal of amounts as a result of falsification of accounts. The petitioner...

Ansal Housing and Constructions Ltd. and anr. Vs. Deepika Malik and an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)146PLR1

J.P. Singh, J.1. Admitted. Heard.This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the orders dated 9.12.2002 and 14.1.2003. Vide order dated 9.12.2002 the learned Trial Court Civil Judge deferred the order on the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and directed the petitioners (defendants in the Trial Court) to file written statement and raise preliminary objection regarding the arbitration clause. The matter was adjourned to 14.1.2003 as the last opportunity for filing written statement. On 14.1.2003 at 1.20 p.m. due to non-filing of written statement the defense was struck off and the matter was fixed for ex parte evidence of the plaintiffs.2. I have heard Mr. Sanjay Bajaj, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J.P.S. Sirohi, learned Counsel for the respondents and have gone through the impugned orders.3. Briefly the facts are that the respondents herein (plaintiffs in the Trial Court hereinafter referred t...