Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

All India Sc/St Telecom Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(2)SLJ155CAT

1. All India SC/ST Telecom Employees' Welfare Association of which the present aggrieved members are the officers of Department of Tele communications belonging to TES Group B have assailed seniority list dated 17.1.2007 of SC/ST Officers of TES Group B with a direction to implement the Eighty Fifth Constitution Amendment Act, 2001 with all consequential benefits.2. Factual matrix, which is relevant to be highlighted, transpires that some of the members of the association were promoted from 1993 to 1998 as TES Group B Officers (Sub Divisional Engineer) in the light of Constitution Bench decision of Apex Court in Indra Sahney v. Union of India and Ors. . Article 16 of the Constitution of India was amended through Seventy Seventh Amendment Act, 1995. However, in Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan , in the matter of accelerated promotion, it has been decided that the general category candidates will regain their seniority on catch-up rule over reserved category candidates on their tu...

Smt. Rakesh Devi Widow of Shri Late Vs. Union of India (Uoi), the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

i) direct the respondents to consider and to grant the appointment to applicant on compassionate ground at an early date; ii) direct the respondents to consider the case of applicant for relaxing the rules irrespective of age and education qualification for her appointment for compassionate ground, if necessary.2. The brief facts are that applicant, a widow of late Group 'D' (Safaiwala) employee in Akashwani & Doordarshan, who died in harness on 26.03.2005. She submitted application in April 2006 for appointment on compassionate ground and consequential benefits as per rules from time to time immediately after the death of deceased employee. When husband of applicant died he left behind his widow and seven children with no other source of livelihood except his income.3. Shri Yogesh Sharma, learned Counsel for applicant submitted that the case of applicant was forwarded to Respondent No. 2 for consideration for granting of appointment on compassionate grounds in February 2006 and a...

Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. K.K. Gupta, ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)5CompLJ512(Del)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This reference under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants of India Act, 1949 ('Act') is in respect of Respondent No. 1 who is a Chartered Accountant. A complaint was made by Rohit House Occupants Welfare Association against Respondent No. 1 on several counts. One of the grounds was that the respondent who was an auditor of the complainant for the financial years 1997-98 and 1998-99 had also written the books of account of the complainant for those very financial years thus compromising his independence as as a professional Chartered Accountant. The complaint listed out other specific instances of the Respondent having either failed to or having been grossly negligent in the discharge of his duties as a Chartered Accountant.2. It is stated by the Petitioner, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ('ICAI'), that despite a copy of the complaint having been sent to Respondent No. 1 on 10th January, 2001 and a reminder on 18th February, 2002 requesting him...

Diksha Trading Co. Vs. General Manager (North Zone), Bank of Baroda an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2007)BC466

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue notice. Mr. R.P. Aggarwal, Advocate accepts notice. With consent of Counsel for the parties the matter was heard for final disposal.2. The petitioner seeks a mandatory order to the respondent Bank for setting aside a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter referred to as 'the Securitisation Act') dated 20.1.2007.3. The petitioner, a propriety concern of Shri Sumeet Tandon claims to be engaged in trading in industrial Chemicals, solvents and dyes. It approached the respondent Bank in 2002 for credit facilities. The Bank initially granted a credit limit for Rs. 1.5 crores. The petitioner applied and was granted an additional ad hoc facility of Rs. 20 lacs in February, 2003 which it utilized and other credit facilities were also secured. It is contended that the conduct of the Bank led to a situation whereby credit was frozen in 2004. The petitioner could ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashoka Builders (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)413; [2009]311ITR386(Delhi)

ORDER1. In this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act') the Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 28th Feb., 2007 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi in ITA No. 4787/Del/2004 relevant for the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. The assessed was originally assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31st March, 1999 on a total income of Rs. 5,08,381. Thereafter, on 11th March, 2003 the assessment was sought to be reopened by issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The reasons for reopening the assessment have been indicated in the order of the Tribunal and they are as follows:The assessment in this case was completed on 31st March, 1999 at an income of Rs. 5,08,381. On examination of assessment order, it has been found that the assessed has set off loss from the transaction of shares to the tune of Rs. 15,73,020 from the business income. At no stage, the assessed has stated that dealing in shares is his main business. Hence, loss i...

Era Constructions (India) Limited Vs. Mr. D.K. Sharma, Prop. Keshav, S ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR205(Delhi); 2008(100)DRJ712

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') whereby the petitioner has sought the setting aside of the impugned award dated 08.01.2004 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator [Justice Mohd. Shamim (retired)]. The petitioner herein [Era Constructions (I) Ltd] was the respondent in the arbitration proceedings. The respondent [D.K. Sharma, Proprietor of Keshav Security Services (Regd.)] was the claimant before the arbitrator. 2. The impugned award has been assailed before this Court on three grounds. The first ground is that certain materials disclosed to the learned Arbitrator during conciliation have been used by the learned Arbitrator in the course of the award and thereforee the requirement of confidentiality under Section 75 read with Section 30 of the said Act has been breached. The second ground taken by the leraned Counsel for the petitioner is that the arbitration was invoked ...

Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ27

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. Two young boys, the appellants Amit Kumar and Ravinder Kumar, with another young boy named Suman are alleged to have murdered Noor Alam @ Shibu, aged 5 years in the night intervening 9th/10th November, 1999. The trial of accused Suman is being conduced by the Juvenile Court while the appellants Amit Kumar and Ravinder Kumar were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge and on the basis of circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, have suffered life sentence for the offences under Sections 302/364/34 IPC. Both the appellants are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years besides fine for the offence punishable under Section 201 Indian Penal Code.2. It is proposed to dispose of both the appeals by this common order in view of the fact that identical questions of fact and law arise in both the appeals.3. The appeals though preferred for setting aside the conviction, during the pendency of the appeals Mr. R.S. Mishra, counsel for t...

Harjeet Singh and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)DMC666

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Order dated 11.5.2005 records that the complainant has shifted to Orissa.Petitioners who are the husband and the in-laws of the complainant Jasmeet pray that afore-noted FIR be quashed because the complainant has settled her disputes with her husband and her in-laws and has consented that the FIR may be quashed.2. The settlement between the parties as stated in the petition is sought to be made good with reference to the pleadings of the complainant and first petitioner, her husband, in the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. In para 6 of the said petition filed under the joint signatures of the parties, it is recorded as under:6. That the petitioner No. 2 has received a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-(Rupees four lakh fifty thousand only) in lump sum for past, present and future maintenance and for remaining dowry articles, Istridhan, etc. Out of this amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- a sum of Rs. 3,...

Aee, Pcc Poles Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC144

1. In this case, it has been alleged that during the month of June to October, 1994, the appellant availed modvat credit on endorsed original and duplicate copy of the invoices issued by various depots in contravention of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Both the authorities below disallowed the modvat credit on the ground that the same was taken on the strength of endorsed invoices which are not valid documents for the purpose of taking credit.Zenith Weaves Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Surat 2004 (177) E.L.T. 251 (Tri.-Mumbai) held that invoices endorsed by the depot of the same manufacturer and not by in between receiver of the raw material, the modvat credit cannot be denied. The learned D.R. relied upon the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur . I find that Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur .held that credit having taken on invoices issued by the depot of the same manufa...

Cce Vs. Surya Ispat Udyog

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(126)ECC204

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the respondent.2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s. Monga Brothers Limited, Ludhiana (in short "the manufacturer) were engaged in the manufacture of Iron & Steel Ingots and availing Cenvat Credit on the inputs. Show cause notice dated 22.7.2003 was issued by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise of the manufacturer, alleging that the manufacturer availed irregular Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,03,160/- on the basis of the fake invoices issued by the respondent, sold through registered dealer M/s. V.K.Aggarwal & Sons. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit of Rs. 1,03,360/- which was deposited by the manufacturer at the time of detection and a penalty of 25% of the duty was imposed on them. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each on the respondent and M/s. V.K.A...