Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bindal Apparels

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Del)89

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 21st March, 2006 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F' in ITA No. 507/Del/2003 relevant for the asst. yr. 1999-2000.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law was framed on 17th Oct., 2006:(i) Whether Tribunal was justified in law in holding that in view of absence of the IT authority i.e. 'Addl. CIT in the definition contained in Section 2(7A) of the Act, an Addl. CIT cannot be an authority to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions of an AO to make an assessment of income and thereby quashing the assessment made by the Addl. CIT?3. It is brought to our notice that Section 2(7A) of the IT Act, 1961 has been amended with retrospective effect from 1st June, 1994 by Finance Act, 2007.4. In view of this amendment, learned Counsel for the parties submit that the question is required to be answered in the negative in favor of the Revenue and against the assessed. The result...

icra Limited Vs. Associated Journals Limited and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ638

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff herein, which is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, entered into a Lease Agreement dated 24-04-1996 (Ex D-1) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Lease Agreement') with the defendants in respect of an office space at 4th floor, Herald House, 5-A, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Demised Premises') for a period of eight years w.e.f 01.05.1996 subject to earlier determination and to an escalation on the last rent payable at 15% of the rent and service charges paid during the immediately preceding month. According to the provisions of the said Lease Agreement, the plaintiff was required to pay a sum of Rs. 66,75,000/- as security deposit which was equivalent to twelve months rent. This security was an interest free security which was refundable within seven days from the termination/determination of the lease failing which the defendants were liable to pay interest @ 20% from the...

Ravi Inder Singh Vs. Aaifr

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]144CompCas410(Delhi)

S.L. Bhayana, J.1. The petitioner, through present writ petition, has assailed the orders dated 21.11.2003 and 18.12.2003, passed by BIFR with respect to Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'ISWPL') and order dated 8.12. 2006, passed by AAIFR. AAIFR dismissed the appeals Nos. 358/2003 and 91/2004, filed by the ISWPL and appeal No. 40/2004 filed by Bank of Rajasthan against the orders of BIFR, wherein BIFR had approved and sanctioned the scheme of TISCO to revive the sick company ISWPL and also, inter alia, directed the erstwhile directors of the company to vacate their respective offices.2. The facts culminating in the filing of present writ petition may be briefly noted : Petitioner was the erstwhile Managing Director of Indian Steel and Wire Products Limited (ISWPL) before ISWPL's management was transferred to TISCO by virtue of BIFR's order for rehabilitation of the said Company under SICA. ISWPL was established in year 1927 at Jamshedpur by the petitione...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. BipIn Behari Das

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ624

S.L. Bhayana, J.1. Union of India, petitioner-herein, has assailed the order and judgment, dated 04.05.2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal, while allowing the O.A. of the respondent directed the petitioner to accord payment of pension and other retiral benefits to the respondent herein along with interest calculated @ 12% p.a., w.e.f. 21.02.1976 till it is actually paid, with arrears thereof, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.2. The facts culminating into filing of the present writ petition are : Respondent in the year 1976, while on the post of UDC, resigned from his service on 9th February, 1976 from his work in the Defunct Dandakaranya Project. The said resignation was duly accepted by the petitioner vide order dated 18th February, 1976. After acceptance of the resignation, the respondent represented to withdraw the aforesaid resignation. The petition...

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Unitech Limited and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR187(Delhi); 2007(98)DRJ385

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The first prayer in the application is that this Court ought to determine the arbitrability of the dispute and declare that the dispute with regard to denial of liability pursuant to repudiation of the insurance policy is outside the purview of the arbitration clause contained in the Contract of Insurance. The second prayer is that an arbitrator be appointed on behalf of the petitioner for determination of the quantum of loss, if any, suffered by the respondent. The normal residual prayer has also been made. The question that arises at the outset is whether the present application is at all maintainable and whether it can be construed as an application under Section 11 of the said Act 2. The parties had entered into a contract, the details of which are not necessary for the present. Clause 7 contained the arbitration clause wh...

Arif Ali Vs. Delhi Jal Board

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR982]

Hima Kohli, J.1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has sought issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent Delhi Jal Board (DJB), thereby directing it to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was working with the respondent DJB as a Beldar and his retirement was due on 31st March, 2007. He, however, expired on 30th October, 2001, during the course of his employment, leaving behind his wife, five sons including the petitioner, and two daughters. Thereafter the mother of the petitioner made a request to the respondent DJB to consider the petitioner for being offered employment on compassionate grounds. Vide order dated 23rd September, 2002, the respondent DJB called the petitioner for an interview on 9th October, 2002, for which the petitioner duly appeared. On 25th September, 2003, the respondent DJB, rejected the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ...

Anil Kumar Vs. State (Nct) of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ65

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 741 of 2006, 411 of 2000 and 416 of 2000 seek to challenge judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 121 of 1999, arising out of F.I.R. No. 413 of 1997, Police Station Krishna Nagar, whereby learned judge vide his judgment dated 14.12.1999 has held the appellants, namely, Anil Kumar, Nand Kishore and Tarun Kumar, guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. Further vide his order dated 23.12.1999, he has awarded the sentence of life imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months each.2. Brief facts of the case as have been rioted by learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment under challenge are as follows:Complainant Jagdish Prasad Jain stayed in House No. 46/1, East Azad Nagar, Guru Ram Dass Gali along with his wife Smt. Raj Kumari, son Sanjay, Sanjay's wife and daughter. Sanjay used to assemble deck plate...

Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Admittedly the appellant got his TV shop insured with the respondent by obtaining Shopkeepers Insurance Policy which was valid for period of one year from 11th January, 2001 to 10th January, 2002. On 10th January, 2001, a temporary servant committed theft of 3 colour TVs, six black and white TVs, etc. Consequently he lodged claim with the respondent company. The claim was repudiated in terms of Clause 11 of the policy providing that the company shall not be liable in respect of any loss or damage by burglary or house breaking where any partner or employee of the insured or member of the insureds family is concerned as principal or accessory. Feeling aggrieved, appellant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum seeking indemnification of the loss. 2. Vide impugned order dated 18th May, 2002 passed by the District Forum, the complaint was dismissed by upholding the ground of repudiation of the claim by the respondent. 3. Through this appeal,...

Kataria Transport Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)13STT299

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 44,26,850/- and penalties.The demand is confirmed after taking into consideration the activity of appellants in providing the business auxiliary service and cargo handling service. The contention of applicant is that the applicant is a transporter and receiving the goods booked for destination by other transporters and other transport agency is paying the service tax on the entire freight amount. The contention is that applicants are collecting the freight amount at the destination and retaining the amount relates to service provided by him and returning the remaining amount to the original transporter. As the other transport agency has paid the service tax on the entire freight amount, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants are providing business auxiliary service of cargo handling service.2. We find that the adjudicating authority in para 5.4 of the adjudication order admitted the fact ...

Sh. K.S. Murali S/O Late Shri Vs. Government of India Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA, the applicants have sought quashing and setting aside of orders through which recovery of Ration Money arrears paid to them has been ordered by the respondents, with consequential benefits.2. The bare facts of the case are that by Order dated 30.01.2001, the respondents issued sanction for extension of Ration Money Allowance to the non-executive personnel, including ministerial personnels of Special Service Bureau [since re-named as Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB for short)], Aviation Research Centre (Directorate General of Security), posted at 'B' & 'C' stations. The said Order further stated that Ration Money Allowance will be admissible only prospectively, based on review undertaken for the purpose. This order was circulated through Memo dated 08.02.2001 (Annexure-2 Colly.). The applicants were paid Ration Money for different periods predating the issue of Order dated 30.01.2001. Sometime in the year of 2005 or thereabouts, the respondents took a decision that the paym...