Delhi Court April 2008 Judgments

Shri Amrit Lal S/O Shri Chiranji Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA applicant has sought direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders to treat the intervening period from the date of dismissal to the date from service till the date of reinstatement as the period spent on duty as per rules and give him all consequential benefits such as, seniority, promotion, pay fixation etc.2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was appointed as Khalasi in the year 1975 and was posted in the Carriage and Wagon Department of the then Northern Railway at Tundla. He was promoted as Stationary Plant Attendant (hereinafter referred to as SPA) in the grade of Rs. 950-1500 in Group 'C'. While working as such, he was falsely implicated in a criminal case and convicted under Sections 304 read with Section 324 of the IPC. On the basis of above conviction, notice dated 5.6.1992 was given to the applicant as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Applicant gave his reply but he was removed from service vide order dated 5.6.1992 by attractin...

Dr. Narendra Nath Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ655

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seeks to challenge an order dated 7th March, 2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), Delhi in Complaint Case No. 366 of 2001 titled Radha Yadav v. Narendra Nath and Ors. and also seeks the quashing of the Complaint Case itself 'along with the proceedings emanating there from qua the Petitioner.'2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that an FIR No. 191 of 2001 was registered on 15th August, 2001 under Sections 147/148/149/186/332/353/427 IPC read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Public Property Act, 1984 at police station Krishna Nagar.3. The case of the prosecution in the said FIR is that at about 8.25 pm on 15th August, 2001 an information was received through the wireless that certain people had blocked the traffic at Aggarwal Sweet Chowk Road No. 57 and on receipt of the said information when SI Sunil Kumar proceeded to the spot, he found ...

Pragati Educational and Welfare Society Vs. Delhi Development Authorit ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT225; 2008(102)DRJ663

Reva Khetrapal, J.CM No.11149/2007For the reasons set out in the application, delay of 35 days in filing the appeal is condoned.Application stands disposed of accordingly.LPA 1161/2007 and CM No.11148/20071. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and order dated 15th May, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No. 20890/2005 titled Pragati Educational & Welfare v. D.D.A.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are as follows. The appellant Society was allotted a plot of land on perpetual leasehold basis measuring 800 sq. m. for construction of a Nursery School, at Pocket 5, Jasola, New Delhi by the respondent DDA vide allotment letter dated 28th September, 2001. The terms of payment of the said allotment were that the appellant was required to pay the cost of land @ 80 lakhs per acre, i.e., a total sum of Rs. 39,22,753/-. Clause 22 and 23 of the allotment letter, which are relevant to the present case, read as follows:22. If the a...

Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. M.L. Aggarwal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT291; 2008(102)DRJ702; [2008(117)FLR1126]; (2008)IIILLJ265Del; 2009(1)SLJ238(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. As both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 6th October, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in one writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 638/1989, thereforee, they were taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. A departmental proceeding was instituted against Sh. M.L. Aggarwal, the writ petitioner who, at the relevant time, was posted as the General Manager of Adilabad unit of respondent No. 1, Cement Corporation of India. Alleging misconduct on the part of the writ petitioner, a charge sheet was served on him which was dated 22nd August, 1986 with the following charges:Article-ISh. M.L. Agarwal, while functioning as General Manager, CCI, Adilabad Cement Factory, during December, 84 accepted an unsolicited offer of M/s Deep Auto & Allied Industries, Hyderabad, with the intention to cause undue favor to the firm in the matter of procurement of Buckets for Deep Bucket Conveyor. Tota...

Subhash Chander Sehgal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Del)139

ORDERCM No. 5279/2008 (Stay)1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. CM stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 2737/20083. Notice.4. Learned Counsel for the respondents accepts notice and seeks sometime to file a counter-affidavit. She may do so within one week. Rejoinder, if any, thereto be filed within a week thereafter.5. List on 10th April, 2008.CM No. 5278/2008 (Stay)6. Notice.7. Learned Counsel for the respondents accepts notice and seeks sometime to file a reply. She may do so within one week. Rejoinder, if any, thereto be filed within a week thereafter.8. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, a return had been filed for the asst. yr. 2004-05 on 29th Aug., 2004. The return of income was for an amount of Rs. 3,84,710.As against the return of income for Rs. 3.84 lakhs, an assessment order was passed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act') on 28th Dec, 2006 wherein the income of the assessed was determined at Rs. 6,29,12,450. Learned Counsel for...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajesh Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Del)691; [2008]306ITR27(Delhi)

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 22nd Sept., 2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi (the Tribunal') in ITA No. 5425/Del/2004 relevant for the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. The present appeal has arisen out of reassessment proceedings. The reopening is not under challenge because that was decided in favour of the Revenue. The dispute is on the merits of the controversy that is concerning an addition of Rs. 4,89,325 made under Section 69 of the IT Act, 1961 (the 'Act') as income from undisclosed sources.3. It appears that the assessee had claimed a deduction under Section 54F of the Act in respect of a long-term capital gain of Rs. 4,89,325 on account of sale of shares of M/s Nilamber Holdings Ltd. and the amount was invested in the purchase of a house property.4. The AO was of the view that the earning of capital gains through the sale of shares was not genuine. He based his view on a report received from Dy. Director of IT (Inv.), Gurgaon [D...

Kmecco Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Iaec Industries Madras Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ950Del

ORDERHima Kohli, J.1. The present applications have been filed on behalf of the regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Ambattur, Tamil Nadu. While E.A. No. 88/2004 is filed under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. for seeking impleadment in the present proceedings, E.A. No. 89/2004 is filed under Order 38, Rule 4, C.P.C. praying inter alia for setting aside the orders dated September 2, 2002 and February 10, 2003, passed in the present proceedings. Both the aforesaid applications are proposed to be disposed of by this common order.2. Before embarking on the submissions made by the parties, it is relevant to cull out the brief facts relevant to dispose of the aforesaid applications.3. The decree holder has filed the present petition against the judgment debtor for execution of a decree dated April 26, 2001, passed in CS (OS) No. 240/2001, which was based on a compromise arrived at between the parties and reduced into writing by way of a compromise application. It was recorded ...

Shri Abhinandan Sharma S/O Late Vs. Commissioner Excise, Entt and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The Applicant is aggrieved that he was placed under suspension by the Commissioner (Excise) of Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) by order dated 14.08.2007, which was revoked by order dated 15.11.2007 with effect from 12.11.2007 because it was not reviewed within ninety days of the original suspension order dated 14.08.2007 and then he was again placed under suspension with immediate effect from 15.11.2007.Suspension orders dated 14.08.2007 and 15.11.2007 (Annexure A-1 Colly.) have been challenged in this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.2. Briefly, the facts of the case reveal that the Applicant is an LDC in Grade IV of Delhi Administration Subordinate Service (DASS). He had been posted in Excise Department of GNCTD since 2005. By an order dated 26.06.2007 of the Secretary of Services Department of GNCTD, second Respondent herein, the Applicant was transferred with immediate effect to the office of Chief Electoral Officer. The order further state...

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Jaipur Golden Charitable Clinic ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]311ITR365(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961( for short as Act ) against the order dated 1st May, 2007 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench G (for short as Tribunal ) in ITA Nos. 3649 and 3317/Del/05 relevant for the assessment year 2001-02.2. The brief facts leading to dispute are that the assessed is a Charitable Trust registered under Section 12A(1) of the Act. It is running a hospital called Jaipur Golden Hospital at 2-Institutional Area, Rohini, New Delhi. It filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2000-01 declaring Nil income. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that assessed had received donations from 61 consulting doctors who had opted to give donations of Rs. 10,000/- each under the terms and conditions. According to the terms and conditions, the assessed was entitled to deduct 20% of the consulting charges and the balance amount to be paid to the consulti...

Ajay Gulati Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, Ministry of Fi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(127)ECC55; 2008(153)LC55(Delhi); 2008(228)ELT177(Del)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Both these petitions involve same question of law with almost same factual foundation. thereforee, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. Crl. M.C. No. 1108/20072. Brief facts of this case are that on the basis of specific information, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted the petitioner Ajay Gulati while he was entering security lounge at departure hall of I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi on the night intervening 11/12th August, 2002. He was scheduled to travel by Flight No. TG-316 for Bangkok. As a result of detailed examination of his bag as well as his personal search, 4,500 U.S. dollars were recovered from the personal search of the petitioner while from his baggage 15,000 (Traveler s Cheque) U.S. dollars were recovered.3. On enquiry, petitioner Ajay Gulati explained the recovery of U.S.$ 4,500 from his personal possession as amount brought by him on his arrival from Hong Kong on 2nd August, 2002.4. In the absence of any true...