Delhi Court August 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.
Veerendra Chopra and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT115
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order on charge as well as the charges framed on 03.04.2003 and 09.04.2003 respectively require to be set aside. He submitted that the case for the prosecution is that the petitioners were involved in illegal utilisation of leased data circuits by bypassing the VSNL gateway. He submitted that the charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 20, 20-A and 25 read with Section 4 of the Indian Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners made three submissions. His first submission was that Section 20-A does not apply at all inasmuch as the petitioners are not license holders. The second submission is that Section 25 of the said Act would also not apply even on the basis of allegations contained in the FIR. His third and final submission was that Section 20 of the said Act refers to an offence which is bailable and non-c...
Shashi Goyal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT530; 2006(92)DRJ153
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of detention bearing F. No. 673/20/2004-CUS-VIII dated 19.11.2004 issued by Sh. R.K. Gupta, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi for detention of Sh. B.K. Goyal, S/o Sh. Baburam Goyal under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future. It is contended that the petitioner being the wife of the detenu, is filing this petition on his behalf being vitally interested and aggrieved of the detention order above mentioned. 2. Brief facts as set down in the writ petition are as follows: -On 19.11.2004 an order of detention bearing F. No. 673/20/2004-CUS-VIII, was issued by Shri R.K. Gupta, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, wherein it was stated that the said Shr...
Shri Ramesh Chandra Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi58
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, a senior counsel practicing in this Court, has questioned the levy and recovery of amounts by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) the respondent in these proceedings, towards parking charges.2. It is claimed that the petitioner purchased a 'Getz' car, manufactured by the second respondent. When he sought its registration, an amount of Rs. 4000/- was recovered on the footing that it was payable on account of 'MCD Parking charges'. The recovery has been impugned as unauthorized, and impermissible in law. The petitioner avers that his vehicle is parked within his premises, and whenever he parks it outside, on MCD land, parking charges, as per policy of the MCD, are paid, for the duration of the service rendered. thereforee, it is submitted that there is no occasion to extract such an amount as 'parking charges' payable to the MCD, at the stage of purchase of the car. It is also claimed that there is no corresponding service rendered by the MCD, ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Prakash Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT525
Aruna Suresh, J. 1. The petitioner, Union of India, aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2005 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the Tribunal), Principal Bench, Delhi, has assailed the same before us in the present writ petition. By virtue of the said order dated 15.12.2005, the Tribunal was pleased to quash the order dated 19.1.2004 issued by the Ministry of Small Scale Industries whereby financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (in short ACP) Scheme granted to respondents in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 was down graded in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000, in view of the clarification No. 56 under the ACP Scheme issued by Deptt. of Personnel and Training (in short DOPT) on 18th July, 2001. The Tribunal restored the financial benefits granted to respondents by way of granting them ACP in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 with consequential recoveries. 2. Respondents were appointed as Lower Division Clerks(LDCs) with Small Industries Service Institute, Ministry of Small S...
K.L. Rakesh Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT636
J.M. Malik, J.1. Through this writ filed in the nature of certiorari, the petitioner has called into question order dated 15.4.2006, wherein the petitioner, who, was officiating in the cadre of STS of ITS Group A in local arrangement was reverted to his original post of Senior Divisional Engineer (SDE) with immediate effect. He was, however, directed to look after the work of Divisional Engineer, (DE (OD) KKD) without any extra remunerations till further arrangement. Initially, the petitioner joined the services on 24.12.1974 as Engineer Supervisor in Indian Post and Telegraph Department. The said post was re-designated as Junior Engineer against the post of Junior Telecom Officer. The petitioner was promoted from the post of Junior Telecom Officer to the post of Senior Divisional Engineer on 24.12.1990. He was again promoted to the post of Divisional Engineer vide order dated 8.1.2002. On 30.3.2006, 48 officers were promoted from the post of Senior Divisional Engineer to the post of D...
Lt. Governor Government of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Engineer, Flood ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT47
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This writ petition has been directed against the award dated 13.1.1997 passed by Industrial Tribunal whereby it held that the workers were entitled to wages for the strike period from 2.2.1988 to 20.4.1988. 2. Brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this writ petition are that Flood Control Department of the petitioner employed daily wagers and work charge employees for doing the duty of flood control. The employees formed a union which is respondent No. 1 in this case. This union had been agitating for redressal of demands of its members i.e. daily wagers and work charge employees. As a result of the efforts of respondent No. 1, a settlement was arrived at between the Government and the union before the conciliation officer and a memorandum of settlement under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act was signed on 6.11.1986. According to this settlement, the workmen were to be regularized in phased manner according to their seniority as and when regular...
Suresh Kumar JaIn Vs. the Hon'ble Lt. Governor and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTLJ197(Del); 132(2006)DLT93
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner claims a writ or direction to quash a decision of the second and third respondent (hereafter referred to as 'the DDA') stopping or withholding the supply Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) Doors, Shutters and Windows for the construction of its housing project at Bakkarwala, Narela (Group-I & II) and Sector-1, Rohini. 2. It is alleged that in 1993, the Central Government decided to ban use of timber for the purpose of building construction works; instead, it directed the use of wood substitute materials, in such works. It is claimed by the petitioner that a Five-Member Committee was constituted by the DDA for deciding the use of wood substitute materials in its construction work. The petitioner, a manufacturer of Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) doors and shutters etc. applied for registration of its trade mark which was issued on 16.8.2004 under the Trade Mark Act, 1999. In the meanwhile, on 19.4.2001, the DDA by its circular decided to use LVL doors in p...
Usha Breco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: (2007)8STT191
1. The temples of Maa Mansa Devi and Maa Chandi Devi are located on the hills around Hardwar. The abode of Lord Shiva is far away and above at Badrinath.2. The appellant in the present case, operates several ropeways from Hardwar to both Mansa Devi and Chandi Devi temples. The boarding points for the two ropeways are located at a distance of about 4 kms. The pilgrims visit the temples by using ropeways. Appellant sells ropeway tickets for single journey to one temple or a combined ticket for journey to both the temples. A combined ticket includes the cost of road journey from one ropeway boarding point to the other rope-way boarding point. It is seen from a sample ticket that the charge for two ropeway rides is Rs. 109/- and charge for road transit is Rs. 26/-.3. The road journey is provided in Maxi Cabs which satisfy the definition of 'tourist vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act. Under the impugned order, service tax has been demanded from the appellant in regard to the tours provi...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Visharad Automobiles Financiers
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: (2007)108ITD294(Delhi)
1. All these thirteen appeals have been filed by the Department. Since a common issue is involved therein, they are being disposed of by this composite order.2. Common grounds of appeals have been raised by the Department in all the appeals. As such, for the sake of convenience, the grounds in ITA No. 1/Del/2005 are being reproduced hereunder: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), Meerut has erred in law in holding that it was a hire purchase agreement and charges received by the assessee are not in the nature of interest and thus, not liable to interest-tax liability. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), failed to note that though the transaction is veiled as hire purchase agreement, in essence it is a financing transaction on which interest is earned, though called hire charges. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), failed to note the fact that the mandatory initial deposits by the hirer is by wa...
Asheesh Securities Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: (2008)111ITD108(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 26^th June, 2002 against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, New Delhi, dated 30^th April, 2002 in the case of the assessee in relation to block assessment order under Section 158BC.2. In this case the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee's appeal before him as un-admitted in view of the provisions of Section 249(4)(a) Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. Facts of the case in this respect briefly are that there was a search under Section 132 conducted at the office premises of the assessee on 15^th December, 1999. Thereafter, the learned Assessing Officer served a notice under Section 158BC upon the assessee on 3^rd March. 2001. In response the assessee filed its return of undisclosed income on 19^th March, 2001 declaring undisclosed income at Rs. 1,46,000/-. However, the assessee did not paid any tax on this self-admitted undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer completed block assessment o...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »