Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Preetam Kaur Behl Vs. Adm(La)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ173

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This writ petition was filed in November, 1991 by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:(a) A writ of mandamus, or a writ, order of direction in the nature thereof directing respondent No. 3 to register the sale-deeds in respect of the land comprised in Mustatil No. 11, Killa No. 4/2 Min (1-8), Mustatil No. 11, Killa No. 3/2 Min.(0-12) totally admeasuring 2 bighas and 15 biswas situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Devli, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi without insisting for any permission or production of any 'No Objection Certificate' as allegedly required to be obtained from Respondents 1 and 2 and further declare that no permission/No Objection Certificate is required under the provisions of Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, in the present case.2. The petitioner's case is that in respect of the aforementioned lands two sale deeds were executed in her favour by the two sellers sometime in 1991. Photocopies of the two incompletely dated s...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Slum and J.J. Department Vs. Ashok Kuma ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ215

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These 7 appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 11.8.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 242 of 2003. LPA. No. 2233/2005 filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (`MCD') is taken as the lead case.2. The dispute in the present case concerns the appointments to the post of Head Clerk in the Slum and JJ Department of the MCD. This post is to be filled up by promotion from the post of Upper Division Clerk (`UDC') by way of a departmental examination. 3. The Slum and JJ Department of the MCD was earlier under the Delhi Development Authority (`DDA'). At that point in time the departmental examination had two papers. Paper No. 1 had two parts carrying a total of 150 marks. Part I was on General English/Hindi carrying 100 marks and Part II on `general awareness/general knowledge' carrying 50 marks. Likewise, there were two parts to Paper 2; Part I on Management and Disposal of Land and Part II on `Service Regulations' carrie...

Sanjay @ NagIn @ Sohan Pal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ137

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 507/2003 seeks to challenge the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 65/2002 arising out of FIR No. 309/01, P.S. Kalyan Puri. Learned judge vide his judgment/order dated 18.03.2003 has held the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 302/380/460/34 IPC. Further, by his order dated 20.03.2003, has sentenced the appellant for imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. He also passed sentence of 10 years under Section 460 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. He further sentenced the appellant for seven years for offence under Section 380 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The facts of the case as has been noted by learned judge in his judgment under challenge are as under:On 16.8.2001...

Om Prakash Srivastav @ Babloo Vs. State Through Chief Secretary

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ696; 133(2006)DLT706; 2006(92)DRJ198

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge which is an order on charge. Subsequent to this order, on 28.8.2006 the charge has also been framed against the present petitioner along with others underSection 120-B/364-A/387 IPC. 2. Two points were raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first point was that insofar as the charge underSection 364-A IPC is concerned, the same is not made out on the basis of the allegations contained in the prosecution case. He submits that the ingredients of the section which pertain to kidnapping/abduction for demand of ransom, is not made out. The second point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was extradited from Singapore for certain offences which do not include the present offences. He thereforee submitted that he could not be charged or tried for those offences for which he was not extradited. I have h...

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Anil Kumar Gupta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ553

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the Award of Labour Court VII dated 25.3.2000 whereby the Labour Court had directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages.2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent was appointed for a fixed period of six months on 29.9.1992. On expiry of six months on 28.3.1993, his services were extended by a letter dated 7.4.1993 for a another period of six months i.e up to 30.6.93. The contention of the respondent before Tribunal was that even after the expiry of his extended period he continued to work without any formal letter up to 28.7.1993. Thereafter, he was not allowed to work and his services were terminated. The learned Tribunal observed that the respondent workman continuously worked from 28.9.1992 to 28.7.1993, hence the plea taken by the management that services of the workman came to an end by efflux of time was wrong and since he was allowed to work despite non ex...

Urmila Devi Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)DMC174; 2006(91)DRJ341

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition has been filed challenging the order on charge as well as the charge framed on 22.4.2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the present petitioner.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially there were four accused in this case. The four accused were Mahesh Kumar (husband), late Banarasi Das (father-in-law), Smt. Kusum (married sister-in-law) and Urmila Devi (the present petitioner) (mother-in-law). He submitted that insofar as the other three accused are concerned, they faced trial and were acquitted by a judgment and order dated 24.9.2003. The present petitioner was absconding and her trial could not commence because of that. However, after the judgment and order of acquittal of the co-accused, the petitioner has joined the proceedings and she has been charged by virtue of the order on charge and formal charge for having committed offences, firstly under Section 498A and secondly under Sections 304B/34...

Bariwari Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ141

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The petitioner's agricultural lands admeasuring 13 Bhigas and 12 Biswa in village Shayoorpur, Delhi were notified for acquisition by a notification dated 25.11.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act') for the public purpose of the planned development of Delhi, This was followed by a declaration dated 27.5.1985 under Section 6 of the Act and an Award No. 10/87-88 dated 19.5.1987. By this writ petition filed on 21.4.1994, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the aforementioned two notifications under s.4 and s.6 of the Act as well as the award. The other relief claimed is a writ of mandamus to the respondents 'to reverse the entries in the Revenue records in favour of the petitioners.'2. The petitioner states in the writ petition that although other persons had filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the aforementioned notifications in relation to their lands in the same village Shayoorpur, the petitioner did not file any writ ...

iti Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has appeared for the appellant despite several adjournments.Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the case after hearing the learned DR.2. The rectification of mistake application is in regard to setting aside of the penalty vide Final Order No. A/1503/04/NB (S/M), dated 11-10-2004 .3. The contention of the revenue is that penalty was set aside based on the submission that appellant had never utilized the credit which was not due. The submission that appellant had never utilized the credit which was not due.The submission is that this is factually incorrect. Revenue has filed a summery of credit balance in the appellant's account as on 31-5-03, 31-10-03 and 31-11-03 to show that the balance on those dates were much less that the disputed amount.4. Revenue is right in its contention that the setting aside of the penalty was on a wrong factual representation. The application is, therefore, accepted and our Final Order No. A/1503/04/NB (S/M) dated 11-10-2004 is modified by confirmin...

Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellants manufacture automobile steering system and supply them to car companies. Parts for manufacture are procured and Modvat credit is taken. During the periods 1999-2000 and 2002-2003, some of the credit taken parts were not put to use in manufacture; but were cleared as such (after repacking) after paying Central Excise duty. The duty amounts so paid were either the same as the amount of credit taken or higher.3. Show cause notice dated 16-3-2004 was issued to the appellants alleging that as the parts in question were not required by them for manufacture, they were not eligible inputs for Modvat credit. Show cause notice therefore, proposed to deny the credit and impose penalty.4. The appellants contested the show cause notice explaining that since they paid duty at the time of removal of those parts, the credit taken remained already reversed. On the question of the items not being input at all, contention was taken that they could have received them even as a trader. T...

Smt. Suman Lata W/O Shri K.K. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The facts and issues in these OAs being identical, the same are being disposed of by this common order. For convenience, facts have been taken and stated here from OA No. 1066/2003. MAs No 69/2005 & 68 Of 2005 were filed for service of notices on the private respondents.2. 19 applicants in this OA challenge DGHS order dated 6th March, 2003 rejecting their representation for regularization in the post of Investigator (Statistics) from initial date of their ad-hoc appointment and accordingly seek direction to respondents to take said period into consideration for determining their seniority with all consequential benefits.3. Admitted facts are that applicants are subordinate Statistical personnel in various departments/organizations/divisions/Section/Units of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. The said Statistical personnel are divided into three grades i.e. Computers, Statistical Assistants and Investigators (Statistics). As per notified RRs, the grade of Investigators...