Delhi Court June 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Govt. School Teachers Association (Regd.) Vs. University of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ143
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This batch of Writ Petitions lay siege to the Respondent's policy of giving preference for the purposes of admission in educational courses to persons who have cleared the 10+2 examinations from Schools located in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT of Delhi). Over three decades ago, in Kumari N. Vasundara v. State of Mysore : AIR1971SC1439 , the Apex Court has extended its imprimatur to an admission precondition mandating as many as of as much as ten years residence in the State where the College is situate.2. The grievance which has been expressed in the Govt. School Teachers Association Petitions is to the effect that in several cases students who are regularly domiciled for several years in Delhi along with their parents may be left with no alternative but to take admission in Schools in the satellite townships and environs of Delhi, such as in Noida, Gurgaon etc. The contention is that since these students are domiciled in Delhi they ought not to be e...
Panchkuian Road Refugee Vyapar Sangh and ors. Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Cor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 130(2006)DLT553
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions is concerned with the eviction of the Petitioners from shops duly allotted to them or their forefathers for reestablishing them, their trade and thereby rehabilitating them pursuant to their traumatic dislocation in the aftermath of the Partition, a half-century ago.2. The prayers in these writ petitions read thus:(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records containing the proposal to acquire the land on which the Petitioners No. 2-105 have their shops on the Panchkuian road ostensibly for the purpose of line-3, Barakhamba Road-Dwarka line of the Respondent No. 1 Corporation and consequent road widening and construction of sidewalk and quash the identical notices dated 25.8. 2005 bearing number dmrc/land/15/428/773, 832 to 919. Threatening the Petitioners with demolition of their shops as acquisition is in excess of the genuine need of the Respondent No. 3 sought to be acquired for no justifi...
Sh. Vivekanand Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 130(2006)DLT636
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner was working as LDC with the respondent since December, 1984. On 4.1.1985 he was posted in Delhi Lotteries, being run by DDA. He was given duty of sales officer in Delhi Lotteries with effect from 28.9.1986 at its camp office situated in the Vijaya Bank Branch, Connaught Place, New Delhi. While working as Sales Officer, he was charged sheeted and the following charges were framed against him:Shri Vivekanand Singh while working as LDC/Sales Officials of Delhi Lotteries during the year 1987 failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty inasmuch as:Article-IThat the said Shri Vivekanand Singh, LDC during the above said period had unauthorizedly sold prepaid lottery tickets of Delhi Lotteries on credit to the local dealers/agents in violation of the Scheme of Delhi Lotteries.Article-IIThat the said Shri Vivekanand Singh, LDC, as on 17.6.1987 when his Branch was inspected by the CAO, had to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- against which t...
Hamerlal JaIn Vs. Commr. of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT125; 2006(204)ELT28(Del); 2008[10]STR508; [2009]19STT85
T.S. Thakur, J.1. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has declined to restore the petitioner's appeal dismissed by it for non-prosecution. Aggrieved the petitioner has assailed the correctness of the said order in this petition.2. The petitioner was, during the relevant period, engaged in manufacture of brass ingots from out of brass dross imported from outside the country or purchased from the indigenous market. Pursuant to a show cause notice served upon the petitioner, the adjudicating authority determined an amount of Rs.12,80,613/- towards basic duty and a sum of Rs.2,989.97 towards special duty as payable by the petitioner. A penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was also at the same time levied upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), Bombay who passed an order on 29th November, 1990 directing the petitioner to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and to furnish ...
Mr. Banwari Lal Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 134(2006)DLT353; 2006(90)DRJ50
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned orders dated 9.3.2002 and 18.12.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2 and 3, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service for the alleged mis-conduct of absence from duty without leave for a period of 55 days from 14.11.2001 to 7.1.2002.2. The facts succinctly stated are that the petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the Border Security Force on 20.02.1990 through proper recruitment process. On 14.11.2001, allegedly, the petitioner absented from duty without leave. After his absence was noticed, the petitioner was directed to join his unit immediately vide 105 Bn BSF letter No. 2684-85 dated 16.11.01, 2777 dated 27.11.01, 2882 dated 10.12.01, 2984-85 dated 15.12.01 and 100-01 dated 06.01.02. Ultimately, the petitioner reported back in the unit on 7.1.2002 on his own. In the meantime, as per Section 62 of the BSF Act, a Court of Inquiry was ordered to find out the circumstances unde...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Del)349; [2007]293ITR118(Delhi)
T.S. Thakur, J.1. Issue rule. With consent, this writ petition has been heard for final disposal.2. The petitioner has in this petition assailed the validity of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereby the Tribunal has recalled its order dated 7th August, 2003 passed in ITA No.151/Del/2000 and posted the said appeal for rehearing after notice to the parties. The controversy arises in the following circumstances:3. Shri Ratti Ram Gotewala was along with his family members carrying on business in sarees at Delhi and Calcutta. He was a partner in M/s. Rati Ram Ram Vinod and M/s Rati Ram Ram Vinod and Company, besides being a Director in M/s Rati Ram Saree Store Pvt. Ltd. He was also the proprietor of M/s R. Rakesh Behari and Co.4. A search was conducted at the residential and business premises of the group concerns mentioned above and various incriminating material including certain hundies depicting various transactions s...
Shri Vijay Kumar Khambate Vs. Shri Vinay Kumar Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 130(2006)DLT474; 2006(90)DRJ565
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 22(d) of the Rent Control Act,1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') against the father of the petitioner who was the tenant in the suit property. The petition was at the stage of petitioner's evidence when late Sh. P.S. Khambate passed away on 26.03.2003 and thus an application was filed by the respondent seeking impleadment of the present petitioner as a legal representative which was allowed on 16.09.2005. The application filed by the respondent was under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 2(l)(iii) of the said Act. The said provisions reads as under:(l) 'tenant' means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is, or, but for a special contract, would be, payable, and includes - i)a sub-tenant;ii)any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy; andiii)in the event of the death of the person cont...
Shri R.C. Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Del)474; 130(2006)DLT622; [2006]286ITR170(Delhi)
ORDER IINCOME TAX DEPARTMENTName of the assessed : Shri R. C. GuptaAsstt. Year : 1985-86Order under Rule 40 of the I. T. Rules 1962The assessed filed the application under rule 40 of the I. T. Rules 1962 on 5.4.2004. The assessed filed the return on 16.4.1987 and paid the tax Under Section 140A Rs. 23450/- on 20.4.1987. Assessed tax Under Section 143(3)/254 comes to Rs. 17450/-. interest Under Section 217 amounting to Rs. 2609/- was charged from 1.4.1986 to 31.3.1987. Although the assessment was made Under Section 143(3) on 31.3.1989 after on year from the date of filing the return.As the interest Under Section 217 was charged less as per Rule 40 (1) of the I.T. Rules, 1962 the application filed under Rule 40 of the I.T. Rules, 1962 is hereby rejected. Dated: 12.12.2005 (H.C. PANT)ITO Ward 47(2)New Delhicopy to the assessed....
Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Azadpur Vs. Cit and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Del)1; [2007]294ITR549(Delhi)
T.S. Thakur, J.In this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant has raised the following substantial question of law for determination of this court :'Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the appellant marketing committee is not a 'local authority' within the meaning of section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. The question arises in the following backdrop 3. The appellant committee is established under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 which is now replaced by The Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998. The provisions of the said Act enjoin upon the appellant to provide facilities for marketing of agricultural produce in Azadpur, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi apart from performing other functions and duties such as superintendence, direction and control of markets for regulating marketing of agricultural produce. For the assessment year 200203, the appellant committee claimed exemption from pay...
Mcd Vs. Maman Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ624
Gita Mittal, J.1. The present writ petition exhibits an unwarranted zeal on the part of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to punish an employee for alleged misdemeanors which are not even provided under its rules. There is no dispute to the factual matrix and to the extent necessary is noticed hereafter.2. Shri Maman Chand, respondent herein was appointed as a safai karamchari in the pay scale of 196-232 with allowances vide an appointment letter dated 3rd October, 1970. He was a permanent employee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. After he had put in 17 years of unblemished and uninterrupted service, he was served with a chargesheet dated 6th August, 1983 wherein the following charge was leveled against him:That the said Sh. Maman Chand while working as Safai Karamchari in the Hindu Rao Hospital during the year 1970 committed an act of grave mis-conduct and failed to maintain devotion to duty and absolute integrity inasmuch as he, did not inform his superiors of his conviction a...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »