Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ217

S. Muralidhar, J.CM 14095/2006 and 14096/2006 1. CM 14096/2006 is an application by the petitioner seeking restoration of the Writ Petition (C) 2210/1991 which was dismissed on 14.3.2006 by this Court in default on account of the non-appearance of the petitioner. CM 14095/2006 is an application seeking the condensation of delay of 212 days in filing the application for restoration.2. This case was effectively the second in the cause list for 17.11.2006. When the case was called out the Advocate for the applicant/petitioner requested for a pass over on the ground that the senior counsel who was to argue the case was not available at that point in time. We were not minded to entertain this request for two reasons. First, it is clearly indicated in the cause list of this Court that no pass over will be granted in the first five matters. Secondly, we believe that it should be possible for senior counsel to prioritize and organise their professional commitments in a manner that does not inc...

Shri K.K. Dhir Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 135(2006)DLT300

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 2nd April, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 2491/2000 whereby the original application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the office of Respondent No. 2 i.e. Accountant General (A & E) Punjab, Chandigarh (formerly A.G. Punjab, Shimla) as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on 24.2.1953. On passing the SAS examination, he was promoted as superintendent with effect from 08.12.1958. He was granted quasi-permanent status with effect from 1.7.1956. He applied for the post of Accounts and Finance Officer in ONGC through proper channel. On being selected for the said post, the petitioner states that he was forced to resign, since he would otherwise not be permitted to join ONGC. He accordingly tendered his resignation in pursuance of the letter dated...

Mrs. Uma Vincent Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ223

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this petition, petitioner assails the order dated 30th October, 2000, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA. No. 788/2000, by which the Tribunal dismissed the original application, filed by the petitioner. Petitioner before the Tribunal had challenged, the order of the respondents dated 24th December, 1999, rejecting her representation. Petitioner sought directions for granting her the 7th upgraded post of Chief Matron in the pay scale of Rs. 7450-11500 along with all consequential benefits and treat her as having been appointed on the said post from the date respondent No. 5 had been promoted i.e. w.e.f., 2nd February, 1999. It may be noted that the petitioner has since retired on 30.9.2000. 2. The question arising for consideration in the Writ Petition is whether the seven posts of Chief Matrons introduced, were a result of upgradation upon restructuring of cadre or creation of new posts. Petitioner claim...

Aman Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC154

Kailash Gambhir, Acting C.J. 1. The petitioner being aggrieved with the rejection of its bid in respect of Hotel plot No. 01, Central Business District (East), Shahdara, Delhi, has filed the present writ petition seeking mandamus or any other direction for quashing the order of the respondent with further direction for the approval of the bid of the petitioner in respect of the said plot being the highest bidder. The brief facts which are not in dispute, inter alia, are that pursuant to the advertisement by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred as 'DDA') for holding a public auction for the sale of nine Hotel plots, the petitioner had participated in the auction held on 03.03.2006 in respect of the said plot at Central Business District (East), Shahdara, Delhi measuring 20,000 sq. mtrs. Reserve price of this plot was fixed at Rs. 167.40 crores @ Rs. 83,700/- per sq. mtrs. of the plot area and Rs. 37,200/- for the built-up area. The petitioner gave bid at Rs. 170.001 cro...

Ashok Kumar S/O Shri Sohan Lal Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ463

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th May, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 82/1999. Before the Trial Court, there were two accused persons - Ashok Kumar and Sanjeet. In so far as Ashok Kumar is concerned, he was convicted of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) while Sanjeet was acquitted. By an order dated 18th May, 2002, Ashok Kumar was convicted to undergo a sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine. Under the circumstances, this appeal has been preferred only by Ashok Kumar.2. The facts of the case are not particularly complicated in as much as they concern the murder of Kumud Khaitan. She was a spinster living with her father at C-140, defense Colony (First Floor) and was found murdered on the morning of 21st August, 1998. Some cash of a little over Rs. 2 lakhs which was given to her by her brother the previous evening was miss...

National Co-operative Development Council Vs. the Commissioner of Inco ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Del)717; [2008]300ITR312(Delhi)

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. These are two References under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short `the Act') arising out of ITA No. 4025(Del)/1970 and ITA No. 5766/Del/1984 for Assessment Years 1976-77 and 1981-82 respectively. Since the factual matrix is similar, the counsels have advanced common arguments and we are disposing them off by this common order.2. The assessed is a Statutory Corporation incorporated by The National Cooperative Development Corporation Act, 1962 (for short 'the NCDC Act') for the purpose of planning and promoting programmes for the production, processing, marketing, storage, export and import of agricultural produce, foodstuffs, industrial goods, livestock, certain other commodities and services on cooperative principles.3. For carrying on its activities, the assessed, receives grants and loans from, inter alia, the Government of India. The assessed then advances grants, loans and subsidies to cooperative societies through State Governments/Apex Coope...

Shri Prakash S/O Shri Bhawani Prashad Vs. the State Govt. of Nct of De ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT119; 2009(93)DRJ288

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. These are two appeals by a total of three Appellants directed against the judgment and order dated 14th March, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 63/2001. By the impugned judgment and order, the Appellants were held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) for committing the murder of Laxmi and for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC read with Section 34 thereof for attempting to murder Radhey Shyam. Subsequently, by an order dated 15th March, 2002 all the Appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in respect of the offence of murder and to undergo imprisonment of seven years for the offence of attempt to murder. A fine was also imposed in respect of both the convictions.2. At the outset one rather disturbing feature of the case may be mentioned: the main witness for the prosecution, that is, PW-12 Radhey Shyam was examine...

Vindhya Pipes and Plastics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC103

1. This appeal is required to be decided only on the question of levy of penalty as ordered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CEA No. 195 of 2005. The Hon'ble High Court has directed that if it is held that levy of penalty is warranted having regard to the requirements of the statute, the Tribunal will be bound to levy penalty equal to the amount of duty. The directions were given on the basis of the decisions of the High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-Ill v.Machino Montell (I) Limited and Anr. and Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV v. IIIpea Paramount Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006 (77) RLT 118, in which it was held that once mens rea is established, quantum is not left to the discretion of the authorities. The Hon'ble High Court has directed that if it is held that levy of penalty is warranted having regard to the statute, the Tribunal is bound to levy penalty equal to the amount of duty.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no ...

Air State Couriers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR532

1.The applicant seeks interim stay of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the Order-in-original by which penalty of Rs. 44,379/-was imposed on the appellant under Section 76 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1944 and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed under Section 77. It appears from the concurrent findings of the authorities below that during the period from April 1999 to March 2000, the appellant had made late payments of service tax on 22 occasions out of 28 deposits and filed ST-3 returns late on 4 occasions out of 11. As noted by the appellate authority, the adjudicating authority had already taken a lenient view by condoning delay of 150 days on his own on the ground that the service tax was a new levy. It is clear that the applicant has not made out any case for waiver of the deposit of the penalties payable under the impugned order. The application is, therefore, rejected. However, on the applicant's depositing the penalties payable under the impugned order wit...

Anil Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Vishnu Vs. National Capital Territory of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Anil Kumar Gupta, PGT (Chemistry), Government of NCT of Delhi, in this OA seeks direction to Respondents to step up his pay at par with his junior Shri Rohtash Singh Yadav from the date of anomaly i.e. July 1996 with all consequential benefits including costs.2. Admitted facts are that he was initially joined as TGT (Sc-A) Maths in the pay scale of Rs. 440-760 w.e.f. 08.10.1983, revised to Rs. 1400-2600/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986, i.e. 21.10.1991, and later on appointed as PGT (Chemistry) under direct recruit quota in pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-, revised to Rs. 6500-10,500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. His grievance is that Shri Rohtash Singh Yadav appointed as TGT (Sc-A) on 27.10.1983 was junior to him, had been allowed more basic pay on his promotion as PGT on 19.07.1996. Applicant's pay was fixed at Rs. 7100/- while Shri Rohtash Singh Yadav was allowed basic pay of Rs. 7500/- w.e.f. 01.10.1996. In these circumstances, he made various representations to Respondents, namely on 27.08.2002, 21.04.20...