Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Bachan Singh Salooja Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STT482

The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 42,332/- and penalty. The demand is confirmed on the ground that applicant is providing the service of Rent-a-Cab Operator.The contention of the applicant is that the vehicle in question is ambulance for carrying patients to the hospitals and ambulance is not covered under the definition of Rent-a-Cab Operator-Scheme. In these circumstances, the applicant has a strong case in their favour.Therefore, the pre-deposit of whole of the amount of Service Tax and penalties are waived. The stay petition is allowed....

Sh. G.S. Bedi, Dy. Director Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought a direction to the official respondents to hold year-wise DPCs for the posts of Inspector of Accounts and Deputy Director (Administration) for the year 2000-01, 2001-02, 2003-04 and 2004-05 and consider the applicant for promotion to the post of Inspector of Accounts and then to the post of Deputy Director with effect from the occurrence of vacancies and/or from the date from which his immediate junior was promoted, with all consequential benefits.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, while working as Senior Accounts Officer (SAO, for short) with his parent organisation, was sent on deputation as Administrative Officer in the National Institute of Social Defence under the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, vide order dated 02.03.2001. Prior to proceeding on deputation, the applicant had worked for some period as Inspector of Accounts on ad hoc basis. On 08.08.2001, an O.M. was issued by the parent organisation stating ...

Amar Singh S/O Shri Chidda Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Throug ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Shri Amar Singh, a Constable in Delhi Police, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking a direction to the respondents to take all necessary steps to promote him as Head Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police w.e.f. December, 1999, i.e. the date when his junior/batch-mate was promoted.2. This matter was heard at some length on 19.3.2007, when the following order was passed: During the course of the arguments, Shri Ajesh Luthra, counsel appearing for respondents seeks adjournment to find out whether the applicant had appeared in the test for promotion to the post of Head Constable in the year 2005 when the test was actually held.3. Shri Luthra, on instructions based on records, states that the applicant did not pass in the test held in the year 2005 as also in the test conducted in the year 2006.4 Confronted with the position aforesaid, learned Counsel for applicant, by referring to Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Promotio...

Shri Gover Dhan S/O Shri Abhimanu, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Sh. Gover Dhan and three others have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: To direct the respondents to extend the benefit of the judgment in OA No. 1414/2005 and also pay them the salary and allowances for the intervening period from the date when they were relieved from the Construction Organization till the date when they were allowed to join duty in Delhi Division. To direct the respondents to restore the applicants in the pay scale in which they had been working in the Construction Organization and were transferred to Delhi Division and to give them all consequential benefits.2. In so far as the first relief as reproduced above is concerned, it is covered by judgment in OA No. 1414/2005. However, counsel for the respondents says that the applicants of this OA did not join duty on their absorption in Delhi Division. In that connection, reference has been made to Para 8 of the counter wher...

Yogesh Sethi, D'Man Grade-iii Vs. Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA applicant has challenged disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, vide memorandum dated 28.8.2001. He seeks quashing of the aforesaid memorandum with all consequential benefits.2. Applicant while working as Draftsman Grade-III in Circle No. 4 from 12.6.1998 till 9.2.2001 had corresponded directly with Chief Engineer without following proper channel was alleged of using the word 'incompetent' in respect of the senior officers. In pursuance of the enquiry applicant had consistently asked for certain documents pertaining to the years 1998-2001 regarding communication. The documents have not been provided to him despite an inspection when conducted on 25.11.2002 the presenting officer has been directed to make available the required documents. An enquiry officer (EO) has now been appointed on 31.5.2006.3. Shri Anil Singhal, learned Counsel of applicant contended that delay in initiating enquiry of 9 years is inordin...

Sony India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)109TTJ(Delhi)413

1. By this stay petition, the petitioner desires that this Tribunal may grant stay of recovery of outstanding demand pertaining to asst. yr.2003-04.2. The petitioner desires that the tax demand due after giving effect to the order of learned CIT(A) is Rs. 5,09,35,197 which be stayed from recovery proceedings.Income as per assessment order 87,36,40,944Less : Relief by CIT(A) order 25,40,20,351Income under Section 250 of the Act 61,96,20,593Tax at the rate of 35% 21,68,67,208Surcharge 1,08,43,360Tax as per CIT(A) order 22,77,10,568Tax paid as per returned income 7,68,87,505Balance tax 15,08,23,063Less: Payments as per the instalmentsgranted basis 14,00,00,000Tax payable 1,08,23,063Add : interest under Section 234B of the Act 2,94,81,661Add : Interest under Section 220(2) of the Act 1,06,30,472Total tax demand due after givingeffect to the CIT(A) 5,09,35,197Order 2.2 The demand has arisen in view of the various adjustments made in respect of international transactions by the petitioner w...

Social Jurist, a Lawyers Group Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT698

Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The constitutional mandate for assuring the dignity of individual is contained in the very preamble of the Constitution of India. To live with dignity would take within its ambit legitimate expectation of the citizens of the country for being provided with good environment and health care. Unlike right to education, right to health and healthy environment has so far not been incorporated in the fundamental rights of the people of India. However, an obligation in the form of directive principle under Article 47 of the Constitution is casted upon the State to raising of standard of living of its people and improvement of public health among its primary duties. The State has to ensure that this obligation is not rendered nugatory by inaction or inadequate action on the part of the State and its instrumentalities. Leaving aside its dogmatic approach, it must ameliorate by taking recourse to policies and steps and by involving other appropriate forums to achieve the o...

Umesh Kumar Tiwari Vs. M.C.D. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT241

Hima Kohli, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition and sought directions to the respondents to regularize the petitioner in the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary), MCD with effect from 23rd August, 2004, with full benefits of pay and seniority. He has also sought grant of pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- with effect from 23rd August, 2004, for the period he has worked with the respondent No. 3, or in the alternative, directions to the respondents to grant benefit of age relaxation to the petitioner for the period he has worked in the MCD as a teacher, i.e. with effect from 23rd August, 2004 and to publish the result of the petitioner and to grant him appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) MCD if otherwise found eligible in the recruitment process initiated under advertisement No. 10/2005 published by the Respondent MCD in January 2005.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that on 23.8.2004, the petitioner was appointed as a tea...

Amit Sharma and ors. Vs. State Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ529

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the summoning order issued upon an FIR lodged by one Deepak, alleging commission of offences under Section 365/479/506/34 IPC.2. The facts necessary to decide this case are that one Dharamraj had purchased an Ambassador car after availing of financing facilities on hire-purchase basis; from an institution financing vehicle purchase, M/s Muthoot Leasing & Finance Co. Ltd. Apparently, the purchaser used to deposit the installments and at same point in time Shri Kanwar Singh Tanwar, an MLA took fancy to the vehicle and with the consent of the purchaser kept it with himself. The installments fell due and on account on non-payment, the financier authorized the re-possession of the vehicle.3. At the time of repossession/taking back the vehicle on account of failure to pay the installments, the driver, one Deepak alleged that he was beaten up and also confined by four boys. The FIR was lodged and the matter was investigated. This eventua...

Varun Mani and ors. Vs. Directorate of Education and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 141(2007)DLT35

Rekha Sharma, J.1. Sh.Varun Mani and Smt.Anita Garg were selected as TGT(Maths), while Miss Sikha Yadav was selected as TGT(English) pursuant to an interview held on November 23, 2005. Consequent upon their selection, they joined Nehru Memorial Co-Education Middle School on December 12, 2005 and worked as such till January 6, 2006 when they were told through a communication of the same date that their appointments were void ab-initio because the same were made without holding the selection in accordance with the rules. It is this letter of January 6, 2006 which has led the petitioners to file the present writ petition seeking quashing of the same and a mandamus to respondent No. 2 to allow them to continue on the posts of TGT.2. It is not disputed by learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 that the aforementioned teachers were selected by a duly constituted Selection Board which held interviews on 23rd November, 2005. The Selection Board comprised of five members one of which, name...