Delhi Court May 2007 Judgments

Rajendra Kumar Tandon S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Challenge is made to orders dated 13.11.2003 revising applicants' seniority to their dis-advantage as well as communication dated 28.01.2004 received on 4.02.2004 rejecting their representation.Applicants seek restoration of their seniority notified vide seniority list dated 27.05.2002, besides seeking benefit of Helper Khallasis in grade of Rs. 800-1150/- w.e.f. November 1984/1st March, 1993 respectively with consequential benefits including costs.2. Facts as stated are that applicants herein were initially engaged as Casual Labours S&T Khallasis on 1.12.1973 and 12.10.1976 respectively, deployed under Construction Organization. In terms of REB No. 167/1986 dated 11.09.1986, issued pursuant to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India dated 18.04.1985, applicants were screened and granted temporary status w.e.f. 1.1.1981. They were placed at serial Nos. 396 & 654 respectively. A seniority list of Telecom.Khallasis was issued on 21.01.1997 (A/6)...

Sh. Shree Ram S/O Shri Late Tota Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Whether respondents' action in initiating disciplinary proceedings, after issuing ''warning' based on same allegation, was justified? is the question posed in this OA. Validity of Memo dated 30th August, 2006 issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 alleging certain misconduct is challenged in present OA. In the year 1972, he was initially employed as LDC in the office of Directorate of Estates. Subsequently on passing Limited Departmental Examination, he was appointed as Accountant. At present he is working as Superintendent (Accounts). He was falsely implicated in case FIR No. 36/2004 Under Section 323/325/352/506 IPC dated 9.2.2004 PS Lodi Colony by a Sublette who himself is facing eviction proceedings. He applied anticipatory bail, which was granted by Ld. Sessions Judge, Delhi vide Order dated 12th March, 2004(A/5). Vide representation dated 5th March, 2004 Respondent No 2 was requested to issue Duty Certificate in applicant's favour for 5th Feb, 2004 as his neighbour, an...

Wazir Chand Exports Vs. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Moradabad dated 30-3-2005 for assessment year 2001-02, in the matter of order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. (1) That on that facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order dated 30-3-2005 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Moradabad (CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio. (1.1) That the CIT erred on facts and in law in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 holding that the assessment order dated 31-3-2003 passed under Section 143(3)(0 of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue without assuming proper jurisdiction and without satisfying the prerequisite conditions of that section. (1.2) That the CIT erred on facts and in law and exceeded his jurisdiction in excessive allowance of deduction under Section 80HHC without appreciatin...

Sumitomo Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)114ITD61(Delhi)

1. ITA 5883 & 5885/Del/1998 : These are appeals by the assessee against the common order dt. 31st Aug., 1998 of CIT(A)-XIV, New Delhi, relating to the asst. yrs. 1994-95 and 1995-96. ITA 3943 to 3945/Del/99 are appeals by the assessee against the common order dt. 30th July, 1999 of CIT(A)-XIV, New Delhi, relating to the asst. yrs. 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1996-97. These appeals arise on identical facts and circumstances and involve common issues. They were heard together and we deem it convenient to pass a consolidated order.2. ITA 5884/Del/1998 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt.31st Aug., 1998 of CIT(A)-XIV, New Delhi passed under Section 154 of the Act relating to the asst. yr. 1995-96. This appeal however will be dealt with separately as the issue raised therein is different and calls for an independent adjudication.3. The facts and circumstances under which these appeals arise are as follows: The assessee is a company incorporated as per the laws of Japan and a tax...

Radha Rani Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Additional Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)920

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dt. 31st March, 2006 passed by learned CIT(A), New Delhi, for asst. yr. 2002-03.2. The first four grounds are in substance relate to the order holding that the assessee company to be resident of India within the meaning of Section 6(3)(ii) of the IT Act as well as under DTAA between India and Singapore. Facts in brief are that the assessee company incorporated under the laws of Republic of Singapore filed its return of income on 21st Oct., 2002 showing interest income of Rs. 12,28,770. The return was filed in the status of a non-resident company. The AO noticed that the paid-up capital of the company consisted of 100 shares out of which Mrs. Geeta Soni held 99 shares and Mrs. Juliana Kassim, a resident of Singapore, held one share. Mrs. Geeta Soni is a resident of India and is an income-tax assessee in India. The AO examined the issue of residential status of the assessee company under Section 6(3) of the IT Act as well as u...

Dabur India Limited Vs. Mr. Amit JaIn and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(2)257; 2007(35)PTC257(Del)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Plaintiff is the owner of registered trade mark DABUR AMLA HAIR OIL and it is claimed that it has vast market not only in India but in overseas also with huge sales. The said oil is marketed in plastic bottles, which according to the plaintiff, bear a unique and distinctive design comprising semi circular shoulder with curvaceous back and a front panel that converge tapering into each other. The said shape and configuration being unique, aesthetic, novel and original was registered as a design under the Design Act, under design registration No. 173234 dated 24.2.1997 in favor of the plaintiff, which is valid till 24.2.2012 the allegation is that the defendant is manufacturing the bottle of same size and description copying the design and at the bottom of the bottle word 'DABUR' with same logo is inscribed. It is contended that the defendant was selling these plastic bottles to various manufactures, who were using the same with the purpose of counterfeiting DA...

Pfizer Products Inc. Vs. Rajesh Chopra and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(2)323; 2007(35)PTC59(Del)

Gita Mittal, J.1. The plaintiff filed the present suit originally seeking injunction against the defendants from infringing its registered trademarks and on grounds of dishonest passing off its products as those having an association with those of the plaintiff and damages. Along with the present suit, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been registered as I.A. No. 1879/2005. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant has also filed several applications from time to time including an application seeking rejection of the plaint (under Order 7 Rule 11) and return of the plaint (under Order 7 Rule 10) amongst others. The defendant has also filed an application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.2. By the present judgment, I propose to decide is No. 1879/2005, an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and is No. 8252/2006 filed by the defendant under Section 124 of the Trademarks Ac...

Rekha Vs. Mcd and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT608

Hima Kohli, J.1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the allotment letter dated 5th, April, 2006 issued by the respondent No. 1, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the MCD') to the respondent No. 2 as also for quashing of the letter dated 10th April, 2006 by which the earlier allotment letter dated 14.6.2005, issued to the petitioner by the respondent corporation, in respect of the same Government accommodation bearing No. D-1/6, 10 Rajpur Road, Delhi, was cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for directions to the MCD to allot and handover possession of the aforementioned accommodation to her.2. A brief narration of the relevant facts of the present case is necessary. The admitted position is that the petitioner is working as the Chief Medical Officer with the MCD. Vide allotment letter dated 14.6.2005, the petitioner was allotted a Type-V Flat bearing No. D-1/6, 10, Rajpur Road, Delhi (her...

Shri Narender Kumar Vs. the Regional Manager and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 141(2007)DLT1; [2007(114)FLR600]

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 09.03.2004 passed by the CGIT cum Labour Court-II. The Ministry of Labour made the following reference for its adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal:Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Meerut in terminating the services of Shri Narender Kumar, Sub-staff posted at Extension Counter, P.N.B., KDB Public School, Ghaziabad w.e.f. 12.09.1992 is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the said workman entitled to?2. The Tribunal has answered the reference in favor of the management by holding the direction of the management of the Punjab National Bank, respondent herein, in terminating the service of the petitioner, Sub- staff, posted at Extension Counter, P.N.B., KDB Public School, Ghaziabad w.e.f. 12.09.1992, as legal and justified.3. Feeling aggrieved with the said findings, the petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution ...

Shri Ramesh Kumar, Driver S/O Shri Jage Ram Vs. Delhi Transport Corpor ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 141(2007)DLT457

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner, a DTC driver of bus No. 15936, has sought to challenge the show cause notice dated 3.10.1994 whereby the petitioner was put to show cause as to why he be not punished with the order of dismissal from service pursuant to the chargesheet dated 25.3.1994 issued against him. During the course of pendency of the present writ petition, the inquiry against the petitioner was completed and the services of the petitioner were terminated. After the said order of dismissal, the petitioner amended this petition and also challenged his dismissal. The facts in brief which are relevant for deciding the present writ petition are that the petitioner at the relevant time was operating the bus from Delhi to Tanakpur and on the relevant date of 10.3.1994 while he was coming back from Tanakpur to Delhi, the said bus was apprehended near Banwasa Police Post by the customs officials. On checking the bus, the customs officials found that, in t...