Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

Rajeshwar Singh Negi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT587

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The petitioner took Civil Services Examination (CSE), 1993 and upon declaration of the result was allocated to CISF Group 'A' Service provisionally. The petitioner with an intention to improve his prospects took the permission from the DoPT to appear in the following Civil Services Examination, 1994, which was granted to him and resultantly, the petitioner was selected again and recommended for the appointment on the basis of 1994 results. Pending actual postings, the petitioner was asked to join National Industrial Security Academy (NISA) at Hyderabad for basic training of CISF Group 'A' officers commencing from 2nd January, 1995. The petitioner was sent for Foundation Course pending finalization of service allocation on the basis of his results of Civil Services Examination, 1994. Generally, the final service allocation is done by the DoPT, the nodal Ministry for CSE on the conclusion of the Foundation Course. Thus, all the candidates join the Foundation Course ...

New Delhi Municipal Committee, Through Its Secretary Vs. C.P. Singh an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ445

J.M. Malik, J.1. Both the parties have locked horns on the question of jurisdiction. The case of the plaintiff/respondent is this. He is the owner of House No. 124, Thapar House, Janpath Lane, New Delhi. The appellant committee sent two notices under Sections 65-68 of the Punjab Municipal Act, dated, 9.2.65 and 16.2.66 respectively, inviting objections to the proposed change in the annual rental value in respect of levy of house tax for the aforesaid house. The respondent filed the objections but the same were dismissed. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid notices. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment dated 31.8.68 holding, besides other grounds, that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred under Section 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act. The first appellate court vide its judgment dated 10.7.74 decreed the suit and passed decree for perpetual injunction in favor of the respondent and against the appellant res...

Bharat Kalyan Pratisthan Vs. Director of Income-tax (Exemption)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Del)354; [2008]299ITR406(Delhi)

ORDER1. The assessed is aggrieved by an order dated 21-1-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi in ITA No. 1384/D/2002 relevant for the assessment year 1997-98.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the following substantial question of law arises for our consideration:-Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessed was not entitled to accumulate income for the objects of the Charitable Trust without specifying the purposes for which the income is accumulated?'3. We are of the view that since the question can be answered at this stage because we have heard arguments of learned Counsel for both the parties. We proceed to dispose of this appeal.4. The Appellant is a charitable trust which has been set up for the following charitable purposes1. for medical relief;2. help to poor; and3. educational purposes.5. The appellant accumulated a sum of Rs. 11 lakhs and passed a resolution...

V.K. International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant is a manufacturer of studded jewellery. It imported gold mounting for use in such jewellery and claimed concessional assessment of the imported mountings, as available under Notification No. 62 of 2004 dated 12-5-2004. Under the impugned order that claim to concession assessment has been rejected on a finding that what is under import is gold jewellery (not gold) in view of Rule 2(a) of General Rules for the Interpretation of the 1st schedule to the Customs Act and exemption is not available to gold jewellery.3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that what was under import was only 'mountings' for making jewellery and the essential character of jewellery emerged from the diamonds or other stones fixed on the mounting. It is being pointed out that the authorities were in error in holding that mountings had the essential character of jewellery. It is also being pointed out that this position remains clarified in the circular dated 29-3-2006 of th...

Wadhera Sales Corporation Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC188

1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the demand was confirmed for the period April, 1999 to September, 2003 by issuing show cause notice on 31.3.2004. The appellants were challenging the demand and imposition of penalty on the ground of limitation.2. The contention of appellants is that the appellants were receiving the cables which has brand name of Orton and they were cutting the cables to specific lengths and fixing plug at one end and these are known in the market as cords. The contention is that the dispute is whether the small scale exemption notification can be denied in respect of the different goods which were cleared with the brand name of others, when the brand name owner is not manufacturing the same goods.This issue is decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Fine Industries reported in 2002 (146) ELT 53. The larger Bench of the Tribunal held that the benefit of Notification is a...

Shri M.N. Saxena Vs. Union of India (Uoi), (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, an Assistant Enforcement Officer, impugns respondents order dated 3.2.2004, whereby after following disciplinary proceedings a major penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon. Also assailed is an order passed in appeal on 14.7.2004, upholding the punishment.2. After being placed under suspension applicant has been proceeded against on the ground that while handling investigation in the case of M/s Iqbal International he has allegedly demanded illegal gratification and had met the proprietor beyond the office hours outside the office premises. It is also stated that the proprietor Shri R.S. Chauhan in his complaint attached a video cassette, where applicant has been shown to be in a compromising position with a woman.3. During the course of enquiry list of witnesses was not annexed with the memorandum and when the presenting officer was asked by the Enquiry Officer (EO) to submit the list of witnesses it is categorically stated that no witnesses are to be pro...

infosys Technologies Ltd. Vs. Park Infosys and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT349; LC2007(1)341; 2007(34)PTC178(Del)

Gita Mittal, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the reliefs for permanent injunction against the defendant from infringement of its registered trademark in the expression 'Infosys' and from passing off the goods of the defendants as if they were those of the plaintiffs and an order of delivery up of the infringing material by the defendants as well as a claim for damages to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs and an order for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the defendants. On 28th September, 2005 an ex-parte injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants prohibiting defendant No.1, its assigns, employees, servants, dealers, retailers and all persons acting on their behalf from using 'Infosys' as a part of their trade name or corporate name, either with or without any prefix or suffix which amounts to infringement of the plaintiffs' trademark.2. Summons were directed to be issued for service of the defendants in the suits. Summon...

Smt. Satvinder Kaur Vs. the Director of Gurudwara Election and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT381

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is a candidate from Ward No. 3 in respect of the elections to be held to the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee. Respondent No. 5 is also a candidate. The petitioner filed objections to the nomination of respondent No. 5, which have been rejected in terms of the impugned order dated 21.12.2006. The said order reads as under:Whereas, as per the drawn schedule (defense Colony 11.00 AM to 12.30 PM., Connaught Place 1.00 PM to 2.00 PM and Lajpat Nagar 2.30 PM to 4.00 PM respectively, duly communicated to all the Nominees in writing). Scrutiny of all 31 nominations papers of the candidates under various wards of Zone-I, Lajpat Nagar was undertaken on 21.12.2006 commencing from 11.00 AM till 4.35 PM.And whereas, during the scrutiny of nomination papers being undertaken in respect of Ward No. 7, Lajpat Nagar, one of the nominees from Ward No. 3, Connaught Place, Smt. Satvinder Kaur has raised objections in writing against Sh. Shamsher Singh Sandhu...

Vivek Kumar Khandelwal and ors., Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi Thr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT49

J.M. Malik, J. 1. This order shall decide three above said writ petitions wherein similar question of facts and law are involved. The present controversy pivots around the question whether petitioners, who were employed on contractual basis, are entitled to regularization and equal pay for equal work For eradication/control of tuberculosis a major programme is in operation since 1962. In the year 1993, the Government of India started a Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (to be referred as RNTCP henceforth). Phase I of this programme was launched in Delhi as a pilot project in one of the Chest Clinics in 1993. In Phase II, the programme was extended to two other chest clinics in January, 1995. The programme was initially funded by the British High Commission up to 1998 and thereafter, the programme was being funded by the World Bank. Delhi Tapedik Unmulan Samiti, respondent No. 2, which is working under the Ministry of Health, GNCT of Delhi is implementing the above said pr...

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Moti Bagh Mutual Aid Education

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]298ITR190(Delhi)

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 27th Sept., 2004 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi, in IT(SS)A No. 652/Del/2000 relevant for the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. The assessed is admittedly a society and has been running a school by the name of Vidya Niketan since sometime in 1960. All along, the assessed was granted exemption under Section 10(22) of the IT Act, 1961 on the ground that it is a society which is existing solely for educational purposes and not for any profit motive. Even for the years subsequent to the assessment year in question, we have been told that the assessed has been granted exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act.3. In the assessment year that we are concerned with, it has been pointed out that there were three discrepancies in the accounts maintained by the assessed which led the AO to come to the conclusion that it was not existing solely for educational purposes but also for a profit motive.The first discrepancy pertained to a donation ...