Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Jai Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Validity of order dated 8.4.2005 rejecting applicant's representation dated 12.4.2004 seeking full pay & allowances and other benefits from the date of his removal till reinstatement in service w.e.f. 27.5.96 to 9.3.2004 is challenged in present OA. Applicant also seeks modification of order dated 03.3.2004 to the extent it denies him full pay & allowances during suspension period. A direction was also sought to treat period of suspension as spent on duty with all consequential benefits including annual increments, leave salary, seniority & pension etc. besides interest and costs.2. Brief facts are that applicant was working with Photo Division of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'CFSL'). Since he was infected with pulmonary tuberculosis, he was transferred on medical grounds to the Document Division in August 1986.He was transferred from Document Division to Chemistry Division by order dated 27.9.1993. He started working with Toxi...

inspector Pushkal Sharma Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Inspector in Delhi Police assails the order of penalty dated 27.3.2003 imposing upon a major penalty of permanent forfeiture of two years' approved service entailing reduction in pay and also an order passed in appeal on 7.8.2003 upholding the punishment. I, S.S. Grewal, DCP/6th Bn. DAP, EO, charge you, Inspr. Pushkal Sharma, No. D/1931, that while posted at P.S.Alipur, as Addl. SHO, you performed night patrolling during the night intervening 14/15.8.99 and recorded your arrival from patrolling vide D.D. No. 59-B, at 8.40 A.M. 9.A.M. on your own without information/permission of any competent authority. You came back around 5.15 P.M. and again left the Police Station immediately for Ali Pur Stadium and then to Darya Ganj, to collect your Uniform from a tailoring shop. You remained absent from the Police Station during the most of 1the day on 15.8.99 despite the fact that police personnels are supposed to remain present for duty on important occasions like Independence Day. It is ob...

P.K. Sharma S/O Shri Ganga Dhar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Through this OA, applicant, who has been compulsory retired by way of a penalty on modification by the appellate authority, assails an order passed by the respondents on 8.8.2005 whereby his suspension, which was on account of involvement in criminal case, was revoked and the period from the date of suspension till his acquittal in criminal case, has been treated as spent on duty with all benefits.3. The grievance of the applicant is that the promotion had accrued to him in the year 1989 when the criminal proceedings were on and the junior of the applicant was promoted.4. Learned Counsel for applicant relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Delhi Jal Board v. Mahinder Singh substantiate his plea to the effect that the subsequent proceedings would not affect the right of promotion accrued to a person from the date of his junior has been so promoted.5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that as the applicant stood co...

Mahesh Chandra Sharma Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal against the order of learned CIT (Appeals), Faridabad dated 9-11-2004 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02.The solidarity issue in this appeal relates to the denial of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') to the assessee.2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the impugned proceedings can be understood as follows. The assessee is an individual who is carrying on business in two units. In Unit-I the assessee derives income from undertaking job work for others. In this unit the assessee undertakes manufacture of motorcycle wheels for M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. In Unit-II the assessee undertakes activity of Press shop, sheet metal & welding.The assessee initially filed return of income on 31-10-2001 declaring an income of Rs. 8,81,363. No deduction under Section 80-IB was claimed originally. In the revised return of income filed on 23-7-2002, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IB of Rs. 2,16,977 in relation to ...

Tyyaba Siddiqui Vs. Registrar Coop. Societies and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ574

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is a member of Maulana Azad Cooperative Housing Society formed in 1959-60 and the petitioner was enrolled as member in 1967 with enrollment number 126 and the writ petition is based on the averment that the petitioner has already completed all formalities viz. clearance of all dues and furnishing of all requisite documents including those required by respondent No. 1 - Registrar, Cooperative Society (in short 'RCS') for clearance of membership. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that inspire of furnishing all documents required in law, the membership of the petitioner has not been cleared by the RCS/respondent No. 1. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, it has been averred that the society has developed 95 plots out of the land allotted in Pitampura by the DDA for allotment by the society and out of the said 95 plots of land, ...

Pramod Kumar Vs. the State (Gnct) of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ605

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 2003 seeks to challenge the judgment dated 05.08.2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 28/99 arising out of F.I.R. No. 138/99, Police Station, Vasant Kunj, whereby the learned Judge has held the appellant guilty for offence under Sections 302/353/186 IPC as well as under Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act and further by a separate order dated 16.08.2003 has sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 332 IPC and to further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 186 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act with a fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) and in default of payment of fine to f...

Rama Saraf and anr. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ409

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioners seek an appropriate order under Section 482. Though the claim is formulated in such a manner as to indicate that it is a review of the previous order dated 06.01.2005 in respect of FIR No. 174/98, made by this Court, yet counsel contends that the relief claimed is not review but something more fundamental as according to the petitioner the order quashing the FIR was obtained by misrepresentation and suppressing material facts. 2. The facts for deciding this case are briefly as follows. The respondents 3 to 5 were named in a first information report for commission of offences under Sections 406/420 IPC. The allegation was that they, along with the other accused had obtained amounts from Chaman Lal, after inducing him, with a representation that they would yield over 3% per month return. It was alleged in the FIR, that the informant/complainant had, on the basis of the said representation deposited Rs. 1 lakh and that later upon being asked, the amo...

Rite Approach Group Ltd. Vs. Rosoboronexport

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi145; 2007(2)ARBLR443(Delhi); 139(2007)DLT55

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. M/s. Rite Approach Group Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the appellant, for short) has filed the present Appeal against the Order dated 25th May, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting it's application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short).2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Mareva v. International Bulkcarriers reported in (1980) 1 All.ER 213 and submitted that M/s.Rosoboronexport (hereinafter referred to as the respondent for short) is liable to pay to the appellant, commission of Rs.28.8 crores on sale of six helicopters by M/s Kazan Helicopters Ltd. to Border Security Force. Reliance is placed upon agency agreement between the appellant and M/s Russian Technologies and it claimed that the respondent herein has taken-over the said company. It is submitted that the Government of India should be injuncted by Mareva in...

Ehsan Ahmed Makhdoomi Vs. Registrar Coop. Societies and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ106

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is a member of Maulana Azad Cooperative Housing Society formed in 1959-60 and the petitioner was enrolled as member in 1967 with enrollment number 125 and the writ petition is based on the averment that the petitioner has already completed all formalities viz. clearance of all dues and furnishing of all requisite documents including those required by respondent No. 1 - Registrar, Cooperative Society (in short 'RCS') for clearance of membership. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that inspire of furnishing all documents required in law, the membership of the petitioner has not been cleared by the RCS/respondent No. 1. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, it has been averred that the society has developed 95 plots out of the land allotted in Pitampura by the DDA for allotment by the society and out of the said 95 plots of land, ...

Smt. Renu Sharma and anr. Vs. Titan Industries Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi151

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present Appeal has been filed by Smt. Renu Sharma, the appellant, for setting aside Order dated 11th December, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing her application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short).2. The appellant herein is the defendant in the Suit-CS(OS) No. 898/2003. The said Suit has been filed by M/s. Titan Industries Ltd., the respondent for recovery of goods and damages and in the alternative, a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,60,05,742/-. 3. It is alleged in the Suit that the appellant herein being one of the franchisees/agents of the respondent had been dealing with the respondent since 2nd October, 1996.4. The appellant could not be served by ordinary process and was served by publication in the newspaper 'The Statesman' and was proceeded ex-parte vide Order dated 23rd April, 2004. The appellant moved an application for setting aside of the ex-parte Order on 2nd June...