Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Allied Beverages Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2006)BC102; 129(2006)DLT570

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. C.M.(M) 532 of 2006 is directed against order dated 13.2.2006 order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in Misc. Application No. 28 of 2006 in O.A. No. 47/2003 whereby the learned Tribunal has, while disposing of an application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'), permitted the respondent herein to deposit a sum of Rs.30 lacs on or before 12.3.2006 to proceed with the appeal.2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has not given any reason as to why it has permitted the respondent to deposit less than 75 per cent of the amount as was required under the Act. He also submits that the Tribunal could not have stayed the proceedings of recovery without admitting the appeal.3. Counsel for the respondent contends that the Tribunal has gone into the application filed by the respondent and also considered the material placed before it. It also too...

Anish Barla Vs. Union Public Services Commission

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(3)SLJ66(Delhi)

ORDERMukundakam Sharma and Reva Khetrapal, JJ.1. This writ petition is directed against the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Commandant, Group 'A' in the Central Police Forces on the ground of medical unfitness. The petitioner, a scheduled tribe candidate, submitted his application for the post of Assistant Commandant, Group 'A' in the Central Police Forces. The petitioner cleared all the tests during the recruitment process but was not selected in the medical test, and was declared medically unfit by the Medical Board of the respondent on the ground that he had superficial skin disease. At the request of the petitioner, he was again medically examined by the Review Medical Board, but even in the said Review Medical Board he has found medically unfit for continuing superficial skin infection in lower limbs. The respondents, thereforee, rejected the candidature of the petitioner on medical ground holding th...

Sajjan Lal Vs. Commissioner of M.C.D. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006(110)FLR38]

S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. Issue Rule. Ms. Amita Gupta waives notice of rule. With consent of counsel, the Petition was heard for final disposal. 2. The Writ petitioner was working as a TGT at the relevant time in school managed and administered by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Whilst on duty, he was implicated for having committed offences under Section 304, read with Section 32 and 34 of IPC; an FIR was lodged in the year 1985. The provocation for this was an inter se fight amongst neighbours with regard to rights of passage. That it led to infliction of fatal injuries to person. 3. The Petitioner and two others (i.e. his brother and father) were arrayed as accused in the proceedings. This was duly intimated to the MCD which issued an order on 26.2.1986 placing the petitioner on deemed suspension. It is claimed that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, order of suspension continued and the subsistence allowance was enhanced. The subsistence wages directed was 75% of sa...

Jai Prakash Gupta Vs. Suraiya Begum and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT613; 2006(88)DRJ370

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 197/2003 whereby the learned Judge vide order dated 20.1.2004 has disposed of Issues No. 4 and 5 holding that the premises in question does not fall within the definition of 'premises ' as defined under Section 2(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and, thereforee, the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. CM(M) 317/2004 (page 1 of 5)2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the issues (i) whether the suit premises falls within the definition of premises as defined under Section 2(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. ii) whether the suit is barred by Section 50 of the said Act as alleged are issues that can be decided only after evidence has been led. These issues cannot be adjudicated without adducing evidence as these are questions of fact.3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the lease deed no other evidence be cons...

Sunita Yadav Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ194; 2007(1)SLJ338(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner claims a direction in these writ proceedings to the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to consider her application and appoint her to the post of Primary Teacher.2. The factual matrix, as appearing from the rival pleadings is that the petitioner, belongs to the Yadav caste, which is OBC in Delhi as well as Haryana. The MCD advertised on 16-7-1996, calling for applications from eligible candidates; the application had to be submitted on or before 31 July, 1996. The petitioner applied for the post, but submitted an OBC certificate from Haryana. It is alleged that there was no clarification or note requiring a OBC certificate from Delhi only.3. The petitioner alleges that her application was entertained by MCD without any objection and the acknowledgement dated 18.10.96 and the same allotted number 2944. The application was not rejected on the ground of OBC certificate not being from Delhi nor was the petitioner called upon to submit cert...

Sumay Singh and Ant Ram Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT480

J.M. Malik, J. 1. Learned Additional District Judge acquitted all the four accused for offences under Sections 452, 304 read with Section 34 IPC vide impugned order dated 3rd October, 2002. Aggrieved by that order the complainant has filed the instant Criminal Revision Petition. Adumbrated in brief, the prosecution case is this. The family of Sumay Singh owns a vacant plot measuring 340 yards at Pushta Road. Sumay Singh, complainant had already obtained a stay order from the Civil Court. Accused/respondent Hari Ram is his uncle. Sumay Singh informed him that he had purchased the said plot and he should not trespass the same as they had obtained the stay order. On 19th November, 1998 at about 8.45 AM Ant Ram, younger brother of Sumay Singh was present in his house. Accused Hari Ram accompanied by his sons accused Kalluram @ Ranbir, Bakshi Ram and one another person Mehar Chand accused, came to their house. They asked them that they would build a boundary on the above mentioned plot. Sum...

Premwati Garg and Another Vs. Brij Nandan Lal JaIn and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. In the year 1963 the complainant booked a plot in Dayal Bagh, District Faridabad with O.P. 1 @ 25 per sq. yd. The cost was payable in instalments on the basis of the development work i.e., completion of roads, completion of sewer lines, completion of water lines etc. Inspite of having paid the total cost of the plot the O.P. failed to carry out development work and did some superficial work to convince the purchasers. Subsequently the development was taken over by Faridabad Complex Administration by charging Rs. 180 per sq. yd. from the plot holders. 2. On account of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., the complainant has through this complaint sought direction to the O.P. to execute the sale deed of the plot in favour of O.P. 2 or in the alternative award damages amounting to Rs. 6,46,500 and Rs. 50,000 for mental harassment and agony. The amount of compensation of Rs. 6,46,500 has been assessed on the clandestine sale of the similar plots by the ...

Gupta Service Station Vs. Subhash Aggarwal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant runs a service station. On 18th of June, 2004 the car of the respondent failed to start and since the workshop (Deep Hyundai) of the appellant was nearby he went to call the mechanic from there. Mechanic detected that the battery of car was not charged and the car was taken to the workshop. On the next day some minor defect of carbon point in the alternator was pointed out and appellant offered its services for doing the repairs. On 20.6.2004 the vehicle was brought back with lot of defects and a bill of Rs. 940 was given. The car was taken to some other workshop where a bill of Rs. 17,000 for removing the defects was paid. Vide impugned order dated 27.10.2005 the District Forum has directed the appellant to make the following payments : (i) Rs. 940 along with amount of Rs. 17,047 paid to Deep Hyundai workshop with interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 18,027 from the date of repair from Hyundai Workshop i.e., 29.6.2004 till actual payment. (ii) ...

Spl Siddhartha Ltd. and Shri N.K. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both the appeals are directed against the same impugned order.Accordingly, they are disposed of under this common order.2. The first appellant M/s SPL Siddhartha Ltd. had been manufacturing and clearing go-down dunnage (flooring) from 2000, without paying any central excise duty. In September 2004, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence searched its premises based on intelligence that appellant was evading central excise duty. The investigation led to issue of show-cause notice dated 1.6.05 alleging that the said dunnage floorings were liable to central excise duty under heading 3918/5903 and that duty evasion of about Rs. 4 crores is involved. The show-cause notice proposed to recover the said duty and impose penalties. The appellant resisted the proposed classifications and duty demand; but failed. Under an adjudication order dated 28.7.05, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Noida confirmed the duty demands and imposed penalties on the appellant manufacturer and its di...

Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Hissar Range

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 15-9-2005 against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak, dated 14-7-2005 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 for assessment year 2000-01. In this appeal the main disputes relate to initiation of proceedings under Section 147 and additions to the book profit as sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the computation of assessees income chargeable to tax under the provisions of Section 115JA of the Act.2. Facts of the case leading to this appeal briefly are that the assessee filed return of income on 28-11-2000 declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,23,94,225 under the provisions of Section 115JA of the Act.This return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 18-12-2000. On the basis of this return a refund of Rs. 39,80,007 was found due under Section 143(1) on 18-12-2000. The refund was accordingly issued. The assessing officer di...