Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)250

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 13th Jan., 2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi in ITA No. 778/Del/2000 relevant for. the asst. yr. 1994-95.2. The issue raised in this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 is very narrow and is being decided, effectively, on a demurrer as it were. In CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) , this Court took the view that if the AO does not record his satisfaction that penalty proceedings should be initiated against the ansessee, the subsequent order of penalty passed by the AO is not valid in law.3. In the order under appeal, the Tribunal followed the dictum laid down in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (supra) and set aside the penalty order passed by the AO which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['CIT A)'].4. Challenging the correctness of the order of the Tribunal, learned Counsel for the Revenue has drawn our a...

Vijay Kumar and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ4615

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide above captioned 4 petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 a challenge is laid to the common order dated 30.1.2004 passed by the Additional Session Judge whereby revision petition filed by the public prosecutor against the order dated 3.11.2001 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate refusing to grant permission to the prosecution to withdraw cases against petitioners was/were dismissed. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petitions are that four complaints were filed against accused persons on similar facts, inter alias stating as under:A. That on 4.4.1994, Sanjeev Gupta, D.P. Singh and C.B. Bopora, inspectors of Prevention of Food Adulteration Department visited M/s. V.S. Dry Fruit at shop No. 494 A, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi for taking samples of food articles for analysis. B. A mob gathered and petitioners did not allow the officials to take samples and along with some other persons abused, assaulted, o...

S. Swaminathan Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1957

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The 3 captioned revision petitions lay a challenge to the order dated 2.5.2001 passed by Shri Rakesh Kapoor, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and the consequential order dated 21.7.2001 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate framing charges against the petitioners. 2. Vide order dated 2.5.2001, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi has partially allowed a revision filed by the State against the order dated 16.11.2000 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate where-under learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not frame charges against the petitioners under Section 420 and Section 120-B IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate had framed a charge against the petitioners only for the alleged offence under Section 68 of the Punjab Excise Act. 3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution was that M/s.G.M.Breweries Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) was a wholesale licensee for supply of whisky and rum. That the company was granted a license to sell 3 brand...

Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour Vs. Director of Education and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ37; 2008(2)SLJ382(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd November, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The aforesaid writ petition was filed praying for quashing of the order of transfer dated 16th July, 2005 and also for setting aside the order of suspension, memo of charge and the order initiating domestic inquiry. 2. In order to properly appreciate the contentions raised by the parties herein, it would be necessary to set out certain background facts leading to filing of the writ petition as also this appeal.3. The appellant herein was appointed as LDC in Mahasaya Chunni Lal Saraswati Bal Mandir by Samarth Shiksha Samiti, Mata Mandir Gali, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, under order dated 9th May, 1992. Since a number of contentions have been raised based on the said order of appointment, we deem it appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the said order, which read as under:Samarth Shik...

Court on Its Own Motion Vs. M.K. Tayal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ41

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. On 21.5.2007, a Senior Advocate of this Court, Sh. R.K. Anand, placed before us a copy of the Newspaper 'Mid Day' dated 18.5.2007 (Friday) in which he alleged that a scandalous article maligning the former Chief Justice of India and tending to lower the image of the judiciary in the eyes of common man has been published. The Newspaper was placed before us and we, on going through the news item, were prima facie of the view that the publication did tend to lower the image of the judiciary in the eyes of public. Consequently, we issued show cause notice to Sh. M.K. Tayal, Editor, Mid Day, Mr. Vitusha Oberoi and Mr. S.K. Akhtar, its Printer and Publisher. 2. On 25.5.2007, Sh. R.K. Anand, learned Senior Advocate filed yet another copy of the Newspaper 'Mid Day' dated 19.5.2007 which carried a cartoon by Mr. Md. Irfaan Khan, Cartoonist. The cartoon depicted the former Chief Justice of India in his robes holding a bag with currency flowing out. It also depicted a man sitting...

In Re: Siel Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]144CompCas469(Delhi); [2009]89SCL434(Delhi)

Rekha Sharma, J.1. This order shall dispose of this petition under Sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking reduction of share capital of the petitioner-company, Siel Ltd. up to an amount of Rs. 24,63,86,251 by cancelling equity share capital of Rs. 49,31,21,830, which amount shall be credited to the general reserve account of the company. The said reduction has been approved by a special resolution passed in accordance with Section 189 of the Companies Act, 1956 in the extraordinary general meeting held on June 11, 2007.2. The petitioner-company was incorporated on March 27, 1961, under the Companies Act, 1956, under the name and style of India Refrigeration Industries Ltd. Thereafter, the name of the company was changed to Usha Refrigeration Industries Ltd. on April 21, 1962. The name was thereafter, again changed to Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. on June 7, 1966. The name of the company was yet again changed to Shriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. on May 2...

Smt. Neelu Bhatia W/O Sh. Satish Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, who was serving as PRT in Kendriya Vidhyalaya No.1 (K.V.No.I), Delhi Cant., submits that she applied for medical leave from 22.08.2006 to 26.09.2006 which was duly sanctioned. When she reported back on 27.09.2006, she was not allowed to join and came to understand that she was surplus and had been transferred but no orders in this regard were given to her.2. The applicant contends that she was illegally declared surplus as per remarks on her joining report. Her daughter is suffering from depression and it would be difficult to take care of her after shifting to another place on transfer. But since Assistant Commissioner, KVS who is Respondent No.2 did not listen to her and allegedly threatened her, she made repeated requests but no decision was taken because of which she waited for the School to reopen after the autumn break.3. In a representation dated 30.10.2006 it had been pointed out by her that after availing leave on medical grounds when she came to join duty she w...

Shri A.S. Arora S/O Shri P.S. Arora Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA, the applicant is aggrieved by the transfer order dated 22.05.2007 transferring him from New Delhi to Kolkata vide Annexure A1 with immediate effect in public interest and seeks retention at New Delhi till the last person with longer stay than him is transferred and relieved by the respondents. The applicant's prayer has been opposed in the counter reply by the respondents, to which a rejoinder has been filed. When this matter was first taken up, the Tribunal ordered status-quo as on 23.05.2007 in respect of the applicant.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both sides and perused the pleadings. The applicant, who is working as Superintending Engineer (Electrical) in the CPWD, has been posted at New Delhi since 13.03.2002 and held various postings in different Units. He is in the present Unit since 18.08.2005. The learned Counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to Annexure A2 dated 15.02.2007 by which a list was forwarded to various authorities of Superintending...

Dr. Rakshpal Singh, Deputy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(a) to quash & set aside the impugned order referred in Para-1 of OA and to direct the respondents to pay interest @ 18% p.a. for the period of 6 months on delayed payment of Commutation of pension to the Applicant with all consequential benefits and also to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the interest of commutation of pension wef Jan.2002 till the payment of such amount. (b) To award cost in favour of the Applicant and against the respondents. (c) To pass any further order, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The applicant was initially appointed as Chemical Assistant in 1965 and over the years, he became Deputy Superintending Archeological Chemist, the post from which he superannuated on 30.06.2001. It is submitted that the applicant was paid his retiral dues on 01.01.2002 after a delay of six months. The applicant states that the settled law is that if there is a delay in disbursing retiral benefits, the respondents...

Kailash Nath and Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ9

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff, a registered partnership firm having its office at 1006 Kanchenjunga, 18 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, acting by and through its registered partner, has instituted the present suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell of a plot of land bearing no. 2A, measuring 897.84 sq. meters, Bikaji Cama Place, District Centre, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the said plot) against defendants no. 1 and 2 being Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi and Union of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi- 110011 respectively. In the alternative, the plaintiff claims for a sum of Rs. 3.12 crores as damages and/or for the recovery of Rs. 78 lakhs along with interest from the date of the deposit of the said amount till payment thereof.2. The plaintiff being the highest bidder in the auction held on 19-01-1982 of the said plot by defendant no. 1 deposited a sum of ...