Delhi Court December 2008 Judgments

R.K. Singhal Vs. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ467Del

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 18th November 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition (C) No. 3835 of 2003.2. Prior to 1978 the Appellant was working as a Senior Laboratory Assistant in the Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi. By a resolution dated 29th April 1975 read with Office Order dated 7th June 1975and Notification dated 27th September 1975, the post of Storekeeper in the Science Department was abolished and posts of Senior Technical Assistants and Junior Lab Assistants were created in the Department of Physics, Chemistry, Botony, Zoology and Anthropology. In the Department of Anthropology there was only one post of Technical Assistant created by abolishing existing post of Storekeeper. Shri N.C. Jain, who was working as Technical Assistant in the said department, was promoted as Senior Technical Assistant with effect from 11th November 1976. The Appellant was promoted as Technical Assistant in ...

Mukesh Kumar Decd. thr. Lr's and Anr. Vs. Saini Cooperative Thrift and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT550

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. There is no merit in the appeal and hence the same is being dismissed in limine.3. But before that we would like to pen down a few words, for the reason, in a large number of matters emanating from learned Additional District Judges we are noticing that proved documents being recorded in the statement of the witnesses as exhibits are not being assigned the requisite exhibit number. 4. The instant case is also one of the said category.5. PW-1, the witness of the plaintiff, Shri Hari Kishan Saini, as per the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, led examination-in-chief by filing an affidavit. He has proved five documents being Ex.PW-1/2 to Ex.PW-1/6. 6. None of the documents referred to as Ex.PW-1/2 to Ex.PW-1/6 in the deposition of the witness has been given the requisite exhibit mark by the learned Trial Judge. 7. Fortunately for us, the identity of the documents can be traced and the document correctly ide...

Consulting Engg. Services (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]183TAXMAN280(Delhi)

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. Admit.The following question of law has arisen for our consideration:Whether, the Tribunal misdirected itself in disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of staff provident fund dues on the ground that they had been paid after the due date referred to in the relevant statute but before the date for filing a return under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?Since the counsel for the parties have agreed to dispense with filing of paper books and proceeded to argue the matter based on the existing records, we heard the matter finally.2. The assessee has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 24-8-2007 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 76/Delhi/2006 in respect of the assessment year 1998-99.2.1 The Tribunal by the impugned judgment has passed a common order not only pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99 but also in respect of the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2...

Udai Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 155(2008)DLT275

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. In this appeal the appellant assails his conviction and the sentences awarded to him by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi for his having killed a young widow, who had spurned his advances for marriage after the death of her husband, by throwing acid on her and also for having caused acid burn injuries on her twelve years old daughter.2. The facts leading to the trial and conviction of the appellant(hereinafter to be referred as 'the accused') may first be noticed. The deceased Smt. Aruna was a widow whose husband had died about two years before the present occurrence which took place on the night of 17th May, 2000. After the death of her husband she was living with her two children in HMD Colony, Shahdara, Delhi and the accused started visiting her house and became close to her and her children. Taking advantage of that closeness the accused started asking the deceased that they should live as husband and wife but she rejected that prop...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Del)366; [2009]317ITR249(Delhi); [2009]178TAXMAN422(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arises from the order dated 18.01.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 1870(Del)2007 relating to the assessment year 2003-04. The revenue is aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal held that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the said Act was without jurisdiction.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax had issued a notice under Section 263 of the said Act, in which it was stated that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under Section 80-IA as the assessee did not fulfill the condition laid down in Section 80IA(7). Section 80IA(7) reads as under:The deduction under Sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined ...

R. Sachdev Vs. Presiding Officer, District Consumer Forum

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. This is a hard case where an old man was awarded three months imprisonment under Section 228, IPC only for misbehaving with the President and Members of the District Forum as he lost his temper. The Judges should neither be too touchy nor too sensitive nor should get offended as to their dignity. The appellant is very old and is stated to be in depression. 2. On the face of it, the impugned order is beyond jurisdiction and is illegal. Section 345 Cr. P.C. prescribes the procedure in certain case of contempt and reads as under: 345. Procedure in certain cases of contempt(1) When any such offence as is described in Section 175, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180 or Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is committed in the view or presence of any civil, criminal or revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and may at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day, take cognizance of the o...

Brooke Hospital for Animals and ors. Vs. Brook Hospital for Animals (I ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 155(2008)DLT305

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this petition, leave is sought by the petitioners 1 to 3 to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure as per the draft plaint enclosed, in respect of the respondent No. 1, which is a public charitable trust set up in India on the 25th day of February, 1992 by a trust deed of the same date.2. The petitioner No. 1 is an organization established under the laws of England and is registered as a Charity bearing No. 1085760, set up with the object of improving the condition and welfare of animals, particularly equine animals. The petitioner No. 2 is the erstwhile Chairman of the Animal Welfare Board constituted under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 by the Government of India from the years 1992 to 1996. The petitioner No. 3 is an educationist by profession and was head of the Academic Department in the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun and is interested in the welfare of animals, and thus interested in the respon...

Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Kamaljeet Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On account of having deducted the loan amount from the pension account of the respondent instead of his and from his wifes salary as agreed at the time of giving loan, the appellant-bank vide impugned order dated 25.7.2006 passed by the District Forum has been found guilty for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Through this appeal, the impugned order has been assailed mainly on the premise that the bank has exercised its right of general lien over the account which does not amount to deduction but adjustment and further that once the No Objection Certificate is given by the employer of the borrower the loan instalment started coming regularly from the employer itself till the loan is adjusted in full. 3. The case of the respondent leading to the impugned or...

S.S. Kothari Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Shri O.P. Nahar, Chairperson. 2. These two appeals are filed against adjudication order No. 105/99/AD, dated 23-8-1999 passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000 against the appellant company and Rs. 2,000 against another appellant as director of the company for contravention of section 4(1) read with section 23C(1) of FER Act, 1947 when S.S. Kothari was functioning as Director of appellant-company so was incharge and responsible to the company on the reasons that appellants unauthorisedly acquired foreign currency of DM 47,500 which was paid to M/s. A. Knoevenagal West Germany by M/s. Kaiser Engineers International USA on appellants behalf. 3. According to learned counsel, the appellants have made their pre-deposit of their respective penalty and these appeals are required to be heard on merits. We have heard arguments from Ms. Nupur Mukherjee, Advocate on ...