Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments

Anil Kumar JaIn S/O Raj Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Anil Kumar Jain, the applicant herein, was appointed as Meteorologist Grade-II and thus became a member of the Indian Meteorological Service Group 'A' and posted under administrative authority of the Director General of Meteorology on January 28, 1984 after successfully completing one year training as trainee Meteorologist Grade-II. It is the case of the applicant that he became patient of psychic disease diagnosed by medical authorities of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi by the year 2001 being under continuous state of stress since 1990 when he was posted to Delhi from Agartala.The applicant who claims to be having excellent credentials as a scientist and the skill shown by him during the course of his service, states that the cause of his distress was that his colleagues and seniors being jealous of his merits and skill, became against him. It is his case that he was denied promotion as Director in 1997, and that he was harassed by his seniors each time he exhibited specialized sk...

H.P. Singh, Superintendent Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant in this OA, who is working as Superintendent in the Office of Commissioner of Customs Preventive, New Delhi, (2nd respondent) is questioning the lending of his services on loan basis to the Anti Smuggling Unit, Central Excise and Customs.2. The applicant joined in Central Excise Collectorate, Jaipur on 28.03.1977 as Inspector of Central Excise, on his appointment to that post, subsequently, the Central Excise Collectorate was trifurcated and the applicant opted to join the Central Excise Commissionerate, Delhi on the post of Inspector, the other two collectorates being Jaipur and Chandigarh. He is left with the service of 2 = years by the date of OA (April 2008). Gradually he rose to the post of Superintendent and has been working in the Preventive Commissionerate while so, the Commissionerate of Customs and Preventive (2nd respondent) passed an order dated 05.05.2008 posting the applicant on loan basis for a period of six months in the Anti Smuggling Unit without his...

Shri Ranbir Singh Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ98

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner Shri Ranbir Singh has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus against the respondent directing it to appoint him on the post of Lab Assistant Grade-I.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The respondent i.e., Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University is a university created under Indraprastha Vishwavidhalaya Act, 1998. The respondent had issued an advertisement in the month of June, 2006 and invited applications for non-teaching posts viz., Technical Assistant; Lab Assistant Grade-I; Exam. Asstt./UDC; Jr.DEO; Junior Assistant/LDC and Lab Assistant Grade-II. The applications for these posts were also called for from the employment exchange. Here, in this writ petition this Court is concerned with the filling up of 10 vacant posts for the post of Lab Assistant Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 by the institution of the respondent. The respondent had received 407 applications...

NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Financial Commissioner

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ122

Sanjiv Khanna, J.Background1. Mr. Narain Singh and Mr. Som Dutt (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners, for short) claim that they have purchased 2 bighas 18 bids was and 2 bighas of land, respectively in khasra No. 6/19/2 (min) village Samepur, Delhi vide two separate sale deeds dated 4th May, 1989 executed by one Mr. Maman Singh. The said Mr. Maman Singh is father of Mr. Som Dutt. After purchase of land vide sale deeds dated 4th May, 1989, the petitioners had applied for mutation under the provisions of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue Act). Mr. Maman Singh was a recorded bhumidar of the land till sale deeds were made. Mutation entries were allowed in favor of the petitioners. By the impugned order dated 10th February, 1995 passed by the Financial Commissioner, the mutation entries have been cancelled.Impugned Order2. The Financial Commissioner, has held, that the aforesaid land consisting of 4 bighas and 18 bids was was subject matter of...

Hitendra V. Shah Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order is delivered by Km. Vijay Laxmi, Member Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange: 2. These appeals are filed against common Adjudication Order No. ADJ/92/B/SDE/PKA/2001/794 dt.20.04.01 passed by Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai imposing a penalty of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs only) against Vadilal P. Shah (HUF), Rs. 4,00,000 (Rupees four lakhs only) against Hitendra V. Shah and Rs. 1,30,000 (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) each against Vadilal P. Shah, Smt. Alka H. Shah and Smt. Vasantben V. Shah for contravention of the provisions of Section 9 (1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellants have made payment of the 20% of the amount of penalty, where presently these appeals are taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. This is the second round of litigation where the matter was earlier decided by this Tribunal vide its order dt. 01.04.03 which was set aside by Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai vide its order dt.31.08...

Afchem Industries Vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1-2. These appeals are directed against common adjudication order No. ADJ/129/B/AD/AKL/99, dated 12-4-1999 passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing total penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs each on the appellant firm and individual appellant in appeal Nos. 437/01 and 438/01 besides separate penalties imposed on co-noticees for the reason of failure to furnish evidentiary proof of utilization of foreign exchange remitted in contravention of section 8(3) and 8(4) of FER Act, 1973. By an order dated 24-1-2008 this Tribunal directed the appellants to make pre-deposit of penalty amounts. Despite notice the appellants failed to appear or being represented. Shri A.C. Singh, DLA representing the respondent submits that these appeals have been filed after delay of 1 and half years and are liable to be dismissed for inordinate delay in filing. He further submits for dismissal of these appeals for failure of the appellants to comply with the conditional judicial order. 3. Sub-section (2)...

Smt. Birender Kaur Bajwa Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1-2. By these appeals, appellants have challenged common Adjudication Order No. ADJ/14/2000 DD(KNS), dated 29-2-2000 passed by Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs each on the appellants, i.e., partners of noticee firm for the reason of failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export proceeds in contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973. 3. By an order dated 17-3-2005, after hearing argument from Shri Atishi Dipankar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants this Tribunal permitted the appellants to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs each in their respective appeals within 60 days. It is stated that the appellants have made the pre-deposit. Despite notice appellants failed to appear or being represented. Dr. Shamshuddin, Ld. DLA appearing for the respondent states that on previous occasion, i.e., 1-1-2008, Shri Atishi Dipankar, Ld. Counsel sought adjournment to enable the appellants to obtain permission of write off from RBI. Shri Atishi Dip...

R.C. Gupta, Ex-deputy Director, Vs. Employees State Insurance

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. R.C. Gupta, Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, applicant herein, who superannuated on 31.03.2008, through present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash Memo dated 10.05.2007 (Annexure A-1) issued by the Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation, vide which it has been proposed to hold enquiry against him under Regulation 14 and Para 3 of Third Schedule of the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Staff & Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959 (as amended).2. As per article of charge, the applicant was transferred vide order dated 01.06.2005 and was relieved by Regional Director, Delhi on 09.06.2005 with direction to report for duty at Regional Office, Kolkatta. The applicant, as alleged, did not report for duty at new place of posting, and thus remained unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f. 22.06.2005. In the statement of imputation of m...

inspector Narender Singh Chauhan Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Sequel to a regular departmental enquiry, Narender Singh Chauhan, Inspector in Delhi Police, applicant herein, who was jointly tried with Inspector S.P. Rana, has been held guilty of the charge framed against him by enquiry officer vide his report dated 13.05.2003 (Annexure A-3) and has since been inflicted punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction of pay and other consequential effects and co-delinquent of the applicant Inspector S.P. Rana has also been inflicted the same punishment, vide order dated 26.04.2004. The appeal carried against the order aforesaid has been dismissed by appellate authority vide order dated 07.12.2004.Report of enquiry officer (Annexure A-3) and orders passed by disciplinary and appellate authorities respectively are under challenge in this Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.2. Brief facts of the case reveal that the applicant is an Inspector in Delhi Pol...

income Tax Officer Vs. Ekta Promoters (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)117TTJ(Delhi)289

1. All these appeals are filed by the Revenue and these are directed against the consolidated order of CIT(A) dt. 18th May, 2006 for asst.yrs. 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The only issue raised by the Revenue in these appeals is regarding levy of interest under Section 234D of IT Act, 1961. Grounds raised for all the years are identical except difference in figures. For the sake of convenience grounds of appeal for asst. yr. 1998-99 is reproduced below: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the interest of Rs. 1,04,773 charged under Section 234D of the Act.2. As there was divergence of opinions so as to chargeability of interest under Section 234D, the matter was referred to Hon'ble President for constitution of Special Bench on this issue. Hon'ble President vide his order dt. 11th Oct., 2007 has constituted this Special Bench to answer the following question and also to dispose of the present appeals. Whether, in the...