Delhi Court May 2007 Judgments

Dr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Sr. Radio Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA, applicants are challenging order dated 23.10.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondents rejecting the representation made by applicants against withdrawal of pay in pursuance of their pay fixation according to FR 22(1)(a)(i).2. By way of relief, applicants, who are four in number, are working as Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and Senior Medical Officers (SMOs) in Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, and have sought setting aside of the order dated 23.10.2006 issued by the respondents.3. The facts as set out in the OA are that applicants are the members of the Central Health Services (CHS) and were initially appointed as Medical Officers/Specialist Grade II of non-teaching Specialist, sub-cadre of CHS. They were subsequently promoted as SMOs and thereafter as CMO. Their pay was fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(i) and were given the benefit of one advance increment at the time of pay fixation vide OM dated 5.11.1997 (Annexure P-4) is in respect of Applicant No. 2 Dr. M.K. Mittal.4. It is s...

Gurcharan Singh Vs. State Through the Mcd

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ107

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this revision proceeding, the petitioner has impugned the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate (hereafter 'the trial court') holding him guilty of offences under Sections 332 and 461, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereafter 'the Act'.2. The complainant, Municipal-Corporation of Delhi, (hereafter called 'MCD') alleged that the petitioner was found raising unauthorized construction in the rear portion of the first floor, consisting of two halls and passage in property No. 1384-86, Nicholson Road, (hereafter 'the premises') without its permission. Notice was given; the petitioner claimed to be not guilty, and was sent for trial.3. The accused's defence was that the building became dangerous. The property in question was visited by Junior Engineer (JE), Shri Avinash Kumar. He was examined by the complainant as PW-1. He stated that on 11.1.1991, while he was assig...

Smt. Jayashree Vasudevan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

i) To set aside the respondents' impugned orders dated 25.6.2004 passed by Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority order dated 4.10.2004 followed by order dated 19.9.2005 passed by the Secretary, Railway Board as the Revising Authority and order dated 21.11.2005 of the Reviewing Authority. Further to set aside the respondents' Bd's No. E(D&A) 2000/RG 6-60 dated 9.5.2001 (RBE No. 89/2001). ii) To direct the respondents to re-fix her salary and pay her all arrears of salary etc. with interest at market rate till the date of its payment. iii) To order that the period of so call unauthorized absent from 5.3.2003 to 4.3.2004 be treated as leave without pay.2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant, an employee of Central Railway is presently on transfer to Railway Board as Stenographer Grade-D. She applied for leave without pay for one year i.e. 5.3.2002 to 4.3.2003 and again on 5.5.2003, 1.7.2003 and 18.11.2003. Respondents rejected her application on 13.11.2003.Respondent...

Col. (Retd.) Chandra Kumar Shukla Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 26-7-2006 of Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad relating to the assessment year 2004-05.2. The assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 declaring a total income of Rs. 5,62,280. The assessee has claimed exemption of a sum of Rs. 2,15,449 under Section 10(10AA)(ii) of the Act. The assessee had taken up premature retirement in the army on 14-6-1994. On retirement from the army, he had received a sum of Rs. 81,378 being the leave encashment of 215 days in the assessment year 1995-96 the assessee had claimed Rs. 81,370 as exemption under Section 10(10AA)(i) of the Act. After his retirement from the army the assessee worked with M/s. Microwave Communications Ltd. and resigned from this company in January, 2004. At the time of his resignation from Microwave Communications Ltd. He received a total sum of Rs. 6,89,448. Out of this he claimed that a sum of Rs. 2,15,449 as exempt under Se...

Dy. Cit Vs. Geo Enpro Petroleum Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The aforesaid appeals of the revenue and the assessee involve one common ground regarding the determination of initial assessment year under Section 80-IB(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue's Appeal No. 3551 (Del)/2005 for assessment year 2001-02 also involves some issues regarding the computation of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act. These appeals were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative. Therefore, we find it fit to pass a consolidated order disposing off all these appeals. The ground taken by the revenue regarding the determination of initial assessment year is similarly worded in the appeals for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The ground is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that the initial assessment year for the purposes of deduction under Section 80-IB would be assessment year 1999-2000 and not a...

Flex Engineering Ltd. Vs. Antartica Construction Co. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR387(Delhi); 2007(96)DRJ90

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 for setting aside the arbitral award dated 24th November, 2003 alleging that the petitioner received the award on 5th December, 2003. In the application, the petitioner has submitted that the award of the arbitrator was tainted with fraud, misrepresentation, cheating and forgery committed by the respondent and the learned Arbitrator despite having knowledge about the acts of omission and commission committed by the respondent while presenting the statement of claims along with forged documents, did not consider the submissions made by the applicant pointing out glaring discrepancies on the record and allowed the false and frivolous claim of the respondent. The award was in conflict with public policy of India.2. The respondent was awarded contract for road work by the petitioner in respect of site A-1, Sector 60 NOIDA vide work order dated 6th April, 1995. The...

Krbl Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009[15]STR371

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the interim order dated 24.04.2007 passed by the Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, New Delhi. By virtue of this order, the petitioner's IEC No. 0595031790 has been suspended with immediate effect till further orders. The impugned order has been passed on the assumption that the petitioner has committed violations of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy made under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and, thereforee, the provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the latter Act have been attracted.2. Mr. Bhattacharya, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that this order suffers from various infirmities. First of all, he submitted that the impugned order has been passed under Section 8(1)(a) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter r...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. E. Sawhney Exports

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]304ITR93(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The short question raised in this appeal filed by revenue is as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( herein after referred to as 'Tribunal') was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,62,238 made by the assessing officer with regard to the deduction claimed by assessed for bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').2. The assessed is engaged in the business of exports of garments and the payments were being received in foreign exchange. For assessment year1997-98, assessed filed return claiming bad debts amounting to Rs. 1,25,36,852. The Reserve Bank of India had allowed permission in respect of sum of Rs. 90,36,518 to be written off in the books of account. In respect o balance amount of Rs. 31,62,238, the assessing officer denied the benefit of writing off the bad debts since assessed has not furnished any evidence to this effect.3. In appeal filed by the assessed, the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appea...

Dr. Ajit Gupta Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3172; 2007(96)DRJ356

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.11.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowing the revision petition filed by the complainant (Yashpal Singh) in respect of an order dated 19.02.1997 whereby the petitioner had been discharged by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.2. A complaint was filed by the respondent No. 2 (Yashpal Singh) alleging that offences under Sections 403/405/420 IPC had been committed by the petitioner [Dr Ajit Gupta] (referred to as accused No. 1 in the complaint) and one Mr Chaman Lal (referred to as the accused No. 2 in the complaint). It was alleged that on 29.07.1983 the petitioner dishonestly and fraudulently misrepresented that he was competent to sell the bus bearing Registration No. DEP 4301. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2, the complainant, agreed to purchase the said bus for a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- less the bank loan to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/-. The complainant was, thereforee, ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Prem Nath Nagpal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)51

V.B. Gupta, J.1. By way of present appeal, the Revenue has challenged the impugned order dated 31st August, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), Delhi Bench 'B' in ITA No. 413/Del/2003 for the block period 1st April, 1989 to 17th December, 1999.2. The facts in brief are that a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was carried out at the residential premises of the assessed on 17th December, 1999 during which, various documents were found and seized. Notice under Section 158BC was issued on 5th July, 2001 and in pursuance thereof assessed filed his return for the block period declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 1,64,667/-. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that during the search, certain papers relating to property situated at 3, Club Road, Gadaipur, Mehrauli were found and as per return filed by the assessed, he had acquired this property for a consideratio...