Delhi Court December 2008 Judgments

Bhanubhai Paramanand Soni Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order is delivered by Km. Vijay Laxmi, Member, Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange. 2. This appeal has been filed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/19 and 20/DD/SLH/A/2000, dated 27-11-2000 passed by Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,74,500 (Rupees three lakhs seventy four thousand five hundred only) against the appellant, for contravention of the provisions of section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA, 1973 for having received Indian currency to the tune of Rs. 10,48,836 and for having made payment of Rs. 37,45,163 in India on instructions of a person resident outside India without the permission of the RBI. The appellant has pre-deposited Rs. 1 lakh in compliance of the order of the Honble High Court dated 18-10-2007 where presently this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. I have heard learned Advocate Shri Kiran R. Soni who argued on behalf of the appellant and Shri A.C. Singh, DLA, on behalf of the res...

Manish Kant Aggarwal Vs. National Agriculatural Cooperative Marketing ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT415

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. This order shall dispose of three separate petitions filed by the petitioners assailing the summoning order passed by the court of Sh. Chander Shekhar, Metropolitan Magistrate in three separate complaint cases.2. Common ground for challenging the summoning order in all the three petitions is that in all the three complaint cases filed by respondent No. 2, the petitioners are neither the drawer nor the signatories of the dishonoured cheques based on which the complaint under Section 138 r/w Section 141 & 142 N.I. Act was filed by respondent No. 2. In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2667/2007 the petitioner does not dispute that he was director of M/s M.K. International Ltd. on the relevant date of the commission of the offence and he had also written a letter dated 9.9.2005 on behalf of the said company whereby 36 cheques were sent to the respondent No. 2 as security which ultimately got dishonoured due to the non-availability of sufficient balance amount in the concern...

Sh. Kulvinder Singh and anr. Vs. State Bank of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT534

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J. 1. The respondent, State Bank of India instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,33,854.52 against the appellants Sh. Kulvinder Singh and Smt. Harjeet Kaur. On 3.12.2001, the trial court passed an ex parte decree against the appellants who were the defendants in that suit. After about 2 years, i.e., on 24.11.2003, the defendants moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the exparte decree. They also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in moving the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. There the appellants contended that they were not aware of the passing of the decree because they were away to Ludhiana and that they came to know of this fact only on 15.11.2003 from the officials of the plaintiff bank. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 inspected the court file on 17.11.2003 and moved the application under Order 9 Rule 13 on 24.11.2003. According to the appellants, there was no intentional or delib...

Smt. Amarjit Kaur and ors. Vs. Smt. Satnam Kaur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT544

Manmohan, J.1. The Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13th August, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge by virtue of which their plaint has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') on the ground that the Appellants had not taken any leave or liberty under Order II Rule 2 CPC, while instituting their earlier suit for declaration. 2. Briefly stated the material facts of this appeal, as alleged by the Appellants, are that two brothers, namely, Harbhajan Singh and Pritam Singh had purchased property bearing No. F-67, Radio Colony, Delhi - 110 009 vide registered Sale Deed dated 29th July, 1954. It is alleged that on 15th September, 1964 Harbhajan Singh executed a Will in favour of his nephew Jatinder Pal Singh and Smt. Satnam Kaur, while excluding his legal heirs. Subsequent to the death of Harbhajan Singh in August, 1967, his Will was probated on 28th May, 1971.3. On 22nd March, 1972, Pritam Singh filed a ...

Moser Baer India Ltd. Vs. the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)97; [2009]316ITR1(Delhi); [2009]176TAXMAN473(Delhi)

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. In the captioned writ petitions, a challenge has been laid to the orders passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'TPO') whereby he has determined the Arm's Length Price (hereinafter referred to as 'ALP') in relation to 'International transactions' entered into by each of the petitioners with their Associated Enterprises. The orders of the TPO which have been challenged in each of the writ petitions are as follows:(i) WP(C) No 6974/2008: Impugned order dated 22.08.2008(ii) WP(C) No 7958/2008: Impugned order dated 23.09.2008(iii) WP(C) No 7969/2008: Impugned order dated 30.09.2008(iv) WP(C) No 8054/2008: Impugned order dated 24.10.2008(v) WP(C) No 8055/2008: Impugned order dated 30.09.2008(vi) WP(C) No 8597/2008: Impugned order dated 17.10.20082. The counsel for the petitioners, as well as, the Ld. ASG appearing for the respondent have addressed their submissions before us, which are, common to each of the aforementioned writ petitions....

Bank of India and anr. Vs. Madura Coats Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT240

Manmohan Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants ('defendants No. 1 and 2' in the suit) against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 21st April, 2003 whereby the application of appellants for leave to defend was dismissed and the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent ('plaintiff' in the suit).2. The Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 87,99,121/- along with interest under Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure against the defendants (appellants herein) and M/s Hilton Rubbers Ltd. i.e Defendant No. 3.3. It was submitted that M/s Hilton Rubbers Ltd. i.e. Defendant No. 3 had placed orders with the Plaintiff for supply of Nylon and Polyester based fabrics vide different Purchase Orders, details of which are mentioned hereinbelow:(i) Purchase Order No. 165 dated 01.02.99(ii) Purchase Order No. 168 dated 13.02.99(iii) Purchase Order No. 169 dated 01.03.99(iv) Purchase Order No. 170 dated 01.03.99(v) Purchase Order No. 173 dated 22.03.99(vi) Purchase O...

Om Parkash Vs. Inder Kaur

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT292; (2009)154PLR35

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 5th August, 2004 whereby an Eviction Petition of the respondent under Section 14(d) read with Section 25-B of DRC Act was allowed. 2. The brief facts relevant for deciding this petition are that the respondent/landlady claimed that she had become widow on 9th October, 1998 on death of her husband. The petitioner was a tenant in respect of two rooms, kitchen, bath room, WC, front and rear verandah on the ground floor of house No. 353, Block-C-1, Yamuna Vihar (front verandah to be used jointly by the landlady and the tenant). She had one daughter Preeti Minocha, aged 5 years and a son Gurpreet Singh, aged 3 years residing with her. She was living at first floor of the same property. She was a Group-D Government employee and used to leave her house at 7.30 am in the morning (her office was around 18 kilometers away from the house), since she had to reach there around 9.00 am. Her children were studying in nearby scho...

Smt. Saroj Devi (Widow) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT429

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Late Subedar Ram Dhari Ram, husband of the petitioner, joined Department of Posts as a Postal Assistant on 01.09.1968. He volunteered to serve in the Army Postal Service Corps in the rank of a Warrant Officer on 03.07.1971 and earned his promotions to the rank of a Subedar. Late Subedar Ram Dhari Ram while serving in the Army Postal Service Corps had got his name registered with the Army Welfare Housing Organization ('AWHO' for short) on 01.05.2005 for allotment of a deluxe apartment at Greater Noida Scheme in Phase III by remitting an amount of Rs. 75,500/- towards the registration fee. He was, however, at Serial No. 49 in the waiting list. Subedar Ram Dhari Ram unfortunately met with a fatal road accident while serving in the unit on 13.09.2006. The petitioner was granted family pension with effect from 14.09.2006. Late Subedar Ram Dhari Ram is also survived by his son Dr. Suresh Chand. It is Dr. Suresh Chand who was made a nominee by his deceased father in t...

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

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT558

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The petitioner participated in a selection process for recruitment for the post of Assistant Commandant in Central Police Organization (CPOs) held by the Ministry of Home Affairs through a specially Constituted Selection Board by way of direct recruitment. The selection Board was constituted under the second respondent for the year 2002. The petitioner was an OBC candidate.2. Pursuant to a public advertisement, the petitioner applied and was called for written examination held on 02.03.2003. In the written examination, the petitioner was declared successful as per the communication sent by the Secretary of the special Selection Board on 15.09.2003. The said communication asked the petitioner to participate in a Physical Efficiency Test (PET), interview and medical examination on 22.3.2004.3. It appears that travails of the petitioner started thereafter, inasmuch as before conducting his PET, the petitioner was called for measurement of height, weight and chest mea...

National Federation of the Blind Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT446

Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. National Federation of the Blind, an apex body working for the protection of the rights of the visually challenged, has filed this petition in public interest to highlight the discrimination of the blind and low vision persons by virtually excluding them from the process of recruitment to government posts in violation of the scheme of reservation contained in Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ('Disabilities Act' for short). The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have failed to provide reservation to the blind and low vision candidates in accordance with Section 33 of the Disabilities Act in all its recruitments right from 1996 till date. The Disabilities Act, which was brought into force on 7.2.1996, mandates the Government to make reservation in all groups of posts to the extent of 3% at least of which 1% each shall be reserved for persons suffering from bl...