Delhi Court October 2007 Judgments

Punjab National Bank Vs. B.R. Enterprises and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)141CompCas657NULL

1. The Punjab National Bank has filed this appeal against the final order dated March 9, 2006, passed by the DRT-III, Delhi, in T.A. No.382 of 2002 (O.A. No. 19 of 1997-DRT-II, Delhi).2. The relevant facts may be stated shortly. The appellant-bank filed O.A. in question against five defendants/respondents herein for the recovery of Rs. 15,57,525 with pendente lite and future interest at 17.34 per cent, per annum with quarterly rests along with costs.Respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 was the sole proprietorship concern owned and controlled by respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2. Respondent No. 3/defendant No. 3 was the partnership firm consisting of respondents Nos. 4 and 5/defendants Nos. 4 and 5 as partners. The appellant herein--bank sought the relief of recovery against all the defendants.3. Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5/defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were having their current account No. 2131 with the bank. Respondent No.2/defendant No. 2 as sole proprietor of respondent No. 1/defendant No....

Kapur Chand and ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Yadav and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi74

ORDERKailash Gambhir, J.1. Respondent No. 2 was served through publication but even after the publication, nobody has appeared. Nobody has been appearing for respondent No. 1 although duly served.2. The grievance of the appellant in the present appeal is that the claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed vide order dated 8-8-2003 on account of the fact that the appellants failed to lead any evidence. Counsel for the appellant contends that adequate opportunity was not afforded to the appellants to produce their evidence and just after one date, the Tribunal has proceeded to finally dispose of the matter.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the records. The appellants have filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 24 lacs towards compensation for death of their son Mr. Ramesh Chand who died on 12-10-2000 after being hit by the truck bearing registration No. HR-26-GA-0761 driven by respondent No. 2 Sh. Mamman, rashly and negligently. FIR No. 333/2000 ...

Chanderjit Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ470

Hima Kohli, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying inter alias for directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16th September, 2005 passed by the respondent No. 2, rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was working as a Line Operator in the Haryana Circle of respondent No. 2. As he was suffering from cancer since the year 2001, he expired on 10th October, 2003 leaving behind his wife and five children out of which the petitioner is at the second place. It is stated that on 5th December, 2003, the petitioner made an application for being considering for appointment on compassionate grounds. Though the request of the petitioner was made to the CGMT,Haryana Circle, Ambala, it is submitted that the application of the petitioner was transferred to the Headquarters of respondent No. 2 after a period of one year. The Chief Ma...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indraprastha Medical Corpn. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)703

ORDER1. In these appeals under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), the Revenue is aggrieved by the order dt. 19th May, 2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in ITA Nos. 3121 /Del/2004 and 3426/Del/2003 relevant for the asst. yrs. 2000-01 and 2001-02 respectively.2. The assessed had made a provision for bad and doubtful debt to the extent of Rs. 87,26,210. According to the AO, this provision was not for an ascertained liability. He thereforee added the amount to the assessed's book profits under Section 115JA of the Act.3. The assessed's appeal was allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 'CIT(A)' by holding that the said provision was for an ascertained liability and thereforee, could not be added to the book profits of the assessed.4. Against the decision of the CIT(A), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and that appeal was dismissed by the impugned order. The Tribunal relied upon various decisions given by different Benches of...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Chambal Motors (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these three appeals, the common order of the Appellate Commissioner made on 16-2-2006 setting-aside the orders of the adjudicating authority have been challenged by the Revenue.2. In Service Tax Appeal No. 239/2006, the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,67,278/- being the amount of Service Tax not paid on the services rendered by the respondent under the head 'Business Auxiliary Service'. The respondent-assessee had received commission from the Bank as per their balance-sheet for the period from July, 2003 to March, 2004 in connection with advancing loans to the customers of the assessee who wanted to purchase vehicles for which the assessee was the dealer. In this case, the assessee had not filed ST-3 Return of 'Business Auxiliary Service', though such registration was taken. According to the Revenue, the assessee had deliberately suppressed the factual information with an intention to evade Service Tax on the "pay out" received by them from the bank for ...

Kishan Swaroop Vs. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ235; (2008)ILLJ1052Del

Hima Kohli, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties, the case has been heard and is being disposed of finally.3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein challenging the award dated 13.8.2001 where under the Labour Court after holding that the termination of the petitioner workman was illegal and void, granted a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000 to him in lieu of reinstatement and backwages as well as the order dated 2.4.2003 by which the Labour Court dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner workman for review of the aforesaid award.4. A brief background of the case is that the petitioner workman was engaged with the respondent management as a 'messenger' on daily wages w.e.f. 27.2.1984 and his services were terminated by the respondent management on 25.10.1985, without giving him any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation. As against the said termination of his services, the petitioner workman served a demand notice dated 23.12.1985 ...

Dr. (Mrs.) Gyanwati Darbar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ82

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The issue that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant herein is entitled to retain possession of the government accommodation allotted in the name of her late husband as freedom fighter, in perpetuity i.e. till her death.2. The appellant, who was stated to be of 77 years of age in the year 2002 when the writ petition was filed, is widow of the freedom fighter late Shri B.S. Darbar.3. In 1984, Government formulated a policy for allotment of general pool quarters to freedom fighters. In terms of the said policy the husband of the appellant late Shri B.S. Darbar was allotted a general pool Government accommodation bearing house No. 23/211, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. The allotment letter clearly stipulates that the allotment was purely on ad hoc basis and the allottee was liable to vacate the property when it was no longer required by him. The allotment letter also stipulates that the allotment was purely temporary and liable to be revo...

Balwant Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ435

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Rule. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, learned Counsel waives notice of Rule. The petitioner was heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner seeks a direction that the demand for composition fee made by respondent No. 2 (hereafter called 'the DDA') be quashed and declared un-lawful.3. The-petitioner was allotted an alternative industrial plot by the respondents. He was carrying on non-conforming industrial activity in a residential area. The allotment to the concerned plot i.e. A-22, Mayapuri Phase-II was made on 21.2.1975. The DDAissued its no-objection certificate for construction of a building on the said plot on 18.10.1976.4. It is averred and contended on behalf of the petitioner that for the period intervening allotment and the issuance of impugned demand on 9.12.1998, the question of proper norms for construction was engaging. attention of the DDA. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel placed reliance on the DDA's note being item No. 71/93 for cons...

Jasbir Singh @ Balley Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ261

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 832 of 2003 seeks to challenge the judgment and order of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 213 of 2003, arising out of F.I.R. No. 288 of 2001, Police Station Lodhi Colony, whereby learned judge vide his judgment dated 22.11.2003 has held the appellant, Jasbir Singh @ Balley, guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Further, vide his separate order dated 22.11.2003, has sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. together with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. The appellant was awarded benefit under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Brief facts of the case as have been noted by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge in his judgment under challenge are as follows:Deceased Satbiri was wife of Jagdish Chander, who was having agricultural land in village Birohi, Haryana. Ja...

Smt. Sumitra Devi Vs. Lt. Governer of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ199

S.L. Bhayana, J.1. By this writ petition, Petitioner challenges order dated 12.03.2003, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), dismissing her OA No. 545 of 2003. Petitioner also seeks quashing of order dated 26.10.1989 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi. By the said order, appointment letter of the Petitioner was cancelled. Petitioner challenged the order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the OA as barred by limitation.2. Facts leading to the present writ petition are: Petitioner belonging to Bawaria Community appeared in the recruitment test held on 13th March, 1989. After passing the examination and the physical endurance test, she was, vide letter dated 21st June, 1989, called for medical examination for the post of 'woman constable' in Delhi Police. After the Petitioner was declared medically fit, her appointment and candidature was cancelled vide letter dated 26th October, 1989 on the ground that her...