Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Dr. Santokh Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT110; 2008(104)DRJ124

Manmohan, J.1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the judgment and order dated 17th August, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 2709/2005.2. The Tribunal in its judgment has held that there was delay in initiating the process of holding Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC'); which delay was solely attributable to the Petitioners herein for which Respondent No. 1 cannot be made to suffer. The Tribunal has further directed the Petitioners herein to re-examine the claim of Respondent No. 1 in the light of O.M. No. 22011/9/98 (for short 'the said OM') issued by the Department of Personnel and Training and its observations for ante dating the promotion of Respondent No. 1 on notional basis in the post of JS&LA; of ILS from the date the process, as env...

In Re: Electronics Ltd. (In Liquidation)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]149CompCas100(Delhi)

Vipin Sanghi, J.C.P. No. 159 of 1996:1. Counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad states that an application for setting aside the ex parte order in respect of C.A. No. 1256 of 2006 had been filed by him on July 3, 2007, vide diary No. 140055. I find that the same is not on record though advance copy has been served on the applicant of C.A. No. 1256 of 2006. Learned Counsel for the applicant in C.A. No. 1256 of 2006 submits that she has no objection to the order proceeding ex parte against the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad being recalled. In view of the consent given by the applicant in C.A. No. 1256 of 2006 the order dated September 7, 2007, in so far as it proceeded ex parte against the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad is recalled.C.A. No. 1256 of 2006:2. I have heard counsel for the parties on this application for some time. Counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad submits that various portions of the land purchased by the applicant as an auction purchaser ...

Cce/Cst Vs. Avtar Krishan Khosla and Jugal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. Notices issued to the respondents were received back with the postal remarks 'Left'. Therefore, appeals are being taken up for hearing in the absence of the respondents. Since the issue involved is common, both the appeals are taken together.2. Heard learned SDR. Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned orders whereby penalties imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act were set aside on the ground that there was no proposal in the show cause notice to impose penalties under the said section. Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act was set aside on the ground that amount of service tax along with interest had been paid prior to issuance of show cause notice.3. Learned SDR submitted that in the show cause notices there were specific proposal to impose penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act. I have gone through show cause notices and I find that there was specific averment as t...

D.V. Gautam S/O Shri R.D. Gautam Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Throug ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A. applicant has challenged enquiry report dated 12.2.2000 (at page 125), order dated 13.4.2005 whereby punishment of forfeiture of two years of approved service has been imposed on the applicant permanently, entailing proportionate reduction in his pay. His suspension period from 23.9.1997 to 5.10.1997 has also been held as period not spent on duty for all intent and purposes as well as order dated 29.06.2006 whereby his appeal has been rejected (page 54 and 57 respectively). He has also sought all consequential benefits to which he may be entitled to in law. (i) copy of the preliminary enquiry report or the statements recorded therein were not supplied to him even though he had specifically requested for supplying him those documents vide his application dated 2.2.1999 (page 61). The same was rejected by order dated 4.8.1998 (page 70). As a result of which, applicant has been seriously prejudiced as he has not been able to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses effecti...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Mayur Recreational and

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)113ITD181(Delhi)

1. This Special Bench has been constituted by the Hon'ble President under Section 255(3) to consider and decide the following question: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to all the earlier orders of the Tribunal, the IT authorities were justified in estimating the ALV of the property at Nos. 14-16, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi at Rs. 9,32,888 as against Rs. 5,12,932 declared by the assessee in the return? 2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the aforesaid question referred to this Special Bench are as follows. The assessee in the present case is a company which is mainly engaged in the business of purchase of agricultural land and development thereof in collaboration with its holding company M/s DLF Universal Ltd. It is also engaged in selling the developed plots to the holding company or to the nominees of the holding company. Apart from this the assessee company also derives income from house property and hiring of motor vehicles....

Shri P. Subba Rao and ors. Vs. Andhra Association (Regd.) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ201

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 20th December, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby two applications filed by the appellants herein under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, registered as is No. 5642/2004 in CS(OS) No. 945/2004 titled R. Damodar and Ors. v. Andhra Association, Delhi (Regd.) and Ors. and is Nos. 7848-49/2004 7848-49/2004 in CS(OS) No. 1328/2004 titled P. Subba Rao and Ors. v. Andhra Association, Delhi (Regd.) and Ors. were dismissed. As in both these appeals the appellants are challenging the common order dated 20th December, 2006 and the reliefs sought for are also similar, we dispose of these two appeals by this common judgment and order. 2. The aforesaid applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of interim injunction were filed in the aforesaid two suits, challenging the election process of the Andhra Association (respondent No. 1 herein). The...

Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. the Commissioner of Food and Supplies and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)CTLJ263(Del); 2008(102)DRJ388

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 1st November, 2007 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant as a writ petitioner was dismissed. 2. The appellant herein was issued a Fair Price Shop license in 1979 for Majlis Park. In terms of the said license, the appellant was required to be engaged in the sale of controlled commodities, offered through the Public Distribution System. The appellant operated the said license till 2000. A plea was taken in the writ petition filed by the appellant that from 25th July, 2000 to 25th January, 2001, he was seriously ill and was, thereforee, unable to operate the license or offer Public Distribution System commodities for sale to the public. The appellant was served a memo dated 23rd November, 2000, which was replied to by the appellant by submitting a reply on 28th January, 2001 wherein he stated that he was suffering from Typhoid. On 11th March, 2003 a notice was iss...

A.K. Gajwani Vs. Airports Authority of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ437

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by order dated 27th January, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. The appellant joined the respondent Authority on 19th October, 1977 as Assistant Engineer and was posted in Delhi. By order dated 20th December, 1982 the appellant was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) but on ad hoc basis, in the pay scale of Rs. 1250-1700. On 4th March, 1987 while the appellant was working as Executive Engineer he was transferred to Madras by the respondent Authority. On 20th July, 1987 the appellant was directed to appear before the selection committee for interview for the purpose of regularising his service in the cadre of Executive Engineer (Civil) and, thereafter, on 4th November, 1987 the appellant was promoted as Executive Engineer on regular basis and placed on probation for a period of one year. 3. While the appellant was...

NavIn Bhatia and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT37; 2008(102)DRJ189

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The present public interest petition was filed by the occupants of the area in the Yusuf Sarai/ Gulmohar Enclave Commercial Complex and the Community Centre Occupants Association alleging illegal construction on plot No. 16, which was named as N-161, N-161/A, M-161 and B-161/4. The writ petition was filed praying for a direction to the respondents to stop the unauthorised and illegal constructions and seal the building which, as per the petitioners, has come up on acquired public land at Gulmohar Enclave Commercial Complex.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that at plot No. 16 of the Commercial Complex, unauthorised constructions have come up without any sanctioned plan. It was alleged that the parking area in front of the said plot has also been encroached and a building has been constructed thereupon. As per the petitioners, on inquiry they found that the said plot is yet to be auctioned by the DDA, and the construction thereon is not only without any ap...

Vatika Farms Private Limited Through Its Director, Sh. Anil Bhalla and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Del)37; 2008(102)DRJ356; [2008]98ITR302(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. By this order, we propose to deal with the existing grievances of the Petitioners, at a prima facie and interim stage, in a batch of over a hundred writ petitions. Learned Counsel for all the parties were heard on these grievances from 17th to 20th March, 2008 when orders were reserved.2. In this particular writ petition (along with a few connected writ petitions), we had earlier passed a detailed interim order on 18th December, 2007 and the present order is really a continuation thereof.3. The Petitioners have challenged the provisions of Sections 245D(2A), 245D(2D), 245D(4A) and 245HA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as being arbitrary and unconstitutional. There is also a challenge to some provisions of the Finance Bill, 2008 but we are presently not concerned with that.4. The challenge has arisen out of amendments to the Act by the Finance Act, 2007. The effect of the amendments is that where a settlement application has been filed under Section 245C of...