Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Harish Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT608

G.S. Sistani, J.1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 26.04.2003 as well as the order of sentence dated 02.05.2003 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in the case FIR No. 702/99, Police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi whereby the learned Judge has held the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 302/376/436/201 IPC and awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine further RI for two years for the offence under Section 302; awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine further RI for two years for the offence under Section 376, awarded RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further RI for one year for the offence under Section 436 IPC; and awarded the sentence of imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine furth...

Rishi and anr. Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT410

G.S. Sistani, J.1.'Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire' a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth?. The present case revolves around two dying declarations made by the deceased dated 30.6.2002. The necessary facts of this case are : that on 30.6.2002 at about 2:25 a.m. information was received in Police Station Hauz Khas that a person had received burn injuries due to stove in house No. 192 near Balmiki Basti, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi. The information was recorded as DD No. 29A, copy of the same was handed over to S.I Amar Singh, who reached the place of occurrence along with constable Dharamvir. On reaching the place of occurrence, S.I. Amar Singh found in the courtyard of the house some kerosene oil lying spread on the floor, some match sticks, one kerosene stove and a plastic bottle lying. On learning that the injured has been removed to Safdarjung hospital, leaving behind constable Dharamjeet, S.I. Amar Singh also went to the burn ward of Safdarjung Hospital and found, ...

Rajinder Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT267; 2008(101)DRJ207; 2008(3)SLJ388(Delhi)

S.L. Bhayana, J.1. The Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of an appropriate writ or order directing the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Inspector with effect from 24.08.1998 with all consequential benefits.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition may be summarized as under:3. The Petitioner was a Sub-Inspector in the Border Security Force (for short 'the BSF'). At the time of undergoing Platoon Commander (Tactics) Course (hereinafter referred to as 'PC(TAC)') held between 13.01.1997 to 22.03.1997, the petitioner was informed by the Directorate of Training that the Junior Leader Course (for short 'JLC'), a pre-promotion course, was scheduled to be held from 17.02.1997, on the completion of which the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was to be held. The eligible Sub-Inspectors, who were detailed to undergo PC(TAC) course were allowed ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Del)542; [2008]298ITR443(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated November 17, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench G, in I.T.A. No. 4369/Del/2004 and C.O. No. 196/Del/2006, relevant to the assessment year 2001-02.2. The question that has arisen for our consideration is whether the assessed is entitled to reduce the interest paid by it on a loan taken by it from the Bank of Rajasthan, by adjusting the interest received by it on fixed deposits which were pledged with the Bank of Rajasthan for obtaining the loan.3. It appears to us that the matter is fully covered by the decision of this Court in CIT v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip : [2007]289ITR475(Delhi) and that no substantial question of law arises.4. In paragraphs 35 and 36 of the above decision, this Court has considered two categories of fixed deposits taken by the assessed. The first category is fixed deposits taken by the assessed for the purposes of parking of its surplus funds. The second category is fixed depo...

Jindal Steel and Power Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR291

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 22.5.07 dismissing the appeal of the appellant which it had preferred against the order-in-original of the Asstt. Commissioner, for non-compliance under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. It may be stated here that along with the appeal the appellant had filed application seeking stay of the order of Addl.Commissioner dt.30.10.06. The said application was heard and by order dt. 19.3.07, the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakhs). It is relevant to mention that the assessee is required to pre-deposit entire amount of duty etc. as the case may be, subject to the power of the appellant authority to waive the requirement of such deposit. As the appellant failed to deposit the said amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and they comply with the said order dt.19.3.07, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the order on 22.5.07.2. Having heard Ld. DR at length...

Em Pee Motors Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR481

1. The appellants are rendering Business Auxiliary Services. They canvassed customers for the Bank who would finance them for the purchase of vehicles. In this arrangement, the appellants get the remuneration for the service rendered. There is a dispute as to the value of the taxable services rendered. It was explained by the Ld.Counsel that for purposes of TDS, the bank takes an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per vehicle as Commission paid to the appellants. But actually, an amount of Rs. 8,000/- is paid to the customers directly by the bank and the amount received by the appellant is only Rs. 2,000/-.In respect of the above amount, the appellant had actually discharged the service tax liability. The case of the Revenue is that the entire amount taken for TDS purposes should be taken as the gross amount for the service rendered. If this view is taken, there will be short payment of service tax. Hence the proceedings were initiated. In terms of the impugned order, appellant is required to pre...

Ema India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.2. The appellant filed this appeal against the review order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise whereby penalties imposed under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act were enhanced.3. The adjudication order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise was challenged by the respondent and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 30-3-07 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. In remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority vide order dated 28-9-2007 dropped the proceedings. As the proceedings in respect of demand of Service Tax is already dropped by the adjudicating authority, therefore, the enhancement of penalty is under review proceedings will not survive. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed....

Constable Vijay Pal S/O Jagmool Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Constable Vijay Pal, the applicant herein, being aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2005 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing penalty of forfeiture of two years' approved service temporarily, as also order dated 24.5.2006 vide which the appeal filed by him against the order aforesaid was rejected, has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.2. Brief facts giving rise to the present Application reveal that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant on the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The enquiry officer after recording statements of witnesses examined on behalf of the department framed the following charge against the applicant: I, O.D.Yadav, Inspr. D.E. Cell do hereby charge you Ct. Vijay Pal No. 780/T (PIS No. 28981968) that while posted in Defence Colony, Traffic Circle, you were deputed on crane duty, private crane No. DL-1LD-6872 on 22-5-2004. On that day you Const. Vi...

iqbal Nath Sharma S/O Shri Keshav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, an erstwhile S.F.A. (MT), by virtue of this OA has impugned respondents' order dated 17.11.2006, whereby pursuant to disciplinary proceedings a penalty of removal from service has been inflicted. Also assailed is an order passed in appeal on 12.3.2007, upholding the punishment.2. On the allegation of failure to maintain absolute integrity by submitting forged acknowledgement receipts showing false receipt of his medical bills for medical reimbursement, applicant was proceeded against for a major penalty. An enquiry was conducted vide memorandum dated 19.4.2004 but on submission of the enquiry report on 3.7.2004, holding applicant guilty the disciplinary authority (DA) vide its order dated 30.6.2005 ordered a de novo enquiry by appointing a new enquiry officer (EO) as the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As a result thereof a memorandum was issued to applicant. The EO in its report dated 12.6....

Dilbagh Singh S/O Mange Ram and Om Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Thro ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The plea raised by the applicants in support of the present Original Application filed by them under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is of discriminatory treatment meted out to them vis-`-vis ASI Ram Kishan with whom they faced a joint regular departmental enquiry. All that may be stated at this stage with regard to the plea of discrimination raised by the applicants is that the applicants along with their co-delinquent ASI Ram Kishan were charged as follows: I, Shyam Dev Sharma, Asstt. Commissioner of Police, MT/PCR, Delhi charge you, ASI Ram Kishan, No. 3936/D (PIS No. 29710119), HC Om Prakash, No. 1549/PCR (PIS No. 29680056) and Const. (Dvr.) Dilbagh Singh, No. 4330/PCR (PIS No. 28893121), that on the night intervening 23/24.11.98 while your were performing your duties on PCR Van, Commander-38 from 8 PM to 8 AM, on receipt of a call at 10.52 PM from Commander-I you along-with the staff of APS/North-West Distt. And P.S. Kanjhawala intercepted Tempo No. DL-1LC...