Delhi Court December 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 6 of about 69 results (0.022 seconds)Commissioner of Police Vs. Shri Brij Pal Singh S/O Shri Shyam Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT115
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The only issue that we are required to consider is whether, notwithstanding the proviso to Rule 11(1) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (for short the Rules) a police officer can be dismissed or removed from service during the pendency of a first appeal against an order of conviction and sentence.2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, we heard submissions on this issue arising out of O.A. No. 544/2006 decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi on 9th March, 2007 in a batch of connected original applications. It was agreed that WP(C) No. 1044/2008 be treated as the main case.3. For facility of reference Rule 11(1) of the Rules and its proviso read as follows:11. Punishment on judicial conviction.- (1) When a report is received from an official source, e.g. a court or the prosecution agency, that a subordinate rank has been convicted in a criminal court of an offence, involving moral turpitude or ...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. N.N.S. Rana, Ex Chief Personnel Officer, North Central Railway Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT559
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The question for our consideration is this: when the appellate authority acting under Rule 22 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 issues a show cause notice to a delinquent officer only for enhancing the penalty, is it permissible for that authority to upset, on merits, the findings of fact and conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary authorityOur answer to the question is in the negative. We are of the opinion that when the appellate authority issues a notice to a delinquent officer only for the purposes of enhancing the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, it must proceed on the facts as found by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority can disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary authority, on merits, but only after complying with the principles of natural justice by issuing a show cause notice to the delinquent officer to this effect. In the present case, no such notice was issued to the Petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. India Crafts and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Del)308; [2009]183TAXMAN369(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. IT Appeal Nos. 766 of 2006, 1015 of 2005, 1044 of 2005, 1077 of 2005, 1138 of 2005, 1155 of 2005, 1170 of 2005, 45 of 2006, 105 of 2006, 177 of 2006, 213 of 2006, 252 of 2006, 306 of 2006, 312 of 2006, 323 of 2006, 326 of 2006, 331 of 2006, 332 of 2006, 339 of 2006, 345 of 2006, 417 of 2006, 460 of 2006, 562 of 2006, 565 of 2006, 583 of 2006, 600 of 2006, 604 of 2006, 635 of 2006, 647 of 2006, 660 of 2006 and 664 of 2006.These appeals were referred to the Full Bench by the Division Bench on the following substantial question of law:Whether satisfaction of the officer, initiating the proceedings under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act can be said to have been recorded even in cases where satisfaction is not recorded in specific terms but not otherwise discernible from the order passed by the authority ?2. The Full Bench has considered the same and by virtue of its judgment dated 27-11-2008 in CIT v. Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. and Ors. (IT Appeal No. 211 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Balram Sehgal Vs. Mr. Vinod Kumar Sehgal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT538
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11 read with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 'Act'), praying inter alia for appointment of the named Arbitrator as referred to in the Reference Deed dated 30.4.1991, to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the dispute, subject matter of the present petition, is between the petitioner, son of late Sh. Baldev Raj Sehgal and the respondent No. 1, his brother. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are the sisters of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. Late Sh. Baldev Raj Sehgal, father of the parties, purchased a residential premises on 31.8.1963, bearing plot No. 33, Ashoka Park Extn., East Punjabi Bagh, Rohtak Road, Delhi, measuring 155.8 sq. yds. 3. The father of the parties expired on 17.2.1974, leaving behind the petitioner, the respondents and their mother, late Smt. Padma Sehgal as the legal heirs. It is the case of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Rohini Varshnei Vs. R.B. Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT440
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A lease deed was executed on 24.10.1996 by Smt. Shakun Vohra, the owner in favour of Ms. Rohini Varshnei as tenant (appellant herein) in respect of second floor of House No. G-72, 2nd Floor, Masjid Moth, Residential Scheme, New Delhi consisting of two rooms with one attached bathroom, kitchen, covered verandah, open terrace and servant's bathroom. The lease provided for a rent of Rs. 3,500/-per month for the premises and the fittings and fixtures. The tenant was also liable to pay Rs. 50/- as water charges and electricity charges had to be paid according to the bills received from the authorities.2. Smt. Shakun Vohra executed a registered sale deed dated 21.11.2001 in favour of Sh. R.B. Singh (respondent herein) in respect of the said second floor with terrace rights along with undivided, impartible and individual share in the plot measuring 180 square metres.3. The respondent served a notice through Counsel on the appellant dated 09.05.2002 informing her about...
Tag this Judgment!Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Through Its Chief Se ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT583
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The question posed for our consideration is whether, after revocation of a suspension order, passing a second suspension order against the Respondent on the same day is permissible or not. Our answer to the question is in the affirmative and in the given facts of the case the second suspension order was validly passed.2. The Respondent was working as a Naib Tehsildar and it was alleged that she had accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- from a complainant. The Anti Corruption Branch of the Delhi Government arrested her and a First Information Report was lodged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since the Respondent was in custody for more than 48 hours, she was deemed to be under suspension from 20th October, 2004 the date of her arrest. A formal order of suspension was, however, passed in this regard only on 5th December, 2004.3. In terms of the extant rules, the Respondent's suspension was required to be reviewed after 90 days from the date of ...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Singla Constructions Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT625
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6), read with Sections 14 & 15(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') praying inter alia to appoint an independent and impartial arbitrator in terms of Section 11(6) read with Section 15(2) of the Act. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a contractor engaged in the business of carrying out government contracts. On 31.12.2005, the petitioner was awarded the work of constructing sub-structure on well foundation, pier/abutment, pier cap, bearing pedestals, earth work on approach embankments and other associated works of Bridge No. 52 for double line track over river Ganga at Garhmuktesar bridge on Ghaziabad-Moradabad Section of Northern Railway. In the course of execution of the contract, disputes and differences arose between the parties. The petitioner issued a letter dated 19.2.2007 to the respondents calling upon them to refer all the disputes and claims r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Fascel Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)305
1. The Revenue has proposed four questions. Insofar as questions 'a' and 'b' are concerned, they are identical and relate to the same issue. After considering the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we frame the following question which we feel is a substantial question of law pertaining to the issue of interest:Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 38,66,12,036 on account of interest payable on licence fee in view of Section 35ABB of the IT Act, 1961?2. Insofar as the proposed question 'c' is concerned, we find that the same has been adequately dealt with by the Tribunal by holding that the royalty payable by (to) the Wireless Planning and Co-ordination and the licence fee are entirely different entities. Consequently, the decision of the Tribunal, which is based on interpretation of Clause 19.4 of the licence agreement, which specifically provides that the annual licence fee does not include royalty fee payable to the WPC Wing of the M...
Tag this Judgment!Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Amit JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT407
S. Muralidhar, J.1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of its application IA No. 1910 of 2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in CS (OS) No. 314 of 2007, the Plaintiff Dabur India Limited ('DIL') has filed this appeal. With the consent of parties the appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. The Appellant states that it is the fourth largest fast moving consumer goods company in India engaged in the business of manufacturing pharmaceuticals, toiletries and medicinal preparations and that it has been carrying on its trading activities since 1884. Among its reputed products is Amla Hair Oil which is being marketed under the trade mark Dabur Amla Hair Oil. The Appellant states that besides vast sales in India it has also been exporting Dabur Amla Hair Oil to various countries since 1884. Dabur Amla Hair Oil is marketed in plastic bottles shaped with a semi-circular shoulder with curvaceous back and front panel tapering into each other, thereby providing a novel and original overall appearance and ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Rajbir and ors. Vs. Smt. Padma Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT577
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The ancestry of the litigating parties may be noted. The pedigree table is as under:Narbha|----------------------------| |Nanak Ram Dutt (died issueless) Chajju Ram||----------------------------------------------------| | |Jawahar Singh Ghasi Jit Singh(defendants 1 to 4 (defendants 5 to 8 (plaintiffs are the sons of are the sons of Ghasi) are the wife,Jawahar Singh) daughter of Jit Singh)2. Jit Singh filed a suit for partition of a plot of land admeasuring 1200 sq.yds. assigned No. 1572 in village Magholpur Kalan stating that the village was commonly known as Mangolpur Kalan and that their ancestors were the proprietors of vast land in said village and were biswedars i.e. co-sharers of the abadi land in the village, on which they had a house and gher/ghitwar. The ancestory was stated to be as per the afore-noted pedigree table. It was stated that during the settlement of the abadi, effected in the village in the year 1880, the afore-noted plot number was assigne...
Tag this Judgment!