Delhi Court July 2007 Judgments

Ashwini Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ423

Aruna Suresh, J.1. Present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner Ashwini Kumar Rai challenging the order dated 29th July, 1999 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi passed in O.A. No. 564 of 1994 titled 'Ashwini Kumar Rai v. Union of India whereby prayer of the present petitioner for allocation of Madhya Pradesh Cadre to him was declined.2. In brief, the facts of the present writ petition are that Shri Ashwini Kumar Rai, was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter referred to as IAS) when he successfully appeared in the Civil Services Examination, 1989. He ranked 52 in the All India Merit List and was appointed in the 1990 batch of IAS. The respondent No. 2 Ms. Sarda Muraleedharan, who belonged to Kerala State ranked 51 in the said merit list. There were 9 vacancies in the State of Bihar, out of these 3 were earmarked for insider in order to maintain 1:2 ratio of insider and outsider. The petitio...

Abdul Haque and ors. Vs. Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT526; 2007(97)DRJ415

S. Muralidhar, J.1. In each of these four writ petitions the principal relief sought is a direction to the Respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners who are the legal representatives of persons who died as a result of electrocution after coming into contact with a live electricity wire. Since the facts and the reliefs claimed are similar, these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. This Court proceeds to uphold the preliminary objection of the respondent based on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that since these petitions involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact, they are not maintainable as such under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. In the first petition Abdul Haque v. DVB, the claim is by the parents, widow and the child of the deceased Shri Allam, aged about 30 years who is stated to have been electrocuted at about 2.45 p.m on 1.7.1998 near Lal Mohd. Masjid, D-Block, New Seemapuri, while trying to put aside an electric wire lying o...

S.L. Saluja Vs. State Bank of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ742

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The appellant, Mr. S.L. Saluja has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 9th February, 2004 dismissing the writ petition filed by him for quashing disciplinary proceedings that have been initiated against him.2. The appellant joined the State Bank of India in 1967 as a clerk. He was promoted from time to time. He was working as an officer in the senior management grade scale, when on 29th May, 1999 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.3. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant filed Civil Writ No. 2840/2000 challenging the same on the ground that he had retired from service in terms of Rule 19 of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules after completing 30 years of pensionable service on 31st July, 1997 or at least after attaining age of 58 years on 31st December, 1999. The said contention did not find merit with the learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, holding that even after...

Naresh Chand Gupta Vs. Braham Prakash and Smt. Dayawati

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ193

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff (the appellant herein), being the owner of property No. 1047, Nanak Chand Basti, Gurdwara Road, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, entered into an agreement to sell dated 20.10.1987 in respect of part of the said property i.e. southern portion of the property measuring 150 Sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). Total consideration was fixed at Rs. 4,70,000/-. At the time of entering into the agreement to sell with the defendant No. 1 (the respondent No. 1 herein), a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was paid by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. Balance amount was to be paid by 31.1.1988. However, the defendant No. 1 agreed to pay Rs. 30,000/- extra over and above the earlier agreed consideration. On 17.12.1987, the defendant No. 1 paid Rs. 1 lac. On 6.9.1988 a further sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- by means of draft and cash amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- was given. Further sum of Rs. 10,000/- was given on 20.12.1988. On that date i.e. 20.12.1988, the plaintiff execu...

Satbir Singh Sehrawat and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT593

S.L. Bhayana, J.1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking writ of certiorari or writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to allot alternative plot to the Petitioners under rehabilitation scheme of Village Nangal Dewat Abadi after considering the eligibility of the Petitioners collectively on the basis of entire Abadi land acquired vide Award No. 1858/65-66 and Award No. 16/86-87 and not only on the basis of Award no. 16/86-87.2. The brief facts culminating into present Petition are that Petitioners claiming themselves to be owners of the property which is the subject matter of Section 4 Notification in question, have alleged that their land admeasuring 661 out of Kh. No. 1243( part of the old Lal Dora) included in the Naksha Muntazamin has been wrongly included to be part of Gaon Sabha. On 12.12.1965 a notification under Section 4 of Delhi Land Acquisition Act was issued where by acquisition of 151 bighas 10 bids was of land in village Nangal Dewat was p...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Jain

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Admittedly, the respondent was declared successful in the draw held by the appellant in 1991 but allotment could not be conveyed because of stay orders of the High Court. However, appellant claimed to have sent subsequently demand-cum-allotment letter to the respondent on 14.10.1993 by registered post. But the respondent did not receive the same and, therefore, failed to make the payment as demanded and the allotment was cancelled and the plot was allotted to somebody else. Consequently, the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum for restoration of the allotment. 2. Vide impugned order dated 4.2.2003 the District Forum found the appellant guilty for deficiency in service in not informing the respondent and not serving the demand-cum-allotment letter personally upon the respondent and directed it to restore the allotment at the price indicated in the letter dated 16.10.1993 on the same terms and conditions as contained therein ...

Triveni Engg. and Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31.5.2005, upholding the order-in-original by which demand of duty of Rs. 95,079/- on clearance of scrap valued at Rs. 5,94,241/- cleared as "old and discarded machinery" was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed on the appellant with the demand of interest on the duty amount.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of cane sugar and molasses. According to the Revenue, the appellant committed breach of Rules 4, 8 and 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by not paying duty on the value of goods cleared during the period from May 2002 to March 2003 being old and discarded capital goods cleared as such on which the appellant had availed cenvat credit. It was alleged that the appellant did not submit any information with the department about clearance of the said capital goods without payment of duty and the matter could be detected only after the visit of the audit party. The goods were n...

Singh Transporters Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ208CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of duty and penalties. The demand was confirmed by treating the applicant as Cargo Handling Agent. The contention of applicant is that the applicant is a mining contractor with SAIL and the contract is for breaking of oversize Dolomite, thereafter dolomite is to be crushed by the appellant and thereafter the same is to be supplied to Bhilai Steel plant. The contention is that the contractor entered with the SAIL as mining contract. The transportation of Dolomite is incidental. The applicant also submittedn that the scope of cargo handling service is limited to the cargo only. As per the dictionary meaning, cargo means goods taken on abroad, vessel, aircraft etc. As per new Webster Dictionary, Cargo means goods and Merchandise taken on abroad, vessel, aircraft etc. The contention is that the dictionary meaning of cargo is to carry luggage in ship, vessel or aircraft. The applicant also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of ...

ito Vs. Smt. Saraswati Ramanathan

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)300ITR410(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the department is directed against the order of the CIT(A) by which he directed the Assessing Officer to allow exemption under Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act to the assessee.2. The assessee is an individual. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2004-05 she sold 500 shares of ITC Ltd. for Ea.5,43,125 and credited the proceeds to her bank account with ICICI Bank, Gurgaon. She had inherited the shares from her husband who passed away on 1-4-1993. She invested Rs. 5,00,000 out of the sale proceeds in Rural Electrification Bonds- REC 54EC Series III on 24-3-2004. The investment was in the joint names of herself, being the first name, and her son A.R. Sridhar. She claimed exemption from capital gains tax under Section 54EC which was negatived by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the investment in the bonds was in the joint names which is not permitted under the above section under which it is the assessee who has to invest the gains in her ow...

Tajinder Kaur Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ440

S. Muualidhar, J.1. The petitioner here applied for an MIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (NPRS) and was given a registration No. 4970 and priority No. 9040. Pursuant to a draw of lots, the petitioner was allotted an MIG flat in Rohini and a demand-cum-allotment letter with block dates 3.1.1991 to 10.1.1991 was issued. The petitioner could not pay the amount and requested for cancellation. The cancellation charges of Rs. 900/- were paid by her on 25.3.1991. As per the policy of the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA'), notwithstanding the cancellation the registration under the NPRS would remain alive.2. The petitioner states that she kept visiting the DDA between 1999 and 2004 and was informed by them from time to time that as per her priority, her name would be included at the tail end in the draw of lots s that were to be held. Finally she submitted an application under the Right to Information Act ('RTI Act') on 31.5.2006.3. The stand of the DDA is that in case...