Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

Indian Council of Agricultural Research and anr. Vs. Bidesh Singh and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)SLJ559(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the Judgment dated 5th May, 2004 passed in OA No. 4/2002 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT'), Principal Bench, New Delhi by which the CAT held that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director General of Posts and Ors. v. B. Ravindran and Ors. : (1997)1SCC641 , was a binding precedent. It also held that the applicants are similarly circumstanced with the applicants in OA Nos. 33 and 34 of 1994. The objection with respect to the territorial jurisdiction was overruled as part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench, CAT. The petitioners were directed to extend to the applicants, the benefits accorded in OA No. 33/1994 and OA No. 34 /1994 and to refix their pay by grant of one increment for each year of service rendered by them in defense with all consequential benefits.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:a) Fifty two employees who ...

Mukta Gupta and anr. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)DMC675

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Complainant, Diwakar informed the police that on 24.6.2007 at about 1:00 p.m. his daughter Mukta eloped with one Mahender. He stated that his daughter had taken away Rs. 2 lacs, around 30 tolas of gold and 1 kg silver which he had purchased for her marriage. He stated in the complaint that he had seen his daughter leave the house with a bag and had seen Mahender standing in the street with empty hands. That he soon saw Mahender walk away with the bag in his hand.2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Diwakar, afore-noted FIR was registered.3. Petitioners are Mukta and Mahender. They seek anticipatory bail.4. It is urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the version of the complainant in the FIR is ex facie false. If complainant saw his daughter leave the house with a bag and he saw Mahender standing on the street empty handed and soon thereafter saw Mahender leaving with a bag, there was no reason for the complainant not to have lodged a complaint ...

S. Rajdev Singh and ors. Vs. Punchip Associates Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi56

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for ejectment seeking recovery of possession from the defendants in respect of premises comprising of approximately 7063 sq.ft., with covered area of 5392 sq.ft. and an open area of 1671 sq.ft. (stated to be subsequently covered by defendant No. 1) on the first floor of premises bearing No. G-72, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).2. The plaintiffs are the owners and landlords of the suit property and in terms of a lease deed dated 18.9.1986 duly registered on 20.9.1986, let out the same to defendant No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 189.50. It is stated that on the expiry of the lease deed the tenancy of defendant No. 1 became monthly commencing from the first date of each month and ending with the last date of the same month. Defendant No. 1 is alleged to have sub-let, assigned or parted with possession of an area of 1280 sq.ft. to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (defendant No. 2) without o...

Syndicate Bank Vs. Shiv Prasad

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(98)SLJ500(Delhi)

G.S. Sistani, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition a against the award dated 22.9.2004 whereby the learned Tribunal has interfered in the quantum of punishment which was imposed on the respondent. Notice to show cause was issued in this petition. Despite notice, the respondent has not entered appearance in the matter.2. The necessary facts of the case are that the respondent was working be as a cleric and was performing duties at National Physical Laboratory (hereinafter NPL) extension counter attached to Pusa Road Branch of the petitioner-Bank. The respondent was asked to perform cashier's duty for a brief period on rotation of duties at the branch w.e.f. 12.11.1988. It is submitted that the respondent after having been entrusted with cashier's duty at the NPL extension counter caused inconvenience to the functioning of the branch, administration as well as the customers at the branch. The petitioner was thus asked to cease the performance of his duties as cashier w.e.f....

Aanex Services Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STT281

1. Applicant is challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh dated 3.7.2007.2. In this case, the appellant has availed service tax credit of Rs. 13,51,976/- on the basis of photo copy of receipt issued by the Indian Airlines Limited in favour of them. The said receipt did not contain address of the person receiving the said service, description, classification and value of taxable service, registration number of service provider. Adjudication Authority disallowed credit based on the observation that the appellant's claim of Cenvat Credit was not as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. A show cause notice was issued to them indicating that the appellant took credit on the basis of the photo copy of the documents which were not in their name and not a prescribed document. Adjudicating Authority found that the document produced by the appellant was not specified eligible document under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for availment of Cenvat credit.It ...

P.K. Verma, Idse, Director (Plg), Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA, applicant has challenged Memorandum dated 20th October, 2006 whereby he has been removed from service on the basis of conviction given by Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala vide its judgment dated 28.02.2006.2. It is stated by the counsel for applicant that the above said order is bad in law because no reason whatsoever was given nor his representation has been considered, which shows non-application of mind. He was never convicted before nor any other punishment was given to him throughout his service and removing him from service, just two months before this retirement is very harsh. Moreover, the only allegation made against him was, that he had demanded a small amount of Rs. 5,000/-, which too is wrong and his appeal is already pending against the conviction in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The sentence has also been stayed. Therefore, there is no justification to remove him from service. His grievance is also that he has not been give...

Amit Kumar S/O Shri Samar Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through I ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA applicant impugns termination order dated 13.11.2006 passed under Sub-rule (1) of Rules 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and prays for the following reliefs: (a) To call for the records and quash impugned order dated 29.8.2006; and (b) direct respondents to reinstate the applicant service with all consequential benefits including seniority and arrears of pay particularly when the applicant is not able to get job despite of his best efforts.2. Facts in brief are that applicant was selected as Constable in Delhi Police for the selection made for the year 2005 and was sent for training to Police Training College at Jharoda Kalan in New Delhi. His services were terminated by impugned order which reads as under: In pursuance of the provisions to Sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, I, K.D. Singh, Principal, Police Training College, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi hereby terminate forthwith the services ...

Asi Surinder Singh S/O Shri Dev Vs. Nct of Delhi Through the Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 28.2.2007 only to the extend by which the respondents enhance the washing allowances w.e.f. 23.2.2007, declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents not increasing the washing allowance of the applicants at the rate of Rs. 30/- PM w.e.f. 1.8.1997 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in the eyes of law and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to grant the Washing allowance to the applicants at the rate of Rs. 30/- PM w.e.f. 1.8.1997 with all the consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of washing allowance.2. It is submitted by 5 applicants who are ASI and Head Constable respectively in Delhi Police that Delhi Police comes under Ministry of Home Affairs, therefore, they are governed by all the Circulars & instructions issued by MHA.3. The 5th Pay Commission recommended that washing allowance should be revised for thos...

Smt. Sona Devi W/O Late Sudesh Vs. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through It'S

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15/11/2006 and Direct the respondents to re-consider the cases of applicant No. 2 for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds for any Class-IV posts in the next available vacancy. To direct the respondents to produce the entire relevant records including merit list and waiting list of candidates for compassionate appointment. Alternatively if no vacancy is available with the respondents, they may be directed to take up the matter with other Ministries/Departments/Offices of Government of India to provide appointment on compassionate grounds.2. This OA has been filed by the wife and son of the deceased employee, who is stated to have died in harness on 19.04.2001. The grievance of applicant No. 2 in this case is that his request for compassionate appointment has been rejected due to shortage of vacancies vide order dated 15.11.2006, therefore, direction may be given to the Respondents to re-consider his case as per Government of In...

Commisioner of Income Tax Vs. Hari Machines Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]311ITR285(Delhi)

ORDER1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), relevant for the assessment year 1974-75, the 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 correct in law in holding that the penalty provisions of Section 271(1)(c) with its amendment are not applicable in this case by ignoring the material fact that the addition responsible for levy of penalty was confirmed by the ITAT itself and held to be a device to claim a non existent loss?2. The assessed had a paid up capital of Rs. 25 lakhs. According to the assessed, the intrinsic value of the equity shares was Rs. 19,53,680/- and thereforee, taking a realistic view of the matter, the assessed decided to reduce the share capital to Rs. 20 lakhs. In accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 the assessed applied to the Calcutta High Court for permission to reduce the share capital. By its orde...