Delhi Court May 2007 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)296; [2008]303ITR256(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as Act) against the order dated 6th October, 2004 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as Tribunal) in ITA No. 1818/Del/2004 for the assessment year 1999-2000.2. The appeal was admitted for hearing and following substantial questions of law have been formulated for determination:(i) Whether the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue in as much as the AO had accepted the revised computation of income without any revised return filed by the assessed as required under Section 139(5) of the Act?(ii) Whether the revised computation of income could be accepted even after the expiry of time limit to file a revised return as prescribed under Section 139(5) of the Act?3. The brief facts are that the assessed filed Income-tax return for the assessment year 1999-2000 on 31st December, 1999 declaring income of Rs. 160,03,15,698/-. The said r...

Devender Prashad Vs. Shanti Devi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)DMC265

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The revision petition challenges the order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereafter 'trial Court') on 16.09.2004. The accused respondents were acquitted of charges under Sections 304-B/498-A Indian Penal Code (IPC).2. The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are that the petitioner is the father of Ms. Anju (hereafter referred to as 'the deceased'). The deceased and Ashok Kumar (hereafter referred to as 'the husband') were married on 12.02.1993. Three children were born out of the wedlock. The deceased died an unnatural death on 13.08.1997; she succumbed to extensive burn injuries.3. The Petitioner alleged that after 12 days of marriage, the deceased complained to him that she was being harassed for dowry, by the husband and the other accused respondents. The mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Jethani) Vimlesh used to harass and beat her. It was alleged that in 1996 the husband allegedly visited the Petitioner and took him on his scooter ...

Indian Perfumes and Flavours and anr. Vs. Customs and Excise Settlemen ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT215

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is from the State of Uttar Pradesh. The show-cause notice dated 9th March, 2006 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division-V, NOIDA (Uttar Pradesh).2. Even though the impugned order may have been passed by the Settlement Commission in Delhi, we decline to entertain this petition since the proceedings were initiated in Uttar Pradesh and the assessed is also a resident of Uttar Pradesh. Various Benches of this Court have repeatedly taken the view that in such cases, the jurisdictional High Court will be with reference to the place from where the show cause notice was issued or the place from where the order in original was passed. See for example Seth Banarsi Das Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax : [1978]113ITR817(Delhi) , Suresh Desai & Associates v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 203 ITR 912, and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. (2006) 204 CTR 234.3. Recently, in a case pertaining to an order passed by th...

Mohd. Mursaleen Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ435

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. These proceedings seek review of the judgment and order of this Court dated 9.5.2005.2. The writ petitioner had challenged a demand issued by the DDA (hereinafter 'DDA') on 20.11.2002 and also sought for directions to restore his lease-hold rights and convert them into freehold. He had purchased a 375 sq.mtr. plot (hereafter called the 'property') on perpetual lease hold basis. The lease deed was executed on 30.1.1979. He completed construction on the plot an occupation certificate was issued on 20.12.1986. According to his case a portion of the premises being basement was let out on 9.3.1990. The purposes of tenancy was storage of finished furniture; the duration of the arrangement was 17 months. It was alleged that the tenant misused the premises. The writ petitioner terminated the arrangement and filed a suit for possession in this Court, in 1992. He also took further action and disconnected electricity supply to the premises on 23.7.1993. Apparently, the writ...

Shri K.P. Tripathi S/O Shri Abhay Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. (t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA, applicant, who is working as Instrument Mechanic in Central Water Commission, Ministry of Water Resources impugns order dated 30.5.2006 passed by respondent No. 4, Director (PCP Directorate) whereby applicant's request for grant of higher scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 has been rejected. In Central Water Commission the post of Instrument Mechanic is in the scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590 and minimum qualification provided for this post is Matric plus ITI Certificate with five years experience. As per the Fifth CPC recommendation the post with equal qualification, i.e., the Electricians in Publication Division and Wireless Mechanics in Central Water Commission, Electricians in CPWD, D. Man Grade-III in Central Water Commission are allowed pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000.2. The facts in brief are that applicant, in spite of several representations, has not been granted pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 in spite of recommendations of Fifth CPC. As per recruitment rules dat...

Surveyors Association, Survey of Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By filing this OA, applicants who are Surveyors in the Survey of India, Ministry of Science and Technology, pray for the following reliefs: (i) the records be called for from respondent No. 3 to ascertain the extent of hostile discrimination meted to Surveyors Division I due to State action/inaction. (ii) It is held that Surveyors Division I cannot be placed in a pay scale lower than that of Draftsman Division I as long as the basic qualifications, rigorous of training, classification and functional responsibilities are not altered. (iii) Consequent to (b) above it is held that non-placement of the Surveyors Division-I in the same pay scale as of Draftsman Division I in the past is illegal and unjust. (iv) Consequent to ( c) above the respondents be directed to place Surveyors Division I in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900, Rs. 1640-2900 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively from 13.5.1982, 1.1.1.986 and 1.1.1996 in the same manner and fashion as granted to Draftsman Division I.2. The facts o...

Govind Jha S/O Shiv Kumar Jha, Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of present OA applicant, who is posted as Joint Director (Policy), Engineer-in-Chief Branch, Army Headquarters impugns OM dated 13.1.2006 issued by Directorate of Personnel/MIG (Civ), Engineer-in-Chief's Branch, Army Headquarters, Army Headquarters, Kashmir House, New Delhi vide which respondents rejected representation of applicant regarding his grievances related to the un-communicated adverse entries in his ACR for the years 1996-97 and 2000-2001. He was awarded 'A' Grade, i.e., outstanding prior to the year 1996 and thereafter also except for the years 1996-97 and 2000-01. Hence he prays that such entries were required to be communicated to the applicant.2. The facts in brief are that applicant was given Grade-D (average) in the ACR for assessment year 1996-97. He was again given Grade-C (Good) in his ACR for assessment year 2000-2001. The grade of 'Good' in the ACR of the year 2000-01 was again a steep fall from 'Outstanding' grade, usually awarded to the applicant.3...

Shri R.K. Sharma S/O Late Shri Y.D. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA applicant, Meteorologist Grade-I impugns order, by which his case for promotion to the post of Director (Scientist D) under the provision of Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) as per Recruitment Rules has not been considered.2. Briefly, the facts are that applicant was appointed as Professional Assistant in office of respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 21.3.1983 against the Direct Recruitment quota and since then applicant served the department to the satisfaction of his superiors. Applicant was promoted as Assistant Meteorologist on 26.3.1990 before the revision of the seniority list. Later, he got promoted to Meteorologist Grade-I vide order dated 5.1.2001 w.e.f. 8.1.2001. Since then he has been working on this post, without any break in service.3. The first contention extended by the learned Counsel for applicant Shri Yogesh Sharma is that there was dispute regarding the fixation of seniority of promotees and direct recruits and many OAs were filed by both groups on th...

Kotak Mahindra Banking Ltd. Vs. Industrial Development Bank of India a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)BC302; 2007CriLJ3065

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition assails the impugned order dated 6-2-2007 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal whereby it stayed the proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi. The order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal is a short one and is reproduced for facility of reference as under:Present : Mr. Virendra Gainda with Mr. O.P. Mathur for the appellant.Ms. Deiksha Asija, counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr. Mukul Chandra, counsel for the 2nd respondent.In the miscellaneous appeal, a ticklish issue is involved whether a bank which originally lent the money to the borrower can assign its debts to another agency which is to be examined by this Tribunal. The Bar Members are requested to assist on this aspect so as to enable the Tribunal to take an appropriate view.Let this matter come up for final decision on 5-4-2007. Pending a decision in this appeal, there shall be stay of all further proceedings in OA No. 445/1998 on t...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Param Pal Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ630

J.M. Malik, J.1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., the appellant in this case, has filed this appeal against the compensation granted by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Commissioner') vide order dated 29.12.2004. Jeet Singh alias Ajit Singh, the deceased, was employed as a driver on a truck owned by Jagdish Prasad Sharma, who was arrayed as the respondent No. 1 before the trial court. The deceased was on his professional visit on the truck bearing No. DL 1-G 8255 for the trade and business of Jagdish Prasad Sharma and after a journey from Delhi to Nimiaghat, the deceased had a long driving which involved a lot of stress and strain. On 17.7.2002 when the vehicle reached near Nimiaghat, District Giridih, the deceased's position deteriorated and he parked his vehicle on a roadside hotel. All of a sudden he fainted. He was taken to a local hospital, where the doctor declared him brought dead. F.I.R. was lodged with the police. His autopsy was cond...