Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D.D. Sales Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)718; [2008]305ITR254(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 06.10.2004 in IT (SS) No. 278/Del./1997 in respect of the block period 01.04.1986 to 29.08.1996. The ground raised by the assessed in its appeal before the Tribunal was as under:That the search having been conducted on 29.08.1996 /30.08.1996, the assessment made on 31.10.1997, is barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained in Section 158BE(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The impugned order having been passed beyond the period of one year from the end of the month in which the last authorization for search under Section 132 had been executed, the assessment made under Section 158BC, thereforee deserves to be vacated.A reading of the aforesaid ground of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal makes it clear that the question was with regard to the bar of limitation in making an assessment order for the block period under Section 158BC. The l...

Aakash Jindal Vs. the Registrar Co-op Societies and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT562; 2008(106)DRJ126

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, by this writ petition, seeks quashing of the order dated 19.12.2006 passed by the Financial Commissioner in the revision petition under Section 80 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 and order dated 11.3.2002 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Society to transfer the interest of membership of Smt. Devki Devi in favour of the petitioner in the Society and consequently allot a flat to him.2. Petitioner claims to be the grandson of late Smt. Devki Devi, a member of respondent No. 2-Society. Petitioner's father, Dr. S.K. Jindal had also at one stage staked his claim for devolution of the membership of Smt. Janki Devi on him. The facts relevant for purposes of the present petition may be briefly noted :It is the petitioner's case that Smt. Devki Devi was a member of respondent-Saraswati Cooperative Group Housing Society vide membership No. 27. A share certificate No. 19 dated 30th January,...

Shri Rana Inderjit Singh Vs. Kembiotic Laboratories and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT86

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. This is an application for leave to defend the suit for recovery of Rs. 53,50,000/- with future interest at 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization, filed under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The suit has been filed on the basis of eleven dishonoured cheques dated from 20th December, 2002 to 25th January, 2004, for varying amounts totaling Rs. 53,50,000/- issued by the defendant No. 1 firm, in which the defendant Nos 2 to 4 are partners, in the name of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is a permanent resident of Canada and is engaged in export business of Bio Chemical products and used to provide raw materials to the defendants; that in the year 2001, the defendants offered the plaintiff to collaborate with the defendants' business on 50% share holding basis and requested the plaintiff to advance loan of Rs. 53,50,000/- and assured the plaintiff that after receiving the said amou...

Mr. Z.D. Wankhede S/O Shri D.S. Vs. Gnct of Delhi Through Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This OA was initially disposed off vide judgment dated 13.1.2007 by a detailed order. However, subsequently applicant filed RA No. 47/2005 on the ground that though reference was made to order dated 20.11.198 but the said order dated 20.11.1998 was not placed on record whereas as per Recruitment Rules promulgated on 14.6.2000 for the post of Project Officer, the post of Soil Conservation Officer (hereafter referred to as SCO) still continued to be the feeder post for promotion. In view of above, RA was allowed on 14.8.2007. It is in these circumstances that the matter has again come up before us.2. Applicant has sought benefit of Ist ACP I the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15200 on the ground that his next hierarchical post is that of Project Officer.3. It is stated by the applicant that he was initially appointed as SCO on 4.4.1987 in the pay scale of Rs. 650-1200 in Development Department.In the year 1987, Development Department was bifurcated and a new Department was carved out of it ...

Hc Vijay Pal S/O Jhander Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Head Constable Vijay Pal, the applicant herein, sequel to a regular departmental enquiry conducted against him and his co-delinquents, namely, W/ASI Murti Devi, Const. Rajesh and Const. Satender, has since been inflicted with the punishment of censure. The enquiry officer in his report dated 13.9.2005 (Annexure A-3) held a part of the charge substantiated against the applicant and his co-delinquent Const.Rajesh, while holding the charge against W/ASI Murti Devi and Const.Satender as not proved. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer inflicted punishment of censure, insofar as the applicant and Const. Rajesh are concerned and exonerated W/ASI Murti Devi and Const. Satender, vide order dated 17.4.2006 (Annexure A-1). Appeal preferred by the applicant against the order aforesaid has since been dismissed vide order dated 19.1.2007 (Annexure A-2). Challenge in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Ac...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Harbans Singh and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR276(Delhi); 2008(105)DRJ60

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Appellant-DDA has preferred this appeal impugning the judgment dated 17th September, 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 2076-A/1990. The learned Single Judge dismissed the objections filed by the appellant-DDA vide I.A No. 11358/1990, against the arbitral award dated 28th March, 1990. With the dismissal of is 11358/1990 i.e the objections under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940, the arbitral award dated 28th March, 1990, was made rule of the court except that the award granting future interest by the Arbitrator was set aside. The learned Single Judge while making the award rule of the court directed payment of interest @ 12% p.a on the awarded amount in respect of claim Nos. 1 to 6 from the date of award till payment. It was further ordered if the awarded amount of Rs. 7,86,245.08 together with interest @ 9% p.a and costs of Rs. 5000/- as awarded by the Arbitrator were paid within two months from 17th September, 1992, t...

Sh. Sushil Kumar Vs. Mcd and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ55

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner belongs to reserve category and he is a handicap person, his left leg below knee having been amputated on account of injuries sustained by him in a train accident suffered by him in the year 2000. The petitioner worked for 16 days from 09.11.1996 to 25.11.1996 and again for four months from 21.07.2006 to 30.11.2006 as Domestic Breeding Checker on contractual basis with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the respondent herein. He was denied contractual appointment as Domestic Breeding Checker in the year 2007 on the ground that he was not capable of performing the duties required to be performed by a Domestic Breeding Checker, he being a handicapped person.2. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for a writ of mandamus to the respondent directing it to appoint him as Domestic Breeding Checker in the next season commencing in the month of March-April, 2008 and in future seasons as well on the basis of his seniority. The prayer made in this ...

Trinity Institute of Higher Education Vs. Govt. Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ167

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The petitioner is a private institute imparting higher education being run by Kamal Education Society registered under Societies Registration Act 1860 with the object of imparting education. The petitioner is running the Bachelor of Computer Applications (BCA) course for which it has obtained affiliation with Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIP University) i.e. respondent No. 3. The aforesaid society is possessed of a plot of land admeasuring 1.43 acres on which it has set up a senior secondary school which is being run in the name and style of Kamal Public School and, in the same plot, in another building it is running the BCA course as aforesaid.2. The petitioner being desirous of starting the 1 year B.Ed. course approached the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, i.e. respondent No. 1 for the purpose of obtaining its No Objection Certificate (NOC) on 9.7.2007. Respondent No. 2 is a limb of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, being the Directorate of Higher Education. The said B...

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT723; 2008(106)DRJ272; 2009LC(DEL)779

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This petition gives rise to the question whether Section 42 Sub-section (5) and (6) of Electricity Act, 2003 exclude the jurisdiction of Civil Court and a consumer has necessarily to resort to the machinery as provided under this provision of the Act and cannot file a civil suit.2. The petitioner's contention is that Section 42 (5) and (6) of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 145 Electricity Act, 2003 take away the jurisdiction of Civil Court.3. Section 42 (5) and (6) of Electricity Act, 2003 read as under:(5) Every distribution licensee shall, within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of license, whichever is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission.(6) Any consumer, who is aggrieved by non-redressal of his grievances under Sub-section (5), may make a representation for the redressal of his grievance to an authority to be known ...

Shri Gurjeet Singh Vs. Shri Sarabjeet Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT12

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The suit was instituted for partition of property No. E-I/23, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Vide order dated 2.8.2005 a preliminary decree for partition was passed declaring the plaintiff Gurjeet Singh and defendant No. 1 Sarabjeet Singh to be holding equal share in the property. On 8.8.2005 a final decree of partition was passed and decree sheet was ordered to be drawn up. The record reveals that the Registrar of the Court thereafter called upon the parties to file the valuation report from government approved valuer so that stamp duty for drawing up the decree may be calculated. The parties filed a valuation report but the Registrar was not satisfied with the same. Notice was issued to the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority (CCRA) Delhi, for furnishing the valuation of the property. The valuation report appears to have been received from CCRA in January, 2008, which was accepted by the Registrar and parties were asked to deposit the stamp papers in accordance wit...