Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

R. Natarajan and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT403; 2006(90)DRJ614

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 397(1)/401 Cr.P.C., petitioners have challenged order dated 26.5.2003 framing charge against them in case FIR No.543/2000, under Sections 120-B/409/467/468/471/201/420 IPC, P.S. Connaught Place, New Delhi.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners R. Natarajan, Nitin Chopra, Sanjeev Anand & Paul Abraham were working as Head Customer Services Group, Senior Vice President, Vice President TMT-Telecom & Senior Vice President respectively in ABN AMRO Bank at the relevant time. They were not connected with the transactions in question concerning this case. Petitioners co-operated in the investigations and answered queries made by the Investigating Officer about other officials of the bank who handled the relevant account vide letters dated 1.9.2000 and 11.5.2001 by two petitioners namely Nitin Chopra and Sanjeev Anand. Learned counsel submits that after investigations, charge sheet was filed on 18.4.2002. Nothing was foun...

Satpal Arora Vs. the District and Sessions Judge

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ649; 2007(1)SLJ484(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The Writ Petitioner has sought for quashing of orders dated 19-1-2002 and 7-6-2003, relating to his pay fixation, issued by the first respondent his employer.2. The admitted facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner was directly recruited to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the office of the respondent on 07-04-1982, in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400, later revised to Rs. 950-1500. He was promoted as stenographer, in the grade of Rs. 1200-2040 on 30-01-1987. He was later confirmed to the grade on 01-08-19 87. The petitioner was promoted on temporary basis, to the grade of Rs. 1400 -2300 with effect from 13-12-1993. On 10-05-1996, he represented to the respondent stating that he had developed severe pain in the back and shoulder joints; he also stated that he was undergoing treatment. The representation went on to mention that the petitioner was medically advised to avoid typing. He thereforee requested to be posted back to the initial post of LDC. Whilst ...

Shri Jagdamba Parshad Tiwari Vs. Shri Vishwanath and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT771; 2006(88)DRJ647

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This LPA has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.1.2006, wherein the learned Single Judge has refused to give directions to transfer tehbazari in the name of the appellant. As per the NDMC rules tehbazari can be transferred only in the name of LRs of the deceased person who was holding tehbazari. Appellant is not L.R. of the deceased and is a third person who paid money to the deceased for squatting in his place. 2. Tehbazari is a purely personal right and it is a license given to a person for doing business on patria/ pavement. It is observed by the learned Single Judge that tehbazari licenses were being sold and traded. In our opinion this was wholly illegal. The learned Single Judge has noted the instance of a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs having been paid for a tehbazari license. The persons who were even employed, or doing business had obtained Tehbazari license by payment of hefty amounts. Tehbazari was permitted so that a poor p...

Colonel Narender Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(1)SLJ450(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. By filing this writ petition the petitioner has sought for an order for quashing and setting aside confidential reports of the petitioner for the period June 1990 to May 1991 and May 1993 to September 1993 as also the proceedings of the Selection Boards held in 2000, 2001 and 2002 for promotion to the rank of Brigadier.2. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It was submitted that this writ petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches as challenge is made to annual confidential reports of the petitioner given for the period June 1990 to May 1991 and May 1993 to September 1993 after a lapse of more than 12 years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. It is also submitted that even the statutory complaint assailing the said confidential reports was filed after a delay of about four years. Whereas the order rejecting the statutory complaint was passed on...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Proagro Seeds Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Del)483; [2008]296ITR235(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The assessed is engaged in the production and sale of hybrid seeds. For the asst. yr. 1997-98, it appears to have claimed exemption from payment of income-tax under Section 10(1) of the IT Act, 1961 on the ground that the income derived by it was from 'agricultural activities'. The AO rejected that claim and brought to tax the amount of income disclosed by the assessed. Simultaneously, proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also initiated which culminated in the levy of a penalty of Rs. 3,49,58,630. Aggrieved by the said order the assessed appealed to the CIT(A) who affirmed the penalty and dismissed the appeal. In a further appeal before the Tribunal the assessed succeeded. The Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case held that the Department had not alleged any concealment or inaccurate furnishing of particulars of the assessed's income. It observed:8. It is nowhere the case of the Department that the assessed either made any covert co...

Shri K.C. Sharma (Since Deceased ) Through Lrs. Vs. Delhi Development ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR396(Delhi); 131(2006)DLT466; 2006(88)DRJ525

Vijender Jain, J.CM No. 9759/2005 (for condensation of delay)Counsel for the respondent says that he does not wish to file any reply and the delay may be condoned.For the reasons stated in the application for delay, the same is allowed.Delay is condoned.FAO (OS) 212-18/20051. The appellants in this appeal are aggrieved by an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 9.3.2005 by which the objection of the respondent against the arbitral award in relation to claim on account of escalation have been accepted and the appellants claim for escalation awarded by the Arbitrator at 70% has been reduced to 11%.2. We have gone through the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, award given by the Arbitrator and other related material placed before us.3. In paragraph 46 of the arbitral award, the learned Arbitrator has observed as under:46.Coming to now merits of this claim, the claimant had quoted 59% over and above DSR 1985. DSR-1989 had come into operation at the time the work w...

Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages P. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. A common issue arises for consideration in these appeals.Accordingly, all the appeals were clubbed together for hearing and are disposed of under this single order.2. The appellant M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. is a bottler of well-known soft drinks (Coca Cola, Limca etc.) at Varanasi.Excise duty demand under the impugned order is for the period June 1999 to May 2000. During this period, the soft drinks in question were required to be valued for the purpose of assessing them to excise duty in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The provision of that Section is that assessable value shall be the retail sale price declared of such goods less such amount of abatement, if any, from such retail price as the Central Government may allow by notification in the Official Gazette". At. the time of clearance of the goods covered in the present proceeding the appellant had valued the soft drinks based on declared prices and discharged duty. For example, the retail pri...

Modi Corp. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)105TTJ(Delhi)303

1. All the above appeals arise out of assessment in the case of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. We shall first take up for consideration ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 211/Del/2001 which reads as follows : That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of assessment passed by the Jt. CIT, S.R., Moradabad making assessment in the hands of Calcutta Instalments (P) Ltd. which company stands dissolved w.e.f. 16th May, 1996 pursuant to the orders of Hon'ble Delhi High Court on its amalgamation with Modifin (P) Ltd. and is a non-entity from the above date. She has failed to appreciate that the assessment made on a non-entity is null and void.3. There was a company by name M/s Calcutta Instalments (P) Ltd. This company was in the business of leasing and investments. There was a scheme of amalgamation by which M/s Calcutta Instalments (P) Ltd. and several other companies sought to amalgamate with a company by name Modifin (P) Ltd. Since ...

Additional Commissioner of Vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)103TTJ(Delhi)578

1. These three appeals preferred by the Revenue against three separate orders of the CIT(A), involve a common issue and the same, therefore, are being disposed of by this consolidated order.1.1 ITA No. 1761/Del/2001 and ITA No. 4178/Del/2001 are the Revenue's appeals, directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)-V, dt. 31st Jan., 2001 and 23rd Aug., 2001 for asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99, respectively, whereas ITA No. 3665/Del/2002, is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XIII, dt. 28th June, 2002 for asst. yr.1999-2000.2. In the solitary ground originally raised, which is common in all these three appeals, the Revenue has challenged the action of the learned CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act on the basis of book results of unit 4.2.1 The facts which are material and relevant to decide the common issue involved in the present appeal are as follows: The assessee is a company, which is engaged in the business of printing and...

Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)558

1. IT(SS)A No. 411/Del/2004 is an appeal by the assessee and IT(SS)A No. 45/Del/2005 is an appeal by the Revenue. Both these appeals arise out of the order of learned CIT(A)-III, New Delhi dt. 30th Nov., 2004.They are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. First we shall take up the assessee's appeal, i.e., IT(SS)A No.411/Del/2004 for consideration. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the appeal by the assessee are as follows. The assessee is a company. M/s HCL Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s HCLCL'), M/s Shiv Nadar Investment (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s SNIPL') and the assessee-company were promoters of a company by name, M/s HCL Consulting Ltd. The main objects of these three companies were making investments in various companies. The investments are in the form of contribution to share capital of various companies. They promote companies and hold shares of companies promoted. The shares are held by these companies in order to have po...