Delhi Court July 2007 Judgments

Smt. Ganny Kaur Vs. the State (Nct) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi273; 142(2007)DLT35

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition raises the interesting question as to whether compensation granted by the State for the 1984 Riot victims should be given to persons in accordance with their entitlement to inherit property from the deceased persons as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or that the State is not governed by the personal laws and is required to award compensation equitably to the next of kin2. The petitioner (Smt Ganny Kaur) was married to Late Ladha Singh. They had a daughter (Ishwari Kaur) who was married to one Laxman Singh. Laxman Singh is the son of Kishan Singh (Respondent No. 3) herein. Ishwari Kaur and Laxman Singh had two children, Sajan Singh and Laxmi. In the unfortunate events which took place in 1984 and which go under the name 'The 1984 Riots', Ishwari Kaur, Laxman Singh and their two children were burnt to death by the rioters. The entire family of four perished at the hands of the murdering marauders. At that point of time, Sajan Singh was four ...

Jadon Contractors Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR549

1. The appellant, who has filed these two appeals against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 14.12.2006, strongly contends that the services provided to BHEL are not covered under 'Manpower Recruitment Agency' as defined under Section 65(68).2. During the relevant period, the definition of 'Manpower Recruitment Agency' was as under: (68) 'manpower recruitment agency' means any commercial concern engaged in providing any service, directly or indirectly, in any manner for recruitment of manpower to a client During the relevant period under consideration 'Taxable Service' was referred to as "any service provided to a client by a manpower recruitment agency in relation to the recruitment of manpower, in any manner, as stipulated in Clause (k) of Sub-section 105 of Section 65 of the Act." 2. In this context, the Trade Notice issued by Mumbai Commissionerate-I (No. 7/97-ST dated 4.7.1997), particularly, para 1.2 of which, as reproduced hereunder may be of relevance: 1.2 It would be p...

Avnish Kumar Vs. Government of India Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this case the applicant has challenged the Memo of the respondents dated 29.12.2006 whereby his request for relaxation of age for recruitment to the post of Dialysis Technician in Dr. R.M.L.Hospital, New Delhi has been rejected.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Dialysis Technician in Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi on ad hoc basis for a period of one year w.e.f. 19.04.2004. His services were accordingly terminated by an order dated 19.04.2005. Thereafter, on 12.05.2005, respondents notified the Dialysis Technician (Group 'C'post) Recruitment Rules, 2005 [Recruitment Rules, for short]. As per the Recruitment Rules, the age limit for direct recruitment is between 18 to 25 years, which is relaxable for Government servant upto 40 years. This was followed by an advertisement dated 30.07.2005 for filling up of the post of Dialysis Technician. Thereupon, the applicant, along with another, filed OA No. 2139/2005, inter alia, seeking relaxation of age ...

Shri K.P. Singh, S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has challenged the decision of the respondents not to promote/appoint him to the post of Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC, for short). He has further sought a direction to the respondents to convene a review meeting of the Selection Committee held in July 2006 and also in the first/second week of May 2007, to consider the case of the applicant on merit for promotion/appointment to the post of Member, CBEC, with consequential benefits.2. The bare facts of the case are deceptively simple. The applicant belongs to 1970 batch of Indian Customs and Central Excise Service.After getting various promotions, he was ultimately promoted to the rank of Chief Commissioner. The applicant has stated that in a meeting of the Committee of Secretaries (C.O.S., for short) held in July 2006 for the purpose of preparing a panel for promotion/appointment to the post of Member, CBEC, the applicant was not empanelled, while his juniors were empanelled. The applica...

P.K. Sarin, S/O Shri S.N. SarIn Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1.Shri P.K. Sarin, an Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department, has filed this Application against non-payment of salary in cash by the Chief Engineer, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, Public Works Department for the months of February, March and April 2007. The prayer of the applicant made in this Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is for a direction to the respondents to make payment of salary to him in cash as per the rules and to quash instruction, if any, contrary to Statutory Rules. He also seeks payment of interest @ 18% on arrears of pay for the months of February, March and April 2007 onwards till the date of payment.2. Primarily and in fact, the only contention raised by the applicant, who appears in person, is that once the rules prescribes one of the modes of payment of salary by way of cash, it would be the choice of the applicant to receive the salary in cash and any other mode adopted by the respondents for payment of salary would...

Rich Products Corporation and anr. Vs. Indo Nippon Foods Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(2)316; 2007(35)PTC15(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') whereby the plaintiffs seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned trade mark WHIP TOPPING which, according to the plaintiffs, is deceptively similar to their registered trade mark RICH'S WHIP TOPPING or any other deceptive variations thereof upon or in relation to their goods or business. The plaintiffs have also sought an interim injunction restraining the defendant from passing off and infringement of copyright by restraining the defendant from using the identical trade dress, similar packaging, colour scheme, instructions etc in respect of its WHIP TOPPING product.2. It has been contended that the plaintiff No. 1 is one of the world's premium food companies with more than 2300 products sold in over 75 countries. The plaintiff No. 2 is a company incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956 ...

Javed Habib Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ693

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The appellant was the Publisher and Editor of an Urdu Weekly 'Hazoom' in the year 1983. In the Issue dated 18-24th November, 1983 an Article was published under the Title 'Arrest Muslims Fighting for their Rights Secret Government Circular'. The Article was authored one by Qurban Ali. The article was considered by the then government as offending and the appellant was tried for offences under Sections 124A IPC and 505B IPC charging that the Article contained objectionable matter intending to promote feelings of hatred towards the government and was an attempt to excite dissatisfaction towards the then Government established by law in India and it intended to cause fear or alarm in the mind of public and intended to induce a feeling of enmity between Hindus and Muslims and was against the State and public tranquility. The appellant was charged with offences under Sections 124A IPC and 505B IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 21st...

Dcm Ltd. Bara Hindu Rao Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12VST248(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The following references have been made to this Court by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956:STR No. 4/1983 - assessment year 1971-72STR No. 8/1980 - assessment year 1972-73STR No. 9/1980 - assessment year 1973-74STR No. 13/1987 - assessment year 1974-75STR No. 14/1987 - assessment year 1975-762. Learned Counsel for the parties informed us that the questions of law raised in all these references are substantively the same and so we took up STR No. 4/83 for hearing. Our opinion in this reference will govern the other references as well.3. The following three questions of law have been referred for our opinion:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sales made to M/s. New Bharat Chemical Industries and M/s Vaish Brothers by delivery of the goods ex-works at Najafgarh Road, Delhi, were in the cour...

Shri Krishan Bans Bahadur Legal Heir of Late Shri Raj Bans Bahadur Vs. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]306ITR411(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred for our opinion:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings commenced under Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act are valid?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that reimbursement of medical expenses in the form of payment to nurses represented a 'benefit' liable to tax?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 2(24)(iv) are applicable, and the said income is assessable under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. Question No. 1 is not pressed by learned Counsel for the assessed and, thereforee, we return it unanswered.3. Questions No. 2 and 3 arise from the fact that the assessed had incurred certain expenses for his medical treatment and the expenses were reimbursed to him in cash by his employe...

Goswamy Brij Kumar Jee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ223

J.P. Singh, J.1. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it is prayed that the Notification dated 4.8.1967 under Section 4, Declaration dated 20.11.1967 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Award No. 12/83-84 dated 17.6.1983 in respect of property No. 8, Raj Niwas Marg (Ludlow Castle Road), Delhi be quashed and the possession which was taken in May, 2000 be restored to the Petitioner. Corrigendum dated 27.10.1967 is also challenged and de-notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act is prayed for.2. The Petition has been filed through attorney, by son of Late Goswami Brij Bhushan Lal Jee Maharaj. It is alleged that on 27.8.1931 the property in question was purchased by the father of the Petitioner, for the temple, from Sh. Hari Narain and Sh. Laxmi Narain for a total sale consideration of Rs. 14,148.08p vide a Registered conveyance deed.3. Details regarding decree of a suit against Sh. B.Nand Kishore @ Nandu Babu; the consequenti...