Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

All India Punjab and Sind Bank Retired Officer's Association and Anr. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ474

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. These writ proceedings raise common questions for determination. Hence, they are dealt with by this common judgment.2. The writ petitioners in these proceedings, were employed by various public sector banks. The writ petitioners in WP 426/2002, 826/2002; 13305-08/2003 & 24154-24521/05 were employees of the Punjab and Sind Bank. The petitioners in WP 5398-5407/2004 were employees and officials who had worked with the Syndicate Bank. All the petitioners are seeking identical reliefs, of direction for addition of five years qualifying service to the number of years of service put in by them, in their respective banks, for the purposes of calculation of pension. Although in some of the petitions, claims were made to quash a notification which introduced amendment to regulations in 2002, those were not pressed during the course of hearing.3. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent banks, in tune with the policies uniformly evolved and enforced in all the public s...

Mrs. Saraswati Chatterjee Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT204; 2006(89)DRJ173

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CrPC') requesting the court to initiate an inquiry into the forgery of an alleged will dated 13.09.1987 alleged to have been executed by the Testator (Late Lt. General Sailendra Nath Chatterjee). This will was produced by the petitioner (Saraswati Chatterjee) in the probate proceedings. It is also prayed by way of this application that a direction be issued authorising the filing of a criminal complaint under Section 195(b)(ii) of the CrPC read with Sections 463 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') for the prosecution of Mrs Saraswati Chatterjee, Mr Solil Chatterjee and Mr Komoneya Chatterjee. This court had directed issuance of notice on this application only to Mrs Saraswati Chatterjee and Mr Solil Chatterjee. No notice was issued to Mr Komoneya Chatterjee.2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for ...

N.J. Kanwar Vs. Ranjeet Charles Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT541

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM(M) 853/2004 seeks to challenge the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E-125/2002 whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller vide his order dated 6.2.2004 has while adjudicating upon an application for leave to defend on behalf of Shri. N.J.Kanwar held that Shri.Kanwar is not a necessary party as he is not a tenant in his own right.2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the respondent by her own showing stated that the tenant of the premises is Shri.N.J.Kanwar and not Panchshila Hospitality. In other words, having introduced Shri.Kanwar as the tenant he has now become a necessary party to the proceedings. He also refers to an infirmity in the order under challenge to the effect that the court has noted that there is no contract between parties to suggest that the tenancy was split into two parts and in the same paragraph noticed that the parties are bound by their earlier contract. Counsel, thereforee, contends that Shri.N.J.Kanwar i...

Unmukt Bhatnagar and ors. Vs. Manoj Bhatnagar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi248; 128(2006)DLT176; 2006(89)DRJ225; (2006)143PLR21

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.CS (OS) No. 440/20061. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction. Plaintiff No. 3 was the wife of the defendant but the parties separated and are divorced. Plaintiffs No. 1 & 2 have been born out of the wedlock of plaintiff No. 3 and the defendant. The plaintiffs are residing separately in United Kingdom.2. Late Bankey Bihari Bhatnagar was the father of the defendant, grand father of plaintiffs No. 1 & 2 and erstwhile father in law of plaintiff No. 3 He owned a property bearing No. A-49, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi measuring about 340 square yards having perpetual lease rights in the said plot. Late Sh. Bhatnagar executed a Will dated 22.12.1991 which was duly registered. This Will was prior to the divorce of plaintiff No. 3 and the defendant.3. The relevant portion of the Will reads as under:After my demise, the whole of property No. A-49, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi, comprising of both ground and first floor shall be inherited absolutely ...

Tejinder Kaur Vs. Secretary (Department of Women and Child Development ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ199; 2007(1)SLJ493(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner in these writ proceedings under Articles 226 of the Constitution seeks a direction to quash bye-laws 32-B & 32-C of the National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development ('NIPCCD'). The latter is a registered Society, under the control of the first respondent (hereafter referred to as 'Central Government'). 2. It is averred that the supreme body of NIPCCD is the General body which has to finalize annual reports, and elect officers and members of the Executive Council. These Annual General Meetings are public functions and are held once a year after giving 21 days written notice to the Members. The Executive Council of NIPCCD, under its Constitution has to meet at least twice a year. Its powers and duties include supervision of Management and Administration of the NIPCCD in accordance with Rules and Bye laws, lay down broad policies; review and sanction budget estimates, and it includes, inter alia, the power to create posts and appoint...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surinder Mohan Kairam

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Against mediclaim insurance policy respondent filed a claim of Rs. 1,82,187 with the appellant. The appellant company repudiated the claim on account of concealment of pre-existing disease by the respondent. 2. Vide impugned order dated 25th February, 2000 the District Forum while repelling the repudiation has directed the appellant-company to pay Rs. 1,82,187 towards the actual mediclaim expenses incurred by the respondent and also pay interest @ Rs. 15% and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation. 3. Admittedly the insurance policy was taken by the respondent for the period from 8.10.1997 to 7.10.1998 and the respondent was admitted to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre (for short EHIRC) due to severe pain in chest on 28.11.1997. He underwent bypass surgery on 18.12.1997 and was discharged from the hospital on 25.12.1997. 4. According to the respondent the heart problem was detected/diagnosed for the first time when he was admitted in the hospital. The res...

Vindhyachal Air Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 2,65,285.58. The applicant filed a classification list claiming the benefit of small scale exemption notification. Earlier, the classification list was approved after denying the benefit of Notification. However, on appeal filed by the applicant, the benefit was allowed. In pursuance to that order, the applicant filed refund claim in respect of the duty paid. The present refund was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The finding of the Commissioner is that in the gate passes the applicant is showing duty separately.Therefore, the duty has been recovered from their customers.3. The contention of the applicant is that the assessments were provisional. Therefore, principles of unjust enrichment is not applicable and Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules was amended subsequent to the period in dispute to the effect the principles of unjust enrichment is applicable in case of provisional assessment also.4. Coun...

Wool Worth (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant, therefore, the appeal is being taken up in absence of the appellant.Heard Id. SDR. The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. The appellants are registered as 100% Export Oriented Unit and procured certain goods without payment of duty under Notification No.123/81-C.E. On 5-9-96 the officers of Revenue visited the factory premises of the appellant and it was found that certain goods which were received without payment of duty after availing the benefit of Notification No. 123/81-C.E. were shifted to other places outside the premises of EOU. The adjudicating authority after issuance of show-cause notice confiscated the goods and confirmed the demand. The adjudicating authority allowed to release the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.10 lakhs and personal penalty was also imposed on the appellant.3. The contention of the appellant in the presen...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)102TTJ(Delhi)15

1. This miscellaneous application has been moved by the Revenue seeking to rectify decision dt. 23rd March, 2004 given by the Special Bench.2. It is contended in the miscellaneous application that question of gain of Rs. 11,06,49,739 arising out of cancellation of contracts for forward cover attributed to proposed repayment of principal amount of loan was closely connected with deductibility of Rs. 2,30,67,615 claimed as roll over charges for extending the contracts for forward cover which were cancelled. The assessee in its return had claimed that gain of Rs. 11,06,49,739 was a capital receipt. The roll over charges were claimed to be expenditure of revenue nature. The following question was referred to the Special Bench: Whether, on facts and in law, the gains earned on cancellation of the foreign exchange forward contract are capital receipt or revenue receipts If it is capital receipt, whether the same should be reduced from the cost of plant and machinery in connection with which...

Jageshwar RosIn and Turpentine Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)100ITD399(Delhi)

1. Both the first appeals by the different assessees are directed against the different orders of the Assistant CIT, Haldwani under Section 158BC/143(3) of the Income-tax Act.2. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties and gone through the material available on record as referred to by the parties. Learned Counsel for assessee filed copy of judgment of Sessions Judge, Nainital dated 28-2-2005 dismissing the appeals of the truck drivers.3. The facts are identical in both the facts as submitted by the learned representatives of both the parties.4. The facts arc that the Station Officer, Bhowali Police, Bhowali intercepted the following trucks loaded with Rosin & Turpentine in the night of 30-8-1996 at the above police station: 5. As per police report, the above trucks were coming from Almora and were proceeding to Haldwani. The goods of the above trucks were requisitioned under Section 132A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from the Depot Officer, Lease Depot, Fore...