Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Shri R.L. Narang S/O Late Sh. Jai Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. R.L. Narang, Grade-II Inspector in the Department of Food & Supply, Delhi, applicant herein, takes strong exception to the chargesheet served upon him on 22.02.2006 just six days before the date of his superannuation pertaining to the incident of 1995, a decade before he was served the chargesheet. The applicant has also a serious complaint with regard to his non-promotion to the post of Grade-I, DASS ever since 1995 when the DPC met in that year and kept his name in the sealed cover. The prayer of the applicant is, thus, to quash chargesheet dated 22.02.2006 and direct the respondents to open the recommendations of the DPC, implement the same and then promote him to Grade-I, DASS with consequential reliefs. The applicant also prays that the gratuity and leave encashment, which have been withheld, be also got released with interest @ 18% per annum. The applicant also seeks costs of the litigation and the counsel representing him, during the course of arguments, has also prayed ...

Rajeev Kumar S/O Sh. Om Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Rajeev Kumar, applicant herein, through present Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeks direction to be issued to the respondents to inform the marks obtained by him in the written test on the basis of which he was called for interview vide order dated 06.08.2002 and re-consider his case for appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.), if found fit.2. Brief facts of the case, as may appear from the pleadings made in the Application coupled with the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1516/2003 for the same cause of action, would reveal that an advertisement was published for the vacancies of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police in 2002. The applicant applied for the said post in the category of OBC. He was provisionally required to undergo physical endurance test and physical measurement test/written test and was declared qualified for the interview. After completion of the interview process, the certificates were checked and it wa...

Chand Singh S/O Hoshiar Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Styling as totally illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse, the applicant, a Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police, takes serious exception to the order of his dismissal from service dated 21.9.1992 (Annexure A-1) even before the criminal appeal filed by him against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against him under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC was disposed of, as also the order dated 17.7.2007 (Annexure A-2) by which his request for reinstatement was rejected despite the directions issued by this Tribunal in the earlier OA No.2555/2005 filed by him directing concerned authority to examine the matter, in the light of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Ramesh Kumar and Union of India v. Jaipal Singh 2004 (1) SC SLJ 105, as also the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitting him in a case in which he was convicted by the trial court because of which alone the order dismissing him from service was passed.2. Brief facts as ...

Dr. M.R. Diwan, Ifs (Retd.), Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA applicant had sought direction to respondents to make entire payment of gratuity amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/- along with interest @ 2% p.a. w.e.f. 01.5.2004 with further direction to make entire payment of pension commutation along with interest @ 2% p.a.w.e.f. 01.5.2004 and to provide all the records sought by him to claim pending dues.2. It is stated by the applicant that he retired on attaining the age of superannuation from Indian Forest Service w.e.f. 30.4.2004 but his gratuity and pension commutation have been denied vide order dated 14.10.2005. It is stated by the applicant that even though he had approached this Tribunal earlier for this very relief by filing OA No.859/2006, the same was dismissed by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors. . It is submitted by applicant that while deciding his earlier OA, this Tribunal had ignored the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in...

A.G. Gaggar Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008BusLR262(Del)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. Crl.M.C. No. 5673 of 2005 is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( CrPC ) seeking the quashing of proceedings against the Petitioner in Complaint Case No. 272 of 2005 under Sections 162/220 read with Section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 ( Act ). The complaint in question was filed on 14th February, 2005 by the Assistant Deputy Registrar of Companies, National Capital Territory of Delhi and Haryana in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ( ACMM ) against M/s. Neha Exports Limited and five individuals, including the Petitioner here Mr. Anand Gopal Gaggar in their capacity as Directors or Officers of Neha Exports Limited for failing to file the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company as on March 31, 2004 with the Office of the Registrar of Companies ( ROC ) in compliance with Section 220 of the Act.2. Crl. M.C. No. 5674 of 2005 is an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking the quashi...

Commissioner of Income Tax-iii Vs. Silver Streak Trading Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008BusLR5(Del); (2008)216CTR(Del)260

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 3rd November, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' in ITA No. 1820/Del/2002 relevant for the Assessment Year 1997-98.2. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the notice sent by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) was served upon the assessed within the statutory period of limitation of 12 months from the date of filing the return.3. The assessed filed its return of income on 30th November, 1997 along with an audited balance sheet. On 28th November, 1998, a notice was issued to the assessed by the Assessing Officer through speed post. The notice stated that the case of the assessed would be fixed for hearing on 8th December, 1998. It appears that no proceedings took place on 8th December, 1998 apparently because no one appeared on behalf of the assessed.4. According to the assessed, a notice dated 21st October, 1999 was...

Krishna Toys Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Heard the ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue and perused the records.2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that on 30.12.2002, a theft/burglary took place in the factory premises of the appellants.The appellant requested for remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the stolen goods, which have been rejected by the competent authority. A show cause notice was issued proposing demand of duty on the stolen goods. The appellant deposited the duty to close the matter before passing of the adjudication order.So, the adjudicating authority appropriated the amount deposited by them and also directed to pay the interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant and observed that although this may not be the intention but fact remains that the goods have been removed from the factory without payment of duty. It is evident from the record that...

B.S. GusaIn S/O Sh. D.S. GusaIn and Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this judgment, we are considering OAs No. 1152/2007, 1167/2007 and 1227/2007. The facts in all the three cases and the points of law involved are identical. We are, therefore, considering these OAs in this one judgment.2. The Applicants in the above three OAs are aggrieved by Order No.3/4/2006/S-II/3013-3024 dated 13.06.2007 of the Services Department, Branch-II of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD).By this order, 176 officials of Grade-III of Delhi Administration Subordinate Services (DASS) were promoted to the post of Grade-II of DASS in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- under Rule 6 of DASS Rules, 1967. The Applicants' grievance is that they have not been promoted to Grade-II of DASS. The facts of the case briefly are as follows. The Applicants are Grade-III Stenographers of GNCTD. The Grade-III Stenographers were eligible for promotion either to Grade-II Stenographer or Grade-II of DASS, till such time as these Rules were amended on 7.06.2007. By this a...