Delhi Court May 2007 Judgments

Smt. Gyan Devi Vs. Smt. Leela Devi @ Narayani and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi240; 2007(96)DRJ426

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. By filing this appeal, the appellant has challenged the orders dated 8th January, 2007 and 13th March,2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in the execution petition registered as Ex.P. No. 118/2005. 2. A suit was filed by the respondent No. 1/decree holder for partition along with the relief of permanent injunction and declaration in respect of property No. B-134, Jamrudpur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'), which was registered as CS(OS) No. 1623/1995. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the parties and the legal representatives of late Shri Mam Raj Meena, who are the absolute owner of the suit property arrived at a settlement. The terms and conditions of the said settlement were put in writing under the settlement deed executed by the parties thereto on 18th April, 2000. In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at, a settlement deed was prepared and the said settlement deed was filed in the suit praying for passing a co...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. VipIn Batra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)557; [2007]293ITR389(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 30th November, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench SMC in ITA No. 5020/Del02004 relevant for the assessment year 1996-97.2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal took the view that re-assessment proceedings carried out by the Assessing Officer in terms of Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) lacked in valid jurisdiction and were, thereforee, liable to be set aside.3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we admit this appeal and frame the following substantial question of law for consideration:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was bad in law and, thereforee, the assessment framed in pursuance thereof was liable to be quashed?4. Filing of paper books is dispensed with.5. The assessment was framed in respect of the assessed under Section 143(3) o...

Shashi Shekhar @ Neeraj @ Raju Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ4193; 2007(96)DRJ411

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. The appellant stands convicted for the offences of robbery and murder vide judgment dated 23rd April, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions case No. 335/96 arising out of FIR No. 509/95 of Vasant Kunj police station and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation under Section 302 IPC vide order dated 28th April, 2004. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. The appellant, as per the prosecution case, had on 31-10-95 at about 8.45 a.m. entered into the house of the complainant Smt. Kausar Wizarat Hashmi(PW-8) in Vasant Kunj when she was away to her office and her daughter Sara Hashmi had also left for her school while her husband Sushil Hashmi was away to Calcutta. Their maid servant Anita alone was in the house. The appellant first of all raped Anita and then killed her and before leaving took away many valuables from the house including VCR, cameras, jewellery items. As per...

Sanjeev Nanda Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3786

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This petition challenges an order dated 19.3.2007 by which the Additional Sessions Judge (hereafter referred to as 'the trial Court') declined an application by the petitioner, under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code, (hereafter 'the Code') made certain remarks about the conduct of prosecution vis-a-vis exercising power under Section 53 of the Code and exercised the power under Section 311, summoning one Shri Sunil Kulkarni, for examination. The petitioner has impugned the order on the ground that it declined the request for recall of the 9 witnesses sought for, as in the overall circumstances of the case would cause prejudice; he also claims to be aggrieved by the observations of the trial Court, suggestive of various courses of action available with the prosecution, to compel him to give blood samples.2. The petition was heard by another bench (Chaturvedi, J) on 28th March, 2007, 3rd April, 2007, 18th April, 2007 and 23rd April, 2007. Notice was issued, on 25...

Ramesh Chand Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ399

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2006 passed by the learned single Judge as also the award passed by the Labour Court, Delhi. 2. The appellant herein was working as a conductor in the Delhi Transport Corporation. While he was working as such he was served with a charge sheet dated 15.5.1991 on the allegation that the appellant was not issuing tickets to the passengers and also misbehaving with the checking staff. Departmental enquiry was held and on completion thereof the petitioner was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order of 'removal from service' the appellant raised a dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government on the following terms:Whether removal from service of Shri Ramesh Chand is illegal and/or unjustified and, if so, to what extent is he entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respe...

Bharat Aluminium Co. Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ152CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The applicant challenges the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on 23.01.2007. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not found any infirmity with the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 18.8.2006. A perusal of the show cause notice issued on 11.02.2005 indicates that the audit party had noticed certain payment against consulting charges in the annual report for the year 2003. Para 5 of the said show cause notice indicates that a consolidated amount of Rs. 9,67,90,588/-has been worked out as amount paid and the service tax has been calculated 5% thereon which comes to Rs. 48,39,529/-.3. During the personal hearing, the learned Counsel for the applicant relies upon the contract for supply of pot control system etc. between GAMD & Research Institute, China and the appellant company dated 04.01.2003. Article 2 of the said contract spells out the scope of the contract which reads as under: The Buyer agrees to acquire from the Seller and the Selle...

Unique Investment Centre Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ154CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The applicant challenges the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 10.10.2006. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has observed that the appellant had received remuneration from the broker on each transaction done through him which is a part of brokerage earned by the main broker from the sale/purchase of the securities of a client referred by the appellant sub broker.3. According to the learned Commissioner, the appellant has rendered taxable service in accordance with the provisions of Sub-clause (a) of Clause 105 of Section 65 of the Finance Act. 1994. The contention of the appellant is that the sub-brokers never deal with the client on their own and the main broker is authorized to enter into agreements with the clients (investor) and issue contract notes, account statement, receipts and delivery of cheques, recovery of taxes etc.Therefore, commission from the investor will be charged by the stock broker (main broker) and the broker paid a portion of such ...

State Vs. P.K. JaIn and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ4137

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 24.10.1983 whereby both the accused persons were acquitted by learned Special Judge, Delhi, of the charges under Section 161/34 IPC, under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 34 of IPC.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that one Dev Raj Sahni (complainant) was Managing Director of the Company M/s Sahni Sons Private Limited at 4/14A, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. His two sons Rakesh Sahni and Rajesh Sahni were running business in the name of Sahni Sons Manufacturing Company, at 3482, Netaji Subhash Marg, Delhi. His sons were getting the cabins and wooden partition made in their office through a carpenter on 15.6.1980 when accused P.K. Jain, Junior Engineer of City Zone, MCD approached them in the office at about 2 p.m and told them that the wood work and partition being done in the office was contrary to law, s...

Mandakini Hule Vs. Lachman Jiwnani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi279; IV(2007)BC261; 141(2007)DLT467; 2007(96)DRJ454

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff, has filed the present suit under Order XXXIV Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) praying for a preliminary decree directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 20,45,020/- along with pendente lite and future interest thereon @ 7.5 per cent per annum and in case of default on the part of the defendant for the sale of property bearing No. 30, Mayfair Gardens, New Delhi (for short the said property) which is stated to have been mortgaged with him by the defendant who is stated to be the owner of the said property.2. The plaintiff claims that the defendant had mortgaged the said property with him for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- on 15.04.1985 and subsequently for a sum of Rs. 11,00,000 on 3.06.1987. It is averred that the defendant had executed a promissory note in respect of a loan of Rs. 6,00,000 advanced to him by the plaintiff promising to repay the same with interest @ 18 per cent per...

Dhawan Timber Store Vs. D.D.A.

Court: Delhi

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The petitioner seeks a mandamus to the Respondent Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') 'to execute the perpetual lease deed/title deed in favor of the Petitioner with respect to the plot bearing No. 101/C, Block-1, Kirti Nagar, WHS, New Delhi-110015 immediately.'2. The petitioner is a partnership firm in the business of sale and purchase of timber and timber products at Pul Mithai, Delhi on land belonging to the Railways. The petitioner claims it was paying an annual rent to the Northern Railway. The petitioner was asked to vacate the land since it was required for widening the railway bridge on that place. In the alternative, the petitioner was allotted a piece of land measuring 200 sq. yards at plot No. 101/C, Block-1, Kirti Nagar under the scheme devised for the said project. Although the formal allotment was made on 15.3.1983, the possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner on 6.5.1982. The petitioner paid Rs. 3,000/- for the premium on the plot and ...