Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Om Prakash Jain, Proprietor of Vs. Commissioner of Customs (icd)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC283

1. The appeal has been filed by the sole proprietor of M/s. Jaina International, Shri Om Prakash, challenging the order of the Commissioner, by which a penalty of Rs. Four lakh was imposed on M/s.Jaina International, under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, and a penalty of Rs. One lakh was imposed under the same provision on Shri Om Prakash Jain, the sole proprietor of the said concern.2. There is no dispute over the fact that benefits were taken by fraudulently obtained DEPB scrips amounting to Rs. 17,11,609/-, on the basis of forged Bank Realization Certificates and only the question of liability to pay the penalty arises in this appeal.3. The evidence on record establishes that the appellant in the name of M/s. Jaina International, which earlier was a partnership firm and, after 1.2.2000, became the sole proprietory concern of the appellant, had fraudulently obtained DEPB scrips amounting to Rs. 17,11,609/-, on the strength of forged bank realization certificates. The appellant...

Shri Sudarshan S/O Shri Ram Swarup Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through C ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Validity of University Grants Commission, New Delhi communication dated 13.05.2005 (Annexure-A) regretting its inability to discharge its pro-rata retirement benefits liability, is questioned in this OA.Applicant also seeks direction to Respondents to make suitable entries of his past service in his Service Book for pensionary benefits with consequential benefits including costs.2. Admitted facts are that applicant joined the services of University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as UGC) as LDC on 03.02.1989. He was promoted as UDC vide order dated 08.06.1995. Vide communication dated 23.03.1998 (Annexure-B), he informed about his selection against post of Grade-II DASS (Delhi Administration Subordinate Services), as well as requested for issuance of 'no objection certificate' for joining new post. A request was also made therein to retain his lien for a period of two years and he undertook to make payment of necessary/required leave salary and pension contribution every...

Subhash Gupta S/O Shri Roop Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Order passed on 30.3.2005 by the disciplinary authority whereby the punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the applicant and also the appellate order dated 3.3.2006 confirming the punishment are being assailed by the applicant in the present OA.3. While working as JTO, a trap on the complaint by one Shri Ravinder Kaushik has been laid down by the CBI in which one Shri Balbir Singh has been allegedly found to have accepted the bribe from Shri Ravinder Kaushik for providing a telephone connection. It was also transpired during the raid proceeding that Shri Balbir Singh disclosed the name of the applicant as the person on whose behalf the bribe was demanded by him.4. As the CBI trap has failed and the investigation would not have culminated into a charge-sheet before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction on the recommendation of CBI, a disciplinary proceeding initiated and it was hold that the applicant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 800/- on 28.4.1998...

Om Prakash S/O Late Shri Guman, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Non-accord of permission to appear in a special examination for filling up the backlog vacancies of SC/ST for promotion of departmental lower grade officials (LGO) to the cadre of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant, which was held on 11.12.2005 is the grievance of the applicant in the present OA.3. Learned Counsel for applicant, at the outset, by referring to a letter dated 28.5.2002 issued by Ministry of Communications, which pertains to recruitment to the cadre of PA/SA in column 8 of the clarification, would contend that restriction of six chances in LGO examinations would be applicable only in normal course and such a condition would not be an impediment for the applicant. Accordingly, it is stated that the application of the applicant in response to the special examination, despite the fact that he has availed of six chances, is against the decision of the postal communication. This, according to the applicant, has not only deprived him for participating in the selection but a...

R.D. Bohet S/O Sh. Bhoop Singh, Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, Govt. of Nc ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In the justice delivery system as regards the cardinal principle to dispense justice in functioning of the judiciary, the Apex Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra The role of the judiciary to merely interpret and declare the law was the concept of a bygone age. It is no more open to debate as it is fairly settled that the courts can so mould and lay down formulating principles and guidelines as to adapt and adjust to the changing conditions of the society, the ultimate objective being to dispense justice. In the recent years there is a discernible shift in the approach of the final courts in favour of rendering justice on the facts presented before them, without abrogating but bypassing the principle of finality of the judgment.2. Judicial propriety insofar as judicial certainty is concerned, warrants following of a decision of the coordinate Bench, failing which, to refer it to a larger Bench. The Apex Court in Sub Inspector Rooplal and Ors. v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secr...

Rashtriya Mukti Morcha, Through Its President, Ravinder Kumar Vs. Unio ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT195

Vijender Jain, Acting C.J.1. This writ petition was filed in the year 1999 with the following prayers:(i) the President had no discretion in the matter and he should have invited the acknowledged leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha during the process of consultation and not a person who was not the elected member of the House;(ii) the disregard to the well established Constitutional Convention has hurt the basic structure of the Constitution;(iii) no person who is not a citizen within meaning of Article 5 of the Constitution has the right to be elected or appointed to any public office under the Constitution;(iv) the recognition granted by the Election Commission under Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is limited by the Constitution to only to such political party/parties which has/have as its/their office bearers citizens who come within meaning of Article 5 of the Constitution;(v) no person who does not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 can be appointed in the U...

American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institute (Earlier ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Del)601; [2007]289ITR46(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is the branch office of a non-profit organization set up in America and carries on educational activities. It is aggrieved by an order dated 12th October, 2004 passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) rejecting its application dated 7th April, 1999 for initial approval of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) for the assessment year 1999-2000. For convenience the Petitioner is called the branch office, while the American organization is called the head office.2. The head office of the Petitioner enjoys tax exemption in America as an educational institution under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Sometime in 1993, it entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the National Council for Hotel Management and Catering Technology under the Ministry of Tourism of the Government of India for offering its courses and expertise with a view to improve the quality of hospital...

Sushil Kumar Rajput Vs. Director of Education and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT104

Manmohan Sarin, J1. Petitioner assails the order dated 3.8.2004, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing OA No. 1860/2004. Petitioner in the said OA had challenged order dated 21.7.2004, holding the petitioner's appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher (PET) under Director of Education i.e. respondent No. 1 as illegal and rejecting his candidature as being overage, by denying age relaxation for purposes of employment with respondent No. 1. It was held that petitioner being employed with respondent No. 2, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter MCD), was not a government servant eligible for age relaxation.2. Before proceeding further the facts giving rise to the petition are briefly noted:Petitioner was appointed as a teacher with the MCD on 6.10.1987. In March, 1999 an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Physical Education Teacher (PET) with respondent No. 1 appeared in newspaper. The upper age limit for male c...

Bureau of Indian Standards Vs. Bureau of I.S. Employees Assoc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT376

Mukul Mudgal1. This Letters Patent Appeal challenges the judgment dated 18th September, 2002 of the learned Single Judge granting parity in the pay scales of the respondent No. 1, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Laboratory Employees Association who are the Technical Assistants with the appellant. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge restored the parity of pay scales of the Technical Assistants as compared to the Assistants.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:(a) The members of the respondent Association have been working as Technical Assistants Laboratory in the office of the appellant, who were recruited directly on a pay scale of Rs. 425-500, EB 560-20-700 - EB 800, prior to the revision of the pay scale on 1st January, 1986.(b) By an order dated 25th March, 1987, the appellant adopted the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission and adopted the revised pay scales of Grades II, III and IV posts in the Institute w.e.f. 1st January, 1986.(c) By a notif...

Cit Vs. Mission Viejo Agro (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]300ITR428(Delhi)

ORDER1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') is directed against the order dated 21-9-2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT'), New Delhi in ITA No. 2926/2001 pertaining to assessment year 1997-98.2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we admit the appeal and frame the following substantial question of law for the consideration of this Court:Has the assessed discharged its burden of showing, for the purposes of claiming deduction on account of interest under Section 36(1)(iii), that the funds borrowed by it were utilized for the purpose of business and not given as interest-free advances for non-business purposes and does not the matter require to be remanded to the assessing officer for examining the agreements on record in order to determine whether there is a nexus between the funds borrowed and the interest-free advances given by the assessed.3. The facts in brief are that the respondent-assessed, which was incorporated on 31...