Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Bachi Ram, Senior Auditor Vs. Director General of Audit,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Bachi Ram, a Senior Auditor, the applicant herein, has been dismissed from service pursuant to a regular departmental enquiry vide order dated 17.8.2005 passed by the disciplinary authority. The appeal preferred by him against the order aforesaid found no favour with the appellate authority as the same was dismissed vide order dated 31.1.2006. These are the orders which have been challenged in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The only ground pressed into service during the course of arguments is that the penalty of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct said to have been proved against the applicant. With a view to examine the only contention of the learned Counsel representing the applicant, as noted above, it would be appropriate to find out the four articles of charge that came to be framed against the applicant. The same read as follows: Article-I - Shri Bachi Ram, Sr. Auditor had...

Prem Shankar Gupta and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT517

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By a common order I propose to dispose of CM(M) Nos. 1388/07, 1395/07 and 1622/07 which have almost identical facts and raise similar questions of law.2. The petitions have been filed against the common order dated 12.09.07 passed by Sh. S.S. Handa, ADJ, Delhi in Appeal No. MCA 7/07 titled 'Prem Shankar Gupta and Ors. v. DDA and Anr.', MCA No. 8/07 titled 'Virender Pal Singh and Ors. v. DDA' and order dated 2.3.2007 passed by the Court of Sh. Brijesh Kumar Garg, Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit Nos. 1404/05 and 1454/06. It appears that one set of plaintiffs have chosen to file two different CM (Mains) for the reason in respect of two proceedings which commenced, three petitions have reached this court.3. The learned Trial Judge has dismissed the applications filed for interim injunction. The appellate judge has affirmed the said order passed by the learned trial judge.4. Before proceeding to deal with the legal submissions made in the petitions it would be ...

Bhaskarlal Sharma and anr. Vs. Monica

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)DMC546

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. The Petitioners, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the Respondent Complainant Ms. Monica, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) seeking the quashing of a summoning order dated 21st March, 2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) in Criminal Complaint No. 287/1A (tiled Monica v. Vikas Sharmaand Ors.).2. The arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Vikas Pahwa and those of Mrs. Vinay Malhotra, mother of the complainant as well as the complainant have been heard.3. The marriage between the Respondent and Mr. Vikas Sharma, the son of the Petitioners here, took place on 16th January 2004 in Delhi. Soon thereafter the parties have for Johannesburg enroute to Congo. They lived together in Congo till 5th April 2004 The complainant returned to Delhi on 5th April 2004 and remained at the residence of the Petitioners till 10th May 2004 when she returned to Congo. The co...

Shri Devinder Khanna Vs. Mehta Cad Cam Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2008)BC571; 148(2008)DLT152

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application filed on behalf of the defendant for stay of the present suit on the ground that the issues involved in the present suit are substantially in issue before the previously instituted suit by the defendant in Ahmedabad. The suit in Ahmedabad is numbered as 2377/2004. It was instituted on 27.08.2004, whereas the present suit was instituted on 05.10.2004. The parties are also the same. The admitted position, thereforee, is that the suit filed in Ahmedabad is prior in time to the present suit and the parties in both the suits are the same. The question, thereforee, is as to whether the issues involved in the present suit are substantially the same or not. 2. The brief facts are that the defendant has alleged that it supplied a printing machine to the plaintiff at an agreed price of Rs 16,64,000/- . It is further alleged by the defendant that as against the said price, only a sum of Rs 9 lacs was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in two Ins...

Narender Kumar JaIn and anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Kapoor and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT565

ORDERIn view of the above petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Parties to bear their own costs. File be consigned to RR.(N.K. Sharma)ARC/DelhiAnnounced4-11-996. Learned Counsel for the respondent/landlord submits that firstly the aforesaid objections ought to have been taken by filing an application for seeking leave to defend, and that not having been done it is not open to the petitioners to raise any such plea at this stage. Secondly, he submits that a perusal of the order dated 04.11.1999 and the statement made by the landlord cannot be taken to mean that no liberty was granted to him to file a fresh petition. Thirdly, he submits that, in any case, there is no bar to filing of a subsequent petition, even after the dismissal of an earlier petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. To support the maintainability of the second petition under Section 14(1)(e) he relies on : AIR1988SC1345 Surajmal v. Radhey Shyam. He has also relied on : AIR1980Delhi216a to submit that it is imperative ...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Sunil Kumar Poddar and Another.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Vide impugned order dated 20.9.2007 passed by the District Forum, the appellant has been directed to release payment of Rs. 3,85,427 with interest @ 8% towards provident fund of the respondent and also to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation. 2. Through this appeal the impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the respondent being the employee of the appellant was not the consumer qua the appellant inasmuch as that the provident fund was being maintained by the appellant and was not governed by the P.F. Act and secondly that Rule 15(1) of Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited Employees Provident Fund (Rules and Regulations) empowers it to forfeit the entire amount of the loss suffered by it due to misconduct of the employee, resulting in his dismissal. 3. Relevant facts leading to the impugned order in brief are that the respondent was the employee of Hindustan Commercial Bank which was amalgamated with Punjab ...

Desert Inn Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 7,18,255/- and penalties. The contention of the applicant is that they are providing service of Mandap Keeper and are paying service in that regard. The contention is that adjoining the Mandap there was a parking place they are charging separately for the use of the parking place. The contention is that the Revenue wants to add the amount received in respect of the parking charges for calculating the total assessable value for the purpose of paying Service Tax in respect of Mandap Keeper. The contention is that the parking separately charged in the invoice and this fact has been reflected in their balance sheet. The demand is for the period from 2001 to 2006 and show-cause notice was issued on 26.9.06 hence as the amount is separately reflected in invoice and in their balance sheet, therefore, major portion of the demand is time-barred.3. We find that applicant providing service as Mandap Keeper an...

Mccann Erickson (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cst

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ16CESTATNew(Delhi)

This appeal has been filed against order-in-original No. 5/RK/2006 dt.15.2.2006 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi.2. The appellants render taxable service under the category of "advertising agency service". They entered into contract with their clients for providing advertisement agency service. The appellants render advertising services to various clients in the form of creative agency wherein they create advertisement by themselves or their third party media agency wherein they do media printing and/or buying for advertisement to be published in print/electronic media. They were receiving 15% agency commission from authorized broadcasting and print media during the period April 2000 to March 2001. The appellants had passed on the above mentioned commission to their clients. The case of the department is that the appellants should have included the whole amount of commission received by them in the gross taxable value.Proceedings were initiated against the appellants for r...

Rajesh Kumar, Sub-inspector S/O Vs. Commissioner of Police, Special

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Annexures A-1 and A-2 orders are challenged in these proceedings.The applicant is a Sub-Inspector of Police in the Delhi Police. By Annexure A-1, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic had informed him that with the approval of the Joint Commissioner of Police, his name had been transferred from 'Agreed to Secret List of doubtful integrity' w.e.f. 13.02.2006. It was reviewable on 13.02.2009.2. It had been advised that he could represent for review against the withholding of integrity certificate, which was a consequence of the order. An application submitted, however, stands rejected, on 15.01.2007 by Annexure A-2, whereby the Deputy Commissioner of Police had advised him that with the approval of the Special Commissioner of Police, his case had been reviewed and name was to continue in the Secret List of persons of Doubtful Integrity.3. Annexure A-1 gave the reason for this step to be taken against the applicant as following: On 8/9.9.2005, PRG team conducted surveillance for ...

ito Vs. Shri R.K. Gupta

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These two cross appeals and the cross objection by the assessee relate to the assessment year 1995-96. The assessee in these cases is an individual - resident. The appeals and the cross objection arise out of the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (date note mentioned in the order).2. We may take up the cross objection filed by the assessee first since it goes to the root of the matter. The first ground therein is as under: The assessment made, without issue and service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is without jurisdiction and therefore the same is null and void ab initio and deserves to be annulled.3. The brief facts in relation to the aforesaid ground may be recorded.An assessment was originally made on the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act by order passed on 26.3.1998. In this order, the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 2,64,815/-. On 22.3.2000, a notice was served on ...