Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments

Superior Crafts Vs. Centre of Indian Trade Unions and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR614]; (2008)IIILLJ109Del

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff claims the following reliefs:a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining and prohibiting the defendants, their agents, members, associates etc. from holding any demonstrations, dharnas, gherao, slogan shouting and causing hooliganism at least 100 mts. from the premises bearing No. D-12, 13, Udyog Nagar, Peera Garhi, New Delhi, 561/2, Swaran Park, Mundka, New Delhi and A-I/11 and B-5/11, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi;b) Direct the SHO of the concerned areas for the compliance of the order;c) Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The plaintiff's averments are that it is an export oriented partnership firm having its registered office at D-13, Udyog Nagar, Peera Garhi, Delhi. Defendant No. 1 is a registered trade union. The other defendants are its office bearers and members.3. The plaintiff adverts to an incident...

Kali Charan Sharma (Since Deceased) Vs. New Okhla Industrial Developme ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2008)BC565

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The decree holder seeks execution of a decree arising out of an award, which was made rule of this Court, on 20.9.1993.2. The facts necessary for deciding this case are that on 31.5.1986 a mutually agreed arbitrator directed that the sum of Rs. 11,24,085.56 along with interest at 15% per annum (from the date of the decree to be made by Court), should be paid by the respondent. The decree holder approached this Court under Section 14 of the old Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereafter referred to as 'Act'). On 20.9.1993, the Court overruled the objections of the respondent/judgment debtor and confirmed the award, thus making it the rule of the Court, in Suit No. 1283-A/1986. The decree holder thereafter moved this Court for realization of its dues, through the present execution proceedings. The Court took cognizance and issued warrants of attachment of the judgment debtor's bank accounts. It was at that stage that the judgment debtor represented on its behalf that an appe...

Mangal Singh Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal challenging the imposition of penalties imposed under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act.3. The contention of the appellant is that the demand is made in respect of the Man Power Recruitment Agency Services. The contention is that the appellant is an individual and not a commercial concern and only with effect from 16.6.05 the definition of this service was amended and instead of commercial concern the person was substituted, therefore, the appellant being individual are liable to pay Service Tax with effect from 16.6.05 whereas in the present case the demand is made from April 2005 to September 2005. The penalty is imposed on the ground that the appellant filed necessary returns for April 2005 to September 2005 and Service Tax was paid late. The contention is that the appellant comes under the scope of Service Tax with effect from 16.6.05 when the person has been substituted in stead of commercial concern, therefore, there is no question of late f...

Si Raj Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police, Addl.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Raj Kumar, a Sub Inspector in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, was departmentally tried on the following charge: It is alleged against you S.I. Raj Kumar D-1336 (27870147) that while posted at PS Badarpur South Distt New Delhi, you were directed to conduct verification of address, provided by Smt. Kamlesh w/o late Ganga Saran and submit your report before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in criminal appeal No. 30/2000 filed by Smt. Kamlesh who had since been convicted in case FIR No. 403/99 Under Section 302/34 IPC P.S. Badarpur and undergoing sentence. You S.I. Raj Kumar No. D-1336 submitted your report dt. 9.7.02 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi confirming her address at Village Chakarsenpur P.S. Dadri Ghaziabad (Gautam Budh Nagar). On reverification conducted by Inspr Satish Kumar Sharma, D-1/887 it was found that you submitted an incorrect report. Smt. Kamlesh had no relative in Village Chakarsenpur. She neither lived/belonged to that village even nor her daughter's mar...

Om Prakash, S/O Shri Jogi Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant impugns respondents' order dated 4.4.2007 and has sought review DPC and further consideration for the post of Goods Guard with all consequential benefits.2. Applicant, who qualified the written test for the post of Goods Guard when not found his name in the panel made a representation.However, a minor penalty of withholding of set of passes, according to him, cannot be an impediment for his promotion, as per RBE No. 12/1993 in a selection post when a vacancy has been reserved for a person against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending, or he is under suspension, which is finalized within a period of two years of approval of provisional panel, and if one is inflicted only a minor penalty, he should be promoted in turn. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Tribunal in OA-1758/1997 - Vidya Prakash v. Union of India and Anr., decided on 31.5.2000 and Deva Ram v. Union of India and Anr. , (OA No. 2048/2006) decided on 28.8.2007.3. On the other hand, Learned Counsel...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maipo India Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Delhi)791

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue and the only ground raised is as under: The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in reducing addition on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) from Rs. 25,42,772 to Rs. 1,85,821 by holding that reserve on account of share premium should be excluded from the accumulated profits of the assessee, and that the accumulated profits are to be taken as the opening balance and not on the dates when the loan was advanced.2. The brief facts giving rise to the appeal are these. The assessee respondent is a company engaged in the consultancy business. We are concerned with the asst. yr. 1996-97. While completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act the AO included an amount of Rs. 11,11,772 as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The amount was part of an amount of Rs. 25,42,772 advanced during the year to the assessee by another company by name Gorgeous Chemical (P) Ltd., in which the assessee company held 40 per cent ...

israt Jahan Tabassum Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ494

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Israt Jahan Tabassum (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner/Mother) has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition against her ex husband, Vijay Alreja (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent/Father) praying for the production of their minor daughter, Avantika and thereafter for restoring the custody of Avantika to her mother. Avantika was born on 24.1.2002 at Dhaka, Bangladesh. She is presently about six years old. It has been asseverated in the Petition that the Respondent/Father had converted to Islam faith and that they had got married under Muslim rites on 14.10.1997.2. In paragraph 4 of the Petition it has been pleaded that in 2005 the Respondent/Father 'fraudulently and by misrepresenting the petitioner procured an Indian Passport for the minor child'. The case of the Respondent/Father is that the Petitioner/Mother herself wanted an Indian Passport for the child. The Petition thereafter discloses that Avantika was removed by the Respondent/Father from the care and...

Dda Vs. Vijay Pal Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT249

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. DDA's grievance is to the order dated 13.10.2006 dismissing its application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying that delay in filing the appeal be condoned.3. The decree against DDA is dated 6.2.2006. It has returned a finding in favor of the plaintiffs that the suit land ad-measuring 500 sq. yards as per site plan Ex.PW1/1 is comprised in Khasra No. 399, Gujaran Khadar, Ghonda, Bhajan Pura, Delhi. Dismissing the application seeking delay to be condoned in filing the appeal, learned Appellate Judge has held that no sufficient cause has been shown entitling the DDA to have the delay condoned. It was noted that appeal was filed on 31.7.2006.4. It is not in dispute that limitation for filing the appeal is 30 days.5. It may be observed at the inception that I do not blame the learned Appellate Judge for the view taken for the reason the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is as vague as vagueness...

Mr. Vijendra Kishan Gupta and anr. Vs. Yusuf Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ758

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs for striking off the defense of the defendants on account of their failure to make deposits as per the orders passed by this Court on 17.07.2007 and 09.10.2007. The plaintiffs/applicants have been able to show that the orders dated 17.07.2007 and 09.10.2007 were not complied with by the defendants. By the order dated 17.07.2007 the defendants were directed to pay the amounts represented by the rent and hire charges, which were outstanding till then, within three weeks. The defendant No. 1 failed to do so. On 09.10.2007 this Court granted a last opportunity to clear the arrears within 15 days with a further direction that the defendants would also continue to pay the said amounts without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. According to the defendant No. 1 the lease is subsisting whereas according to the plaintiffs the lease has been terminated. The defendant No. 1 has taken the stand th...

Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ322Del

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Repeated attempts of the petitioner herein to scale the wall have failed. This writ petition is filed against judgment dated 5.7.2006 passed by the Tribunal which was fourth round of litigation. In this fifth attempt, whether the petitioner is able to succeed in getting the relief in which he failed up to now? If we have to begin this judgment with an answer to this question, our answer is emphatic No. The outcome of the writ petition which we have disclosed at the very outset is followed by the detailed discussion as under:The petitioner was appointed as Telephone Operator under Divisional Railway Manager's Office Northern Railways and at relevant time working at its State Entry Road, New Delhi Office. On 1.12.1999 he was arrested for violating the provisions of Section 145 and 180 of the Indian Railways Act. He was produced before Railway Magistrate, New Delhi and was sent to judicial custody. On 15.12.1999, when he was produced before the Railway Magistrate again he...