Delhi Court June 2008 Judgments

Smt. Krishna Verma and Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)113ITD655(Delhi)

1. These appeals of the assessee were decided by the Tribunal vide consolidated order dt. 9th March, 2007 reported as Smt. Krishna Verma v. Asstt. CIT (2007) 109 TTJ (Del) (SB) 193Ed. Thereafter, the assessee filed miscellaneous applications bearing Nos. 327 and 264/Del/2007. The said miscellaneous applications were disposed of by the Tribunal vide consolidated order dt. 24th Aug., 2007.2. In the miscellaneous applications filed, the grievance of the assessee was that the Tribunal had decided only one ground of appeal which related to the defect in the notice issued under Section 158BC by giving less than 15 days notice to the assessee to file block return and this Tribunal did not adjudicate upon the other grounds of appeal raised in the above appeals filed by the assessee. Since the Special Bench constituted to decide whole of the appeal and certain other legal grounds involving jurisdictional aspect, which were raised but have not been adjudicated upon, there was a mistake in the o...

Bal Kishan Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ379

G.S. Sistani, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment dated 17.12.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the judgment dated 10.10.2007 and the order of sentence dated 27.10.2007 have been confirmed. The petitioner herein has been convicted for Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 279 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 304A IPC.2. The case set up by the prosecution is that on 13.9.1998 an accident had taken place at about 1:30 p.m. when the deceased along with his brother was going towards a mosque to offer prayer via Wazirabad Road, Loni Flyover. When they reached the Flyover one truck bearing No. HR26A-7256 driven at very fast speed came from behind and hit the deceased which resulted in his death. A report was lodged by the brother of the deceased, which...

Commissioner of Police and ors. Vs. Rajender Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT322; 2008(104)DRJ176

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The aforesaid two writ petitions have been filed by:(i) The Commissioner of Police i.e. WP(C) No. 5716/2000 arising out of the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 969/1999 'Rajender Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.' dated 10.02.2000 and in R.A. No. 239/2000 in O.A. No. 969/1999 dated 17.08.2000, and;(ii) Prem Singh i.e. WP(C) No. 1925/2006 arising out of the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 498/2004 'Prem Singh v. NCT of Delhi and Ors.' dated 15.07.2005.2. By the impugned order dated 10.02.2000 in O.A. No. 969/1999 and in R.A. No. 239/2000 dated 17.08.2000, the Tribunal directed the petitioners Commissioner of Police and the other authorities to take further action under the relevant rules and instructions to regularise the services of the respondents in the said petition taking into account the observations of the Tribunal, within three months and the Tribunal rejected the review applica...

National Ability S.A. Vs. Tinna Oil and Chemicals Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR37(Delhi); 2008(105)DRJ446

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner had, by a Charter Party dated 29.4.1995, on a Gencon form, chartered the vessel 'AMAZON REEFER' to the respondent No. 1 herein for a voyage from Kandla to Novorossiysk. The said charter party contained the terms and conditions on which the vessel was chartered. It also contained an arbitration agreement in Clause 29 thereof which, inter alia, provided that in the event of disputes between the parties, the same could be settled through arbitration in London according to English Law. Disputes and differences arose between the parties and, accordingly, the matter was referred to arbitration in London. The said Arbitral Tribunal, which comprised of three arbitrators, has given award dated 19.11.1998.2. The petitioner herein had initially filed a suit for enforcement of this award. However, realizing that no such suit is required to be filed inasmuch as such an award, even when it is a foreign award, is enforceable and executable under the Arbitration and Con...

Shri Alla Rakha S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Since in both these OAs common question is raised and they were clubbed together, they are being disposed off by common order. For the purposes of narrating facts, OA No. 1533/2007 is being taken as lead case.2. It is stated by the applicant that he was initially engaged as a causal labour and has been working since then completing more than 240 days in each year. He was regularised in 1993 when he was already 52 years of age. He superannuated on 30.9.2001. He thus completed 8 years of regular service. If 50% of his working from 1960 to 1993 is counted, it comes to 16.1/2 years thus his total qualifying service comes to 16.1/2 + 8 = 24 years. However, no retrial benefits have been given to him viz. pension, DCRG etc.3. Two similarly situated persons viz. Shri Risal and Niader Chand filed OA No. 795 and 796 of 2006 in this Tribunal. Both the OAs were allowed on 7.8.2006 (page 21 at 26) whereby respondents were directed to take 50% of service rendered by him from the year 1980 till 1...

Baldev Sigh Bhatti S/O Shri Kartar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. MA No. 2044/2206 has been filed under Rule 4 (5) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together in one application as this OA has been filed by three applicants. Since grievance of all the applicants is same, this MA is allowed. MA No.2078/2006 in OA No. 2399/2006 2. MA No. 2078/2206 has been filed under Rule 4 (5) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together in one application as this OA has been filed by thirteen applicants. Since grievance of all the applicants is same, this MA is allowed.3. OA Nos. 2377/2006 and 2399/2006 were clubbed together and have been heard together. Since grievance raised in both these OAs is same, with the consent of parties, both these OAs are being disposed off by this common order. For the purposes of narrating facts, OA No. 2377/07 is taken as a lead case.4. In both these OAs applicants have sought a direction to the respondents to give re-employment to the applicants from the date ...

Mukesh Kumar Bhatia Son of Shri Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The relief prayed for by the applicant is for a direction to be issued to the respondents to treat him as having been appointed as Accountant on regular basis, effective from 10.01.2000 and grant him all consequential benefits in the matters of promotion and pay. The writ petition filed before the High Court had been transferred to this Tribunal, on 08.10.2007.2. The applicant qualified the test and was selected as Lower Division Clerk, during 1982. According to the applicant, he was having a disability of 40% and on the advent of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, he should be awarded accelerated promotions, taking notice of his disability and to the quota that may be available in the matter of promotion to handicapped persons. It is evident that he had been promoted as an Upper Division Clerk, effective from 20.11.1989. In the matter of promotions, he had put up a claim before the Chief Commissioner for Pers...

Parveen Sharma S/O Shri H.L. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In view of the difference of opinion between Hon'ble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) and Hon'ble Mrs. Chitra Chopra, Member (A), in the matter of grant of reliefs, by orders of the Chairman dated 20.02.2008, the matter had been placed before me. I had an opportunity to hear Mr.A.K. Behera, who appeared on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Mrs. Lata Gangwani, appeared for the respondents.2. The brief facts, which led to the filing of the O.A. could be stated hereinbelow: 3. The applicant had participated in the Civil Services Examination (CSE), 2005, and he had qualified in the preliminary examination. Along with others, he was obliged to appear for the General Studies Papers-I and II Main Examination. Examinations were scheduled to be held on 21.10.2005, 22.10.2005, 23.10.2005, 30.10.2005 and 06.11.2005. It is his case that on 21.10.2005 after completing the examination while on his way home, he had met with an accident and had been hospitalized, due to fracture to his r...

Raghubir Singh S/O Shri Sheo Dhan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant had joined the post of Deputy Registrar in the Central Administrative Tribunal, on 08.05.1992 on deputation basis. He had been permanently absorbed on the above said post, effective from 06.08.1995.In due course, the officer had been promoted as Registrar (outlying Benches).2. In seniority list of 17.02.2005, applicant, according to him, had been given appropriate place. He had a stint of deputation and later came to notice that in a revised draft seniority list, he had been shown as having joined the services of Central Administrative Tribunal only in the year 1995, based on the date of his absorption.Resultantly, the service rendered by him in the parent Department in an analogous post was refused to be taken notice of. This was not in consonance with law. The present application has been filed in the aforesaid circumstances, counsel submits.3. Applicant urged that he is entitled to get his seniority restored, from 01.10.1988 and the consequential exercises, had to ...

Shri S.K. Srivastava S/O Late B.S. Vs. Sri P.K. Mishra, Chairman,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This is an application filed by the applicant in O.A 718/2007 urging that proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are to be initiated against the seven respondents, named in the application. It is alleged that there is no due compliance by them of the order passed by this Tribunal dated 27.09.2007 in the OA.2. The applicant is an IRS Officer, currently facing disciplinary action. By an order-dated 30.3.2007, he had been placed under suspension. Contending that it was malafide, and brought about for extraneous reasons, the veracity of the order had been subjected to challenge.3. A Bench, by order-dated 27.09.2007, had held that without going to the merits of the contentions that OA was being disposed of; but within two weeks of the order the respondents were to communicate the reasons for suspension. In the course of the order, the Tribunal held that the revision order also was being set aside, with a direction to pass fresh orders.4. Applicant by his request dated 24.10.2007 h...