Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

Vijender Kumar S/O Late G.C. Misra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Vijender Kumar, Head Clerk in the office of respondents, the applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to set aside order dated 23.5.2007 (Annexure A-I), whereby, as per the case set up by the applicant, ineligible candidate, namely, Shri Ram Singh, arrayed as 4th respondent herein, has been called for selection for the post of OS-II, which is contrary to the settled law. In consequence of setting aside of the order aforesaid, the applicant further prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider him for the post of OS-II and to accord him all consequential reliefs.2. The facts on which the connected reliefs as mentioned above are sought to rest reveal that the applicant joined services of the respondents in the year 1980, and is currently holding the post of Head Clerk in grade Rs. 5000-8000. It is the case of the applicant that next promotion in the hierarchy of posts i...

R.K. Gupta S/O R.S. Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The wife of R.K.Gupta, applicant herein, while he was holding the post of Lower Division Clerk in 1980, formerly employed with Oberoi Group of Hotels, New Delhi as Stenographer took up the job of Receptionist with the Embassy of Arab Republic of Egypt, New Delhi. Due intimation of employment of his wife with the aforesaid foreign Embassy was given by the applicant to the concerned authorities on 2.4.1980 and permission was sought for the same. The application seeking permission as referred to above gathered dust in the archives of the relevant office for number of years, and inasmuch as, the applicant on the asking of the respondents could not make his wife resign from the job, he was chargesheeted, and pursuant to an enquiry held against him, has since been dismissed from service vide orders dated 2.5.2000. The applicant takes serious exception to the order dismissing him from service. Is the order of dismissal from service legally sustainable or justified in the facts of the case...

Smt. Meera Sen, W/O Late Shri Jugal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Legal representative of the deceased retired Railway employee assails respondents' order dated 25.7.2006 and 16.10.2006, whereby pay of the deceased has been reduced from retrospective effect, as a result of which retiral dues have been reduced.2. The deceased was appointed as a casual clerk in the year 1967 and was put to officiate in Group 'C' on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 21.4.1968 till 3.11.1972 in the Parcel Office, where he earned two increments under Rules 2017 and 2018 by respondent No. 2 in terms of letter dated 16.12.1977. The aforesaid benefit of fixation of pay was re-examined and on the ground that the officiating post was not in the cadre, the matter was sorted out and no action was taken. Applicant retired as Chief Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk on 31.07.2006 but on 25.07.2006 the pay of applicant was reduced retrospectively from 1976 from Rs. 360/- to Rs. 340/- and accordingly pay was reduced with a ripple effect on the objection taken by the FA&CAO.3. Learned Counsel f...

Asi Sat Pal 3rd Battalion, Delhi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (Lt.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA both the applicants have challenged charge-sheet dated 18.8.2005, disciplinary proceedings and orders dated 10.12.2005 and 15.6.2006 with a further direction to the respondents to release their future increments and regularize the period of suspension as 'spent on duty'.2. The brief facts are that following summary of allegation was served on both the applicants: It is alleged against ASI Satpal No. 5582/PCR, 2570/W (PIS-28790219), Const. Ashok Kumar No. 1321/W (PIS-28892298) and Const. Sugan Chand No. 1819/W (PIS-28900786) that while posted at Police Post Nihal Vihar, PS Nangloi Delhi. Const. Ashok Kumar No. 1321/W and Const. Sugan Chand No. 1819/W lifted Shri Chhannu Khan S/o Shri Jamana Khan R/o S-2/4, Mangol Puri, Delhi from his shop on 22.11.2004 on the direction of ASI Satpal No. 5582/PCR, 2570/W and brought at Police Post Nihal Vihar and handed over to ASI Satpal. They misbehaved with him and threatened to book in a case of kidnapping. ASI Satpal No. 5582/W, 2570/...

Mitsui and Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)903

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 18th Feb., 2005 pertaining to the asst. yr. 2001-02. The assessee has preferred the following grounds of appeal: 1. That on facts and in law, the orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) are illegal, invalid and ab initio void. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in treating the "LO" as PE in India and subjecting it to tax under the head "Business income". 2.1 That on facts and in law, the AO/CIT(A) erred in presuming that the LO has 'income' which is liable to tax in India. 2.2 That on facts and in law the finding that LO is a PE is contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal Special Bench "E" in appellant's own case for the asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1981-82 in IAC v. Mitsui &. Co. Ltd. (1991) 41 TTJ (Del)(SB) 547 : (1991) 39 ITD 59 (Del)(SB). (a) Holding that the appellant has submitted wrong and incorrect details of expenses/reports to the RBI and contravened the conditions laid down by the RBI while appr...

income-tax Officer Vs. G.D. Goenka Public School

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These two appeals of the revenue arise out of a consolidated order passed in the case of the assessee by CIT(Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi, on 7.11.2005. The umbrage taken by the revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in canceling the orders passed Under Section 201(1) read with Section 201(1A) of the Act. It is also mentioned that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case no perquisite had to be taxed under Rule 3(e) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.2. On perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer, it is found that the assessee was extending benefit of free educational facilities to the wards of teachers and staff members. It is stated that in respect of the aforesaid perquisite, tax was not deducted at source. The number of such students was quantified at 95 for each of the year. The total fees payable in respect of these students was worked out at Rs. 95,69,000/-. The tax, which was not deducted but ought to have been deducted, was co...

Capital Power Systems Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)531

1. These cross-appeals of the assessee and the Revenue emanate from the order of CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi, passed on 31st Dec, 2004. At the time of filing the appeal, the assessee had taken up 28 grounds and the Revenue had taken up 13 grounds. In the course of hearing before us, the assessee took five additional grounds regarding the validity of the search and violation of the limitation date while passing the order by the Asstt. CIT, Circle 1(1), New Delhi (the AO) under Section 158BC of the Act. These grounds were not opposed by the learned Departmental Representative as they were purely legal in nature. Therefore, the grounds were admitted on 13th Nov., 2007.2. Before us, the learned Counsel pointed out that the search and seizure operation conducted in this case were invalid because the authorization was issued by the Jt. Director of IT (Inv.), who was not competent to issue the authorization. In this connection, he drew our attention to pp. 262 to 285 of the paper book, which contai...

Sangeeta Jewels Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT632

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 14.2.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi thereby dismissing an application under Order xxxvII Rule 4 CPC filed by the petitioners/defendants praying for the setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 10.02.1999 passed in favor of the respondent/plaintiff in a suit filed by him under Order xxxvII CPC.2. Facts necessary to dispose of the present petition are that on 22.10.97 respondent filed a suit under Order xxxvII CPC against the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 1,72,000/-. Suit was based upon three cheques dated 21.10.94 issued under the signatures of petitioner No. 2 as director of petitioner No.1 in favor of the respondent.3. Backdrop to the cheques aforesaid, as pleaded in the plaint, was that petitioner No. 1 Sangeeta Jewels Pvt. Ltd. was a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and petitioner No. 2 Mr. Vipin Sehgal and petitioner No. 3 Ms. Sangeeta Sehgal we...

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Lachmi NaraIn Trades and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT46; LC2008(1)313; 2008(36)PTC223(Del)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 28th July, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby an ad interim order of injunction earlier issued against the defendant-respondent herein has been made absolute with the modification that the defendant can continue to use the alphabets 'LNT' in an explanatory extended form as given in the order to avoid the likelihood of any confusion that the goods being sold by it are those of the plaintiff-appellant. Dissatisfied with the said order even the defendant-respondent has filed cross objections inter alias challenging the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the adoption and use of the trade mark 'LNT' by it is malafide and intended to take advantage of the tremendous reputation which the plaintiff-appellant has earned in the commercial world. The controversy arises in the following backdrop:2. The appellant Larsen and Toubro Ltd. for short 'LandT' is engaged in diverse business activities inclu...

R.S. Bhargava Pharmacy Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT91; 2008(101)DRJ415

T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 106B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 inserted by notification dated 22nd February, 1994. The challenge arises in the following circumstances:2. A tragedy resulting in loss of human lives and involving the use of spurious alcohol based medicinal preparations led to the constitution of a one-man Inquiry Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice Jagdish Chandra. Among other recommendations, the Committee suggested that medicinal preparations containing more than 12% alcohol should be packed in smaller packages. These recommendations in turn led to the initiation of a process by which Rule 106B was introduced by way of an amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. The Rule so introduced prohibits packing of homeopathic medicines containing more than 12% Ethyl Alcohol in packings or bottles of more than 30 ml except in cases where the medicine is being sold to hospitals...