Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments

Shri Manoj Aggarwal, Bemco Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. ITA No. 163/Asr./2003 (assessment year 1998-99) is an appeal by the assessee - Tejinder Singh (HUF). It arises out of the assessment made on it under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act by order dated 27.3.2001. In this assessment order, an addition of Rs. 16,80,475/- was made under Section 168 of the Act. The amount represented sale proceeds of jewellery which had earlier been disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure Income Scheme, 1997. The jewellery was shown to have been sold to M/s. Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar, a firm of jewellers located in Delhi. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the sale and held that the assessee has adopted a device to introduce his own unaccounted income into the regular books. The addition was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and the assessee has come in further appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon'ble President took into account the recommendation of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal dated 18.12.2006 and also the fact that the matter was of public importa...

Majenderan Langeswaran Vs. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ43; 152(2008)DLT282; 2008(105)DRJ285

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The appellant was held guilty under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted for commission of murder of one L. Shivaraman by a judgment dated 9th August, 2002 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, RI for one day by an order dated 5th September, 2002. He is in appeal against such conviction and sentence.2. The facts leading to trial unfold that the appellant as also L. Shivaraman, deceased, were helmsmen/seamen on a Cargo Ship Motor Vessel 'Lok Prem' owned by Shipping Corporation of India which was chartered by a South African private company for carrying chrome alloy. The ship was on its voyage from South Africa to Japan via Singapore. On way to Singapore its auto pilot turned dysfunctional. Necessary repair could not be carried out for non-availability of technicians on board and the ship had, thus, to be manually steered by helmsmen. The helmsmen on board led by the appell...

Shri Avineshwar Sawhney Vs. J.K. Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT712; 2008(105)DRJ385; [2008(119)FLR772]; (2009)IILLJ217Del

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The appellant herein (plaintiff in the Suit) was an employee of the respondent J.K.Industries Ltd. He was employed as Production Manager in the Tyres and Tubes Division of the respondent vide appointment letter dated 4.9.1975. A service agreement was also executed between the appellant and the respondent on 24.10.1975. After few months the respondent sent the appellant to America for training at the plant of the General Tyres International at Akron-OHIO and Waco-Texas. An agreement for training abroad was also executed in this behalf on 6.1.1976. After completion of the training course in the United States of America the appellant returned to India and rejoined his duties on 5.4.1977 as a Production Manager. 2. Five months after resumption of duties, his services were terminated vide letter dated 6.9.1977 and he was asked to settle his dues at the Head Office at New Delhi. The appellant challenged his termination by filing Suit No. 746/1978 in this Court. The case put ...

Shri Barku Choudhary, S/O Shri Brahm Dev Choudhary Vs. Sh. Bhim Singh, ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ418

V.B. Gupta, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the judgment dated 07.08.98 passed by Sh. Rakesh Kapoor, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as the 'Tribunal'), Delhi.2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal for this appeal are that the Appellant, Barku Chaudhary had suffered injuries in an accident involving Maruti Car No. DNC-2265. It is alleged that on 07.06.90, the Appellant boarded a DTC bus from Peera Garhi, Rohtak Road, Delhi. At about 3.30 pm, he got down from this bus at DTC bus stop, J.J.Colony, Madipur, New Delhi and was going towards his house at F-177, J.J. Colony, Madipur, New Delhi after crossing the Rohtak Road. In the meanwhile, Maruti Car bearing regd. No. DNC-2265 came from the side of PeeraGarhi and hit the Appellant, as a result of which the Appellant received multiple injuries. He was removed to E.S.I. Hospital and remained there under medical treatment for a month.3. The Appellant filed the claim petition seeking compens...

Sh. Jasbir Sobti and ors. Vs. Sh. Surender Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT258; 2008(105)DRJ690

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The appellants herein had filed CS(OS) No. 883/2003. In this suit the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs') had prayed for money decree. The suit was instituted on 5.4. 2003. This suit has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 5.10.2007, as according to the learned Single Judge, the plaintiff had not cared to take proper and appropriate steps for prosecuting the same. This appeal is preferred impugning the said order dated 5.10.2007. In order to appreciate as to whether the plaintiff was prosecuting the said suit with due diligence, we had summoned the suit file and have gone through the order-sheet. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire history of the case. We may state the events after the plaintiff amended the suit. 2. After the plaintiff was allowed to amend the plaint, time was granted to the defendant to file the written statement to the amended plaint and the matter was fixed by the Joint Registrar on 2.3.2006 for ...

Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (Dsgmc) and ors. Vs. Union o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT132; 2008(106)DRJ241

Vipin Sanghi, J.WP(C) No. 4584/2008Rule.CM No. 8838/20081. The petitioners viz. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (DSGMC), Shri Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa College, Shri Guru Nank Dev P.G. College, Shri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce, Mata Sundri College for Women have jointly filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the aforesaid four colleges, namely, petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 which are being managed by the petitioner No. 1 DSGMC are Minority Educational Institutions (MEI for short) within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 (NCMEI Act for short) and Section 2(f) of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (CEI (R and A) Act for short). They have also sought a declaration that the reservation policy of the Central Government for admission and recruitment of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is not enforceable against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5. A direction is also sought th...

Mr. Y.R. Midha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT692

Manmohan, J.1. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing and setting aside of the judgment and order dated 11th July, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') in OA No. 3462/2001 as well as his dismissal order dated 27th September, 2001 passed by Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner has further prayed for his reinstatement in service and for payment of all consequential and connected service benefits as well as grant of monetary compensation of rupees one lakh and disciplinary action against members of Staff Association who had agitated against the Petitioner on 18th August, 1999.2. The material facts of this case are that Ms. Deepa Sharma, a Stenographer working in the office of Petitioner, who was posted as Principal Director of Audit (SD), filed two complaints of sexual harassment against the Petitioner. The English translation of the said two complaints dated 18th and 23rd August, 1999 are reproduced hereinbelow:From the day Pr...

Dipika Lal and anr. Vs. VipIn Kumar Gupta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ266

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 'CrPC') are between the same parties and raise common questions. Accordingly, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. These petitions have been filed by the wife and father-in-law of the respondent No. 1 seeking quashing of five different complaint cases filed by him against them and certain others under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and which pending in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), New Delhi against them.3. Petitioner No. 1 was married to the respondent No. 1 on 14th February 1997. They have two children, a daughter Damini and a son Timmi. A twin born with Timmi expired 15 days after his birth.4. Respondent No. 1 was working as a judicial officer in Delhi. By a notification dated 22nd January 1999 the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi terminated his services on the recommendation of this Court. Prior thereto, respondent No. 1 was placed under...

Eon Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise-i

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(234)ELT424(Del)

Badar Durrez ahmed, J.1. In this writ petition, the only question raised is with regard to the waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty/penalty which has been imposed upon the petitioner.2. Earlier, by an adjudication order dated 12.05.2000, duty and penalty aggregating to approximately Rs. 5.00 crores were imposed on the petitioner. There was also a direction for confiscation of the plant and machinery and other goods lying in the factory premises. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and also moved an application for waiver of pre-deposit. By an order dated 01.11.2000, the tribunal required the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 15.00 lac and waived deposits in respect of the balance amount for hearing of the appeal.3. The petitioner company was facing acute financial hardships and therefore, it made an application for modification of this order. The same was allowed by virtue of the order dated 04.01.2001 ...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ansal Properties and Ind. (Pvt.) Lt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]315ITR225(Delhi); [2009]178TAXMAN201(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Admit.2. The following substantial questions of law arise for our consideration:(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had not erred in holding that no surcharge could be levied with reference to the search conducted before 01.06.2006, the effective date of insertion of the proviso in Section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had not erred in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax had no power to initiate proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?3. The counsel for the parties agree that the appeal may be taken up for disposal straight away and nothing further needs to be filed.4. The facts are that a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') was conducted in the case of the assessee on 10.02.2000. The block assessment in this case was completed by the As...