Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Shiv Dhan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT403; 2006(90)DRJ260

Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Despite the fact that all the above referred 11 Regular First Appeals are squarely covered on facts and law by a recent judgment of this Court passed in the case of Jasrath v. Union of India (RFA No. 751/94 decided on 27th April, 2006), counsel for the respondent have raised a legal issue in regard to very maintainability and entertainment of these appeals by this Court. 2. According to learned Counsel appearing for the respondent these appeals cannot be equated with the appeals remitted by the Supreme Court for fresh determination as per its order dated 7th September, 2005 either on factual matrix or in law. According to the respondent the appellants in these appeals are not entitled to get the benefit of the judgment of this Court in Jasrath case. The order of remittance could at best revive the review applications, which themselves are not maintainable. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Das v. State of M.P. a...

Sh. M.K. Sehgal Vs. Smt. Mohinder Kaur

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ276

Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and specific performance against the defendant in relation to the built-up property bearing no. 100, Block no. B, Jhilmil Colony, Shahdara, Delhi admeasuring 57.50 sq. yards, in furtherance to the agreement to sell entered into between the parties on 20.01.2004. Vide the above agreement, the defendant had agreed to sell the said property to the plaintiff, for a total consideration of Rs. 19 lacs and in terms thereof a sum of Rs. 6 lacs was received by the defendant from the plaintiff. The balance amount of Rs. 13 lacs was payable at the time of the registration of the Sale Deed. The sale deed was executed on 18.2.2004 and possession of the vacant property was to be delivered to the plaintiff on the said date. Having failed to get the sale deed registered in its favor and having not received any response from the defendant, the plaintiff on 1.2.2004 visited the suit property and learnt from a Real Estate Agent in...

Govind Sarda Vs. Sartaj Hotels Apartments and Villas Pvt. Ltd. and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT460; 2006(90)DRJ69

Manju Goel, J.1. This petition under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed on 24.5.2004 for initiating contempt proceedings against respondents for having disobeyed the order of injunction under Order 39 CPC dated 21.7.2000 passed by this Court in CS (OS) No. 1593/2000. The CS(OS) No. 1593/00 which was filed in this Court stood transferred to the District Courts pursuant to the notification dated 16.7.2000 enlarging the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge up to Rs. 20 lakhs.2. The petition is being opposed, inter alia, on the ground that the petition should have been filed before the District Judge/Addl. District Judge in whose court the CS(OS) No. 1593/00 now stands transferred. The only purpose of this order is to decide whether the petition under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable before this Court or whether the petitioner should rather apply under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure (in short `C...

Charanjit Singh Vs. Kehar Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ268

Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 96 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9th August, 2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 38/2005. 2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,95,500/- against the defendant on the plea that it had sold 300 bags of Mustard stock weighing about 265.95 Quintal at the rate of Rs. 1932/- per Quintal totalling to Rs. 5,34,463/- to Anand Kumar Jhanwar of Beldanga, District Murshidabad, West Bengal. The sale was effected through bill No. 204 dated 21.10.2004. The said goods were transported through G.R. No. 4632 dated 21.10.2004. The defendant was paid a sum of Rs. 23,000/- towards advance for cartage of the goods from Delhi to Beldanga, District Murshidabad, West Bengal. Balance cartage amounting to Rs. 10,343/- was payable to the defendant by purchaser/consignee at the time of delivery of the goods . The goods could not be delivered at the destination as the truck and driver were not ...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Shri Keshva Nand

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT348

Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.8.85 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi wherein the Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 43,789.50/-. The present appeal was filed in the year 1985. When the case was taken up for final hearing, the following orders were passed by the Court on 1st May, 06:This is an appeal of the year 1985 and came up for hearing before this Court on 2.3.06 in furtherance to the directions issued by the Court. The Court passed the following orders:This appeal relates to the year 1985. The same has been listed before the Court for directions. The appeal has not been listed for all these years. List the appeal for final disposal on 1st May, 2006. The registry would inform the parties as well as counsel for the parties of the next date of hearing without process fee.2. The necessary facts are that plaintiff was originally employed as a watchman in Railway Protection Force in 1...

Satish Chandra Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ168

S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court in proceedings under Article 226 claiming various directions for the release of his terminal/pensionary dues. He was working with the second respondent State Farms Corporation of India Limited (hereafter referred to as the Corporation ). The petitioner was appointed as Executive Engineer on 27.4.1973. He held various positions and at the time of his retirement on 31.3.1998 was heading the farm at Kokilabari in Assam. It is contended that the petitioner's services were extended by one year. Eventually, he retired from the services on 31.3.1999.2. The petitioner's principal grievance is that at the time of his retirement terminal dues such as provident fund, leave encashment dues, gratuity, special duty allowance etc. were not paid even though the respondent Corporation, a public authority falling within the expression State under Article 12, was under an obligation to do so. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Karnail Chand

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT124

Mukul Mudgal, J1. Rule DB. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ petition was filed raising one basic question that arose for judicial appraisal of this Hon'ble Court to whether a fresh direction to comply with an earlier direction can be issued if the direction already stands carried out, which in the facts of the present case was carried out even before the original direction was passed as per the averments in the writ petition.3. The sole dispute which was thus required to be determined was whether the respondent was entitled to be given promotion to the Grade II of the Delhi And Andaman & Nicobar Islands Civil Service(DANICS) w.e.f. 1985 which issue already stood settled by a judgment delivered on 4th November, 2000 in OA No. 1476/1998 by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The directions of the Tribunal in the judgment of 4th November, 2000 are as follows:In view of the above, the impugned order so far it concerns applicant i...

G.M., Northern Railway and ors. Vs. Tara Chand

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(3)SLJ505(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition, filed by Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, challenges the order/judgment dated 24th October, 2002 in O.A. No. 3188/2001 whereby the respondent's G.A. was allowed and the petitioners were directed to fix the pay of the respondent in the grade of Rs. 7450-11500 i.e., at Rs. 10,375/- w.e.f. 4th July, 2000 with all consequential benefits.3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent who retired as Assistant Engineer from the Northern Railway on 30th June, 2001 before the CAT was that his pay was refined and reduced from his existing pay of Rs. 10,100/- to Rs. 8,100/- with consequent reduction in fixation of pay in higher grides, reduction of his pension as well as recovery from the gratuity paid to him by letters dated 20.3.2001, 4.6.2001, 23.5.20Q1 and 1.8.2001. The principle grievance of the respondent is that this reduction wa...

Shrinath Tourist Agency Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. ft is seen from the licence issued under Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules that appellant is authorised to work as an agent of a permit holder of stage and other carriages. He is not a tourist operator under the aforesaid rules. Similarly, from the statement of accounts of the appellant is seen that he is booking tickets for buses and earning commission of about 10%.3. It is the requirement under Service Tax provisions that a tour operator should be "engaged in the business of operating tours". From the evidence produced, it appears that appellant does not satisfy the requirement of operating tours. Prima facie, the demand is not sustainable.4. Stay as sought is allowed and recovery stayed til, the disposal of the appeal....

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)104TTJ(Delhi)900

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT on 4th Dec, 2002 under Section 263 of the IT Act for the asst.yr. 1999-2000.2. The assessee is a public sector undertaking engaged in the exploration and extraction of oil and gas. For the year under appeal, an assessment was made by the AO on 28th Jan., 2002 under Section 143(3) of the Act determining the income of the assessee at 8,04,79,88,484. On 20th March, 2002 the CIT issued a show-cause notice to the assessee as to why the assessment should not be revised under Section 263. According to the CIT, the balance sheet (Sch. 16) showed Rs. 3,104.77 millions as "interest accrued but not due to loans" which was not brought to tax by the AO in the assessment, though such interest amounting to Rs. 10,82,82,379 had been brought to tax as interest accrued on bonds for the asst. yr. 1998-99, despite the fact that the oil bonds issued to the assessee during the year 1998 continued to remain with the assessee. Acc...