Delhi Court April 2008 Judgments

Nirmalya Dey, Composer, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA three applicants, who are Music Composers in Grade-IV, have sought a direction to the respondents to revise the Recruitment Rules in respect of Music Composers with a view to remove stagnation and introduce the multi-grade structure as available to Instrumentalists. They have also sought a direction to respondent No. 3 to implement the decision taken vide letter dated 14.8.1996 to remove the anomaly by stepping up the pay of Music Composers in accordance with FR 22 (1)(a)(1) revising the pay-scale of the applicants w.e.f.1.1.1996 2. Their grievance is that even though the educational qualification required for Music Composers is higher than the Instrumentalists in All India Radio and Instrumentalists have to perform under the guidance and supervision of Music Composers, yet Instrumentalists are getting higher pay scale than them because of multi-grade pay structure made available to the Instrumentalists.3. For recruitment to the post of Music Composers, there is a minimu...

Shri Ravi Kumar S/O Shri Bhola Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA, applicant has challenged order dated 18.10.2002 (page 21) whereby applicant was compulsorily retired from service and order dated 30.11.2006 whereby his appeal was rejected. He has also sought directions to the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was appointed as a labourer w.e.f. 11.01.1990. On 01.03.2001 he was served with a show cause notice (page 27) calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him as he has remained absent from duty without prior permission w.e.f. 4.12.2000 till date.3. Applicant replied he was sick due to psychological problems for which he is taking treatment from RML shall resume duty as soon as declared fit (page 28). He joined the duties yet memorandum dated 29.11.2001 was served on him on three charges: That the said Shri Ravi Kumar while functioning as Lab in Yard Group of CVD Delhi Cantt during the period from Dec 2000 to Mar 2001 rema...

Vinedale Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]145CompCas396(Delhi)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a mandamus for respondent No. 3, i.e., Dena Bank to accept the payment of Rs. 2.5 crores as one time settlement, in terms of the RBI guidelines and to close the account of the petitioner. The other direction sought is that Dena Bank should be directed to disclose, by way of an affidavit, list of OTS proposals disposed of by it after the publication of various circulars of RBI for OTS and to set aside the notice dated 16th August, 2005 issued by Dena Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act).2. The facts in nutshell relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the Dena Bank, Banks Street Hyderabad had given various credit facilities to the petitioner company by way of cash credit, term loan etc demand loan, funded interest loan etc. The total...

Panacea Biotec Ltd. Vs. D.D.A. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT486; 2008(103)DRJ213

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner-M/s. Panacea Biotech Limited has filed the present Writ Petition for restoration of the Sub-lease Deed dated 17th April, 1978 relating to property No. B-1 Extension, A-27, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'property', for short) and for quashing of notice/order dated 19th October, 2000 issued by Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA, for short) cancelling the Sub-lease Deed. Another prayer made in the Writ Petition is for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent-DDA to convert 'leasehold rights' in the 'property' into freehold rights.2. The ''property'' was originally allotted to one, Mr. Ram Prakash under a perpetual Sub-Lease Deed dated 17th April, 1978. The petitioner, which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is a subsequent purchaser who bought the property in July 1995. The question relating to transfer of the ''property'' without permission of DDA and c...

Sangeeta Exports (P) Ltd., Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secret ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Del)605; [2009]311ITR258(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2007 passed under Section 279 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as 'Act') passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-III, vide which the petition filed by the present Petitioners for compounding the offence under Section 271C(1)/277 of the Act was rejected. It has been prayed in the present writ petition that this Court should issue writs/orders/directions in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order and also issue appropriate writs/orders/directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent-Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-III to pass final orders for compounding the offence, subject to the petitioners depositing the composition fee of Rs. 3,98,830/- in terms of the Respondent's own order dated 13th February, 2007.2. The brief facts leading to dispute are that the petitioner company (which is a registered private limited co...

Magnum Power Generation Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Del)271; [2009]311ITR332(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 30th September, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' in ITA Nos. 3998/Del/2003 and 4025/Del/2002 relevant for the Assessment Years 2001-2002 and 1998-99 respectively.2. The assessed had given an inter corporate deposit on 22nd September, 1995 to M/s Padmini Polymer Ltd. (for short 'PPL') for a period of 90 days with interest @ 24% p.a. The inter corporate deposit was renewed from time to time. 3. It appears that PPL did not return the amount to the assessed because of lack of adequate funds. It furthers appears that the assessed received some amounts from PPL in installments but a large part of the amount was not returned to the assessed because the cheque given by PPL was dishonoured. The assessed thereupon initiated proceedings against PPL under the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of the bounced cheque. 4. The assessed also initiated other proceedings to recover the principal amount as ...

Ravissant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.F. Export S.A. (Formerly Known as FranklIn E ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(38)PTC222(Del)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff is a private limited company registered under provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at 24, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110 019 and is, inter alia, involved in the business of running Lifestyle Brand Stores by the name of 'Ravissant' in India as well as abroad. The Defendant is a Company registered under the laws of France registered in the Companies Register for Paris and is inter alias engaged in the business of hair styling salons. The original name of the Defendant was Franklin Export S.A.; it was later changed to D.F. Export S.A.2. It is averred in the suit that on 1.06.2000 a Franchisee Agreement was entered between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for running an exclusive ladies' luxury hair dressing salon at New Delhi under the brand name of 'Jacques Dessange', the defendant's trade name. The agreement was for an initial period of four years; ending on 31.12.2004, but subject to further renewal. There was no Jacque Dessange Salon...

Dr. Sudhir Kumar Seth Vs. State of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT199; 2008(104)DRJ68

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. At the outset learned Counsel for the respondent states that the additional affidavit and rejoinder filed by the petitioner have not been received by him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he would not rely on any part of the additional affidavit or the rejoinder and the matter may be heard on the basis of the petition and the counter affidavit. Accordingly, I have proceeded to hear the learned Counsel at length. 2. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the SHO, P.S. Kalkaji on 14.5.2004 against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 Rajesh Dogra and Rakesh Dogra. The gravamen of the said complaint was that on the said date he had received a threatening and malacious call on his mobile phone from respondent Nos. 2 & 3. It was alleged that Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were notorious/prefessional `goondas' of the area. He further stated that he is an orthopedic surgeon having his clinic at L-1/8 Kalkaji, New Delhi. He had purchased Flat No. L-1/119A, DDA Colony, Kalkaji, New Del...

NitIn JaIn Vs. Murari Lal Behl

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ672

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this suit, the plaintiff seeks a decree against the defendant for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 7.6.1995 in respect of the second floor and terrace thereupon of the property being No. Y-39, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, (hereinafter called 'the suit property' and 'the plot') measuring 200 sq.yds after obtaining Income Tax Clearance Certificate in Form 34-A from the appropriate authorities. Alternatively, in the event the Court finds that decree for specific performance cannot be granted, the plaintiff claims, as alternative relief, a decree for refund of Rs. 4 lakhs along with interest @ 24% per annum calculated with effect from the date of payment which amounts to Rs. 2,56,000/- as well as decree for damages to the tune of Rs. 22 lakhs along with interest, totaling Rs. 28,56,000/-.2. The plaint averments are that one Shri Narender Nath Chadha had purchased the plot through a registered sale deed on 18.3.1959. He sold it to Smt. Ram Lubhai through...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nhk Japan Broadcasting Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Del)392; [2008]305ITR137(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 10th March, 2006 passed by the Tribunal. Delhi Bench 'A' in ITA No. 3032/Del/2001 in respect of the financial year 1990-91.After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we admit this appeal and frame the following substantial question of law for consideration:Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the orders passed under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 are invalid and barred by time having been passed beyond a reasonable period 2. Filing of paper books is dispensed with. Since the question arising in this appeal has arisen in a large number of other appeals, we have heard the matter in full and proceed to deliver judgment rather than merely admitting the matter for taking it up in due course.3. The assessed is a Government company of a foreign country and is carrying on business in India. In respect of its employees in India it pays salary in Indian rupees and also pays something called 'gl...