Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

Veena Kapoor and anr. Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)DMC596; 2007(98)DRJ392

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide afore-noted bail applications, husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant pray that they be granted anticipatory bail, vide Crl. M.C. 5496-98/05, all the three pray that the FIR be quashed inter alias on the ground that no part of cause of action has accrued at Delhi.2. Per contra, learned Counsel for the complainant and the State submit that meaningfully read, caused of action has accrued at Delhi.3. Suffice would it be to note that under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 an offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction offence was committed. In the decision reported as III (2004) CCR 130 (SC) : 2004 (2) CCC 289 (SC), Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai, it was held that where no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of a concerned Court, proceedings before the Magistrate had to be quashed.4. Subject matter of the complaint which was qu...

Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Ltd. Vs. D.D.a and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi70

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Escorts Heart and Research Centre, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was allotted 6.9 acres of land by the Delhi Development Authority, the respondent No. 1. On 31st October, 2003, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the respondent No. 1 as to why the allotment should not be cancelled for violation of the condition for providing at least 25% of the total beds for free treatment to the patients belonging to the weaker Sections of the society. The respondent No. 1 also issued another show cause notice dated 21st April, 2004 for cancellation of allotment/lease deed in view of the merger of the aforesaid society into another society, which as per the respondent No. 1 was in violation of the terms and conditions of the lease/allotment, as it constituted transfer. 2. By an order dated 10th June, 2005, the respondent No. 1 determined the allotment/leasehold rights granted to the appellant-society. Accordingly direction was give...

Pardeep Gupta Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ198

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.Crl. M.A. No. 9857/2007 (Exemption)Allowed subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed of.Crl. M.A. No. 9856/2007 & Bail Appln. 1298/20071. This application is made on behalf of the petitioner for preponment of the date of hearing of the bail application. The earlier application for early hearing has already been disposed of vide order dated 6th August, 2007, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned trial court for plea bargaining and giving directions to the trial court to entertain the application for plea bargaining.2. The petitioner had approached the trial court for bail since he is in custody from 14th February, 2006 and is involved in a case under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC. A perusal of the order dated 25th August, 2006 passed by trial court, rejecting the plea bargaining, shows that the learned trial court had not bothered to look into provisions of Chapter XXIA of Cr.P.C meant for the purpose of plea bargaining and r...

C.L. Manchanda Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1660; 2007(98)DRJ409

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 petitioner is seeking recall of the orders dated 20.12.2002 and 17.1.2003 passed by the learned ACMM, Delhi.2. Facts in the brief are that complainant Ashok Malik (respondent No. 2 herein) filed a complaint against the petitioner, his father and his wife under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. (It is to be noted that father of the petitioner has died).3. Basis of the complaint were the allegations that the accused persons committed the offence of cheating, fraud, forgery and impersonation with an intent to grab the house property of the father of the complainant, Nand Lal Chugh.4. It was inter alias averred in the complaint that:A. Nand Lal Chugh was the owner of the property bearing No. H-229, Jeewan Niketan, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.B. With an intent to grab above mentioned property, petitioner C.L.Manchanda fabricated a document called 'business agreement' purported to have...

R.C. Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Del)315; [2008]298ITR161(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. Relevant to the Assessment Year 1979-80 following question has been referred for our opinion:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the disputed liability of Rs.50,761 was not allowable as deduction in the Assessment Year 1979-802. On a scrutiny of the assessed's Trading Account the Assessing Officer ('AO') noticed that during the Assessment Year 1979-80 a sum of Rs.50,761 stood debited to the raw material account. The Explanationn of the assessed was that this amount was payable to M/s. Hindustan Steel Limited for certain purchases which had been made on 22.10.1975 but in respect of which the assessed had disputed its liability. According tot he assessed the liability stood accrued in the financial year ending 31.3.1979 since a suit for recovery had been filed by Hindustan Steel Limited against it on 18.8.1978. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that th...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kwality Ice Cream

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]304ITR384(Delhi)

ORDER1. In this reference, relevant to the Assessment Year 1976-77, the following question of law has been referred for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961('Act'):Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the liability to pay the sales tax of Rs.4,24,029/- made up of Rs.3,22,482/- being refund of sales tax received by the assessed during the relevant year and Rs.1,01,507/- being provision for sales tax made in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, was chargeable to tax to the total income of the assessed?2. In so far as the first part of the question is concerned, whether the liability to pay sales tax of Rs.3,22,482/- being refund of sales tax received by the assessed during the relevant year was chargeable to tax, learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that in view of the decision in Polyplex (India) Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax : [2002]257ITR343(SC) this part of the question is required to be answer...

Raj Chopra and ors. Vs. State of Nct Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ196

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.Crl. MA. No. 9843/2007 (Exemption)Allowed subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed of. Bail Appln. No. 1859/20071. This application is made on behalf of the petitioners viz Mr. Raj Chopra, Mr. Charanjit Singh Sachdev, Mr. Raman Sehgal and S.R. Dutta under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail and in the alternative transit bail for a period of 30 days.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab : 18 (1980) DLT 405; Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab 19 (1981) DLT; and Captain Satish Kumar Sharma v. Delhi Administration and Ors. 1991 Cri. L.J 950 to press his contentions and submitted that this Court had got jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail even when the offence is committed outside Delhi and in those cases where a person apprehends arrest in case of crimes outside Delhi.3. It is pertinent to note that in case of U.P., the State Legislature has amended the provisions of Cr.P....

Schiller Health Care India Private Limited Vs. Aneesh Sharma (Dr.)

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The aforesaid two appeals arise from the impugned order dated 19.10.2002. On account of having sold a quality defective Spirovit SP-1 machine meant for lung tests, the appellant M/s. Schiller Health Care has been vide impugned order dated 19.10.2002 directed to refund the cost of the machine amounting to Rs. 1,02,000 along with interest @ 9% w.e.f. 10.8.1999 till the date of payment and Rs. 1,000 towards litigation cost. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Brief allegations leading to the impugned order were that the appellant published an advertisement in the issue of the D.M.A. News Bulletin to advertise their Spirovit SP-1 costing Rs. 1,12,000 for a down payment of Rs. 25,000 only and the balance being payable in 12 easy instalments of Rs. 7,250 p.m. On the respondent becoming interested in the unit, appellant deputed Mr. R.K. Handa who agreed to sell the unit for Rs. one lac only by way of full down payment out of which th...

Shri B.S. Goraya Vs. Director General, Employees

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA, applicant impugns order dated 22.1.99 transferring him from New Delhi to Kolkata. The applicant joined service as Manager/Insurance Inspector in ESI Corporation on 8.5.1980. After promotion as Assistant Director he was posted to office of Director (Medical), Delhi. On 22.1.1999 he was transferred to Regional Office, at Kolkata but expressed inability to joint new place of posting and requested to defer his transfer till end of academic session so that he could take his family with him. Finally, applicant was relieved on 1.3.1999. Immediately, thereafter he proceeded on leave. On 12.7.1999, department asked him in writing to report back for duty. On its receipt, he wrote to Regional Director, Kolkata requesting that transfer allowance be sanction. This was rejected on 15.12.1999. He again requested for release of TA on 4.1.2000 as well as on 2.3.2000 which was ultimately sanctioned. For the first time, on 14.3.2000 applicant informed that it was virtually impossible for ...

Shri S.K. Chopra and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicants, who are Administrative Officers (AOs) (Group B) in CGHS have impugned order of transfer dated 4.4.2007 wherein they have been transferred out of Delhi. Applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 have been transferred from CGHS Delhi to CGHS Chennai, Hyderabad and Pune whereas other three AOs have been transferred to different zonal centres of CGHS in Delhi. The first three applicants were given interim stay of transfer on 16.4.2007. It is noted that an amended memo of parties was filed on 26.4.2007 before filing of counter on 17.5.2007. Hence this order would, inter alia, cover,cases of all six AO's who were transferred vide order dated 4.4.2007.2. Applicant Nos.1 and 3 joined the CGHS as LDCs in Delhi in 1971/1979.Applicant No. 2 joined in Baroda in National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and was absorbed in Ahmedabad in 1979 and then in 1994 he was sent to Delhi, on promotion as AOs. Thereafter, applicants have been posted in different zones and worked in Delhi for about 10-15 yea...