Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

S.B. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA applicant, who retired as Draftsman on superannuation on 30.4.1992, has impugned Presidential order dated 16.2.2005, whereby on his conviction in a case under Section 140, 511, 471 IPC and rejection of revision petition by the CBI for enhancement of sentence in 2000 on a show cause notice issued to applicant a penalty under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 of recovery of LTC advance of Rs. 4595/- from the withheld gratuity and 10% cut in monthly pension for a period of five years has been inflicted upon him.2. Applicant while working as a Draftsman was accused through a FIR of offence of forging the documents for accord of LTC advance a trial proceeded vide RC No. 5/82 registered by the CBI. Vide judgment dated 11.1.1988 applicant was convicted of the offence under Section 420 read with Section 142-B/467 IPC but vide an order dated 12.1.1988 applicant was admitted on probation. The aforesaid when challenged by the CBI in a criminal revision for enhanceme...

i.S. Rajpurohit S/O Shri Vijai Vs. Director General and Secretary,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of the present OA applicant, an ex-Superintendent, has assailed a penalty of compulsory retirement following the disciplinary proceedings inflicted by an order dated 20.10.2000 as well as an order passed in appeal on 28.12.2001, whereby on reinstatement penalty has been reduced to reversion to the post of Junior Stenographer.2. While posted as Superintendent applicant who was transferred vide order dated 1.5.1998 when had not reported for duty to the transferred place was dealt with in a major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for remaining absent from 13.5.1998 to 19.2.1999 and also not complying with the relieving order dated 8.5.1998. The enquiry officer (EO) though established the charge on an exparte enquiry of absent from duty but has not established the charge pertaining to acceptance of communication of relieving in the peon book but held him guilty of refusing to accept the communication from CTO, which is a different charge admitted ...

Shri Tarlok Singh S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(1)SLJ191CAT

2. By virtue of this OA, an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 28.08.2002 inflicting upon the applicant a major penalty of withholding of two increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect on the allegation of non-approval on the specification of the Goods requisitioned and proposing overpayment and acceptance of Alternator with lesser capacity has been assorted. Applicant has been proceeded against in a major penalty. On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer had held the applicant guilty of the charge. After having sought second advice of the CVC and on consultation with UPSC, a major penalty was imposed upon the applicant, which is being assailed in this OA.3. Learned Counsel for applicant stated that in the light of the decision of Apex Court in State Bank of India and Ors. v. D.C. Aggarwal and Ors.serve a copy of the report of CVC along with the Enquiry Officer's report to the delinquent as non-supply of CVC's report would deprive him a reasonable ...

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT679; 2007(94)DRJ542

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of orders dated 19.05.2006 and 30.10.2006 passed by the Electricity Court and to quash the criminal complaint No. 24 of 2006 and the proceedings arisen thereof, pending on the Board of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Electricity Court, Delhi (West). 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner Corporation allotted a petrol pump under Kargil Martyr Scheme to the respondent No. 2 at Hari Nagar, Delhi. The allotment was on license basis and the electricity meter was got installed by the petitioner himself in its own name. The allotment letter contained following conditions in respect of use of electricity meter:6(b) - The Corporation shall arrange for all electrical and water connections and shall pay the deposits, if any, required to be paid in connection with the Corporation's property mentioned in the schedule I and II. The Dealer shall however, pay all the bills for electricity and...

Sh. Satish Yadav, Vs. Sh. Vijay Pal,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ738

J.M. Malik, J.1. The short controversy pivots arounds the question, whether it is permissible to condone the delay in absence of sufficient cause under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Vide order dated 8.8.2005, the first appellate Court accepted the appeal and its operative order runs as follows:16. In view of the above discussions finding of learned trial court on issue Nos. 7 and 8 is reversed. The appeal is allowed and preliminary decree is passed determining the share of appellant/plaintiff in the suit premises bearing No. 94/2, Gali No. 14, measuring 775 sq. yds., Village Libaspur, Delhi as shown in the red colour of the site plan as 1/3rd share and respondents No. 1 to 4/defendants No. 1 to 4 are jointly entitled to the 1/3rd share in the suit property and respondent Nos. 5 and 6/defendants Nos. 5 & 6 are also jointly entitled to the 1/3rd share in the suit property.17. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly; trial court record be returned along with this copy of the order. Parties are d...

Vishvanath Sharma Vs. Shri Mukand Lal Sharma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ1123

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Appellant Vishwanath Sharma is aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation awarded to him. 2. Total compensation awarded to him is Rs. 25,000/-. The break-up is as under:(i) Medical Treatment .... Rs. 10,000/-(ii) Special Diet .... Rs. 5,000/-(iii) Pain and Suffering .... Rs. 10,000/-3. Since fairness of the compensation assessed is the only matter which was debated by the learned Counsel for the parties I need to note only such facts as are relevant for determination of the said issue. 4. The date of accident is 17.2.1985. Age of the appellant as on date of accident is 44 years. He claimed to be selling cosmetics from a small shop at his residence. He claimed income of Rs. 3,000/- per month. 5. Period of treatment spreads over different dates, spanning 6 months. 6. The entire treatment was at St. Stephen's Hospital. Ex.PW-3/8 is a certificate issued by Dr. Mathew Verghese who had treated the appellant at St. Stephen's Hospital and as PW-4 had proved the same. ...

inderjit Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT97

1. The Petitioner has assailed, by means of this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 19.7.2006 whereby the following Order of the Commissioner was upheld:i) I order confiscation of 3979 pairs of shoes valued at Rs. 32,56,344 and biris, gutka and zarda valued at Rs. 3,52,700/- attempted to be exported by M/s. I.J. Exim under Section 119 and 113(i) of the Customs Act respectively and I order a fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act Rs. 2.50 lakh and Rs. 50,000/- respectively.ii) I order denial of drawback of Rs. 47,506/- on ladies leather boots found short.iii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Mr. Inderjeet Singh proprietor of M/s. I.J. Exim under Section 114 of the Customs Act.iv) I order denial of drawback of Rs. 1650/- on shoes found short in respect of M/s. Vakil Exports.2. It should be recalled that Section 130, as it stood before its...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reebok India Company

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]291ITR455(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the order dated 2nd September, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in ITA(TDS) No. 5/Del/2002 for the assessment year 1994-95.2. The following substantial question of law has been framed by us for consideration:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,50,24,000/-(termed as security deposit) paid by the assessed to its landlord under the Agreement to Lease dated 10th March, 1995 was not 'rent' as defined in the Explanationn to Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, 19613. The brief facts of this case are that the assessed-company entered into an agreement with M/s ABCO Footwear Care to take on lease the premises bearing No. 328/1, Village Bijwasan, New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 6,26,000/-. The lease agreement also provided for payment of security deposit amounti...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Upper India Couper Paper Mills Company Limite ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR29(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 12547/2000 (Under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The respondent entered into a Rate Contract dated 20.8.1981 for supply of duplicating bleached paper and unbleached printing paper for the period 1.7.1981 to 31.12.1982. Supplies were made in pursuance to the Contract. In terms of the Rate Contract, the increase in Excise Duty was to be borne by the purchaser/Union of India. The Excise Duty increased w.e.f. 1.3.1983 as communicated to the respondent by the department of the petitioner vide its letter dated 22.3.1983. The respondent claimed amendment in the Rate Contract in accordance therewith.2. The element of enhanced Excise Duty was not paid resulting in the respondent making claim on the petitioner vide letter dated 27.10.1986 (C-43) including for reference of disputes to arbitration. Since no arbitrator was appointed, proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) were filed and ulti...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. a and a Bakery P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]302ITR51(Delhi)

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated February 21, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' in I. T. A. No. 2667/Del/2001 relevant for the assessment year 1998-99.2. Mother Dairy, a subsidiary of M/s National Dairy Development Board, which is a Government of India undertaking raised a bill which was paid by the assessed by means of an account payee cheque.3. The Assessing Officer required the assessed to prove that the payment was made for services rendered by Mother Dairy. The claim of the assessed was that Mother Dairy is a Government company and a transaction with a Government company is presumed to be above board and since the payment was made by cheque, the assessed had discharged its onus. This contention was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the view placed by the assessed and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and that is how the matter is before us.4. We have...