Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments

Manoj C. Tejwani Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

The following order is delivered by Km. Vijay Laxmi, Member, Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange : 2. This appeal is filed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/336/B/SDE/AKB/2003/5835 dt. 07.08.03 passed by Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees five lakhs only) against the appellant, Manoj C. Tejwani, for contravention of the provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for having received a sum of Rs.20,50,00 in India on instructions of a person resident outside India and besides confiscating the seized amount of Rs.13,00,000/ under Section 63 of the FERA. The appellant had made payment of 20% of the penalty amount in compliance of the order of this Tribunal where presently this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. I have heard elaborate arguments from Shri. J.S. Arora, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant and Shri. A.C. Singh, DLA, for the respondent and gone through the record, r...

Constable (Mounted) Virender Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Virender Singh, Constable (Mounted) in Delhi Police since 1994, the applicant herein, has won in all 24 medals (5 gold, 10 silver and 9 bronze) for his participation in various events of equestrian. On the basis of Rule 19(2) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980, he claims out of turn promotion. Inasmuch as, out of turn promotion cannot be earned as a matter of right, the applicant presses into service the only ground that may be available to him, i.e., the discriminatory treatment meted out to him vis-a-vis Shri Radhey Shyam, also a constable (Mounted) in Delhi Police, who has been given out of turn promotion.2. Brief facts of the case as set out in the Application reveal that the applicant was appointed in Delhi Police w.e.f. 1.7.1994 as Constable (Mounted). He won 5 gold medals, 10 silver and 9 bronze medals in various equestrian competitions. He won first gold medal in XX All India Equestrian, Games & Mounted Police Duty Meet 2000, Delhi, in show jumpi...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Insilco Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals by the Revenue for asst. yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94 arise out of separate orders of the learned CIT(A)-XTV, New Delhi.These appeals were heard together and for the sake of convenience are disposed of by this consolidated order. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the interest charged under Section 220(2) of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 1,30,10,582; 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow proportionate credit of TDS of Rs. 68,98,588 in either asst. yr. 1992-93 or 1993-94, when the entire interest income corresponding to TDS of Rs. 68,98,588 has not been reflected. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow proportionate credit of TDS of Rs. 68,98,588 in either asst. yr. 1992-93 or in asst. yr. 1993-94.4. First, we take up the appeal for asst. yr. 1992-93. In order...

Sobhag NaraIn Mathur Vs. Pragya Agarwal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ355

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff has, for a decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell, entered into with the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, contained in a 'Bayana Receipt' dated 7.12.2006. The plaintiff claims to be a businessman settled in Rajasthan, wanting to purchase of commercial property in Delhi to expand his business.2. He claims having come into contact with Defendant No. 2 thorough a real estate agent. Defendant No. 1 is the first defendant's wife; she is the agreement purchaser of commercial plots bearing Nos. A, B, C and D, Local Shopping Centre, Madangir, Delhi (the suit property). Defendant No. 1, it is alleged is the de facto owner of the suit property and had the legal authority to deal with the same on the basis of the said documents.3. According to the suit, the total consideration for sale of the suit property was agreed to be Rs. 6 crores 20 lacs. The defendants, according to the plaintiff, demanded part payment in advance and an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was...

Abhay Sapru Vs. Chitralekha Bukshi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ589

V.K. Shali, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 96 of the CPC read with Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 against the preliminary decree dated 7th January, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in case titled as Abhay Sapru v. Chitralekha Bukshi and Anr. bearing No. CS (OS) 192/1999.2. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has held that both the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 have equal shares i.e. - share in the property bearing No. 16A, Westend, New Delhi and further that they are bound by the family settlement Ex.D1/3 till the time the final decree for partition is not passed by metes and bounds by the Court.3. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that property No. 16A, Westend, New Delhi measuring 1205 sq. yards was sub-leased to Late Lt. General B.M. Kaul by Diplomatic Enclave Extension Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Lt. Gen. Kaul built a single storie...

Tata Tele Services Limited Vs. Sameer Nandwani and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On account of having raised a bill after the respondent had surrendered the telephone connection and over and above hiring services of private recovery agent who extended threats on telephone every now and then and threats of facing dire consequences if the dues were not cleared, the appellant has been held guilty by the District Forum for deficiency in service and causing mental agony and harassment and vide impugned order dated 31.1.2007 directed to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs. 10,000 as cost of litigation to the respondent who is a practicing advocate himself. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondent No. 1 who is a practicing Advocate was motivated by respondent No. 2 who is agent of the appellant to go in for CDMA technology which was better than other technologies available and accordingly the respondent opted for a plan in terms of which he was to pay Rs. 1,000 as initial deposit and the handset was to be given to him there and the...

Tej Singh Khimesra Vs. Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

The following order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Sh R.N Poddar, Member. 2. This appeal is directed against adjudication order No. ADJ/71 to 78/AD/KPD/1225/BAM dated 27.1.04 passed by Assistant 32000 on the appellant for the reason of acquisition of foreign exchange and otherwise transferring the same without special im general permission of RBI and also receiving payment locally in India by or under instructions of persons resident outside India in contravention of section 8(1).,8(2) and 9(1)(b) and section 14 of FER Act, 1973. By an order dated 8.4.08 this tribunal directed the appellant to deposit penalty amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The appellant fails to appear or being represented despite notice. Shri A.C. Singh, DLA representing the respondent states that the appellant has failed to comply will the above order and submits for dismissal of this appeal for non compliance of conditional judicial order. 3. Sub-sec...

Niranjan Singh S/O Shri Bhikam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the case of applicant for being screened as well as for appointment in terms of advertisement dated 17.12.2005 after granting him age relaxation in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject.2. It is stated by the applicant that his date of birth is 23.2.1959.He was engaged as a casual labour after completion of all formalities and served as Hot Weather Waterman with intermittent breaks. After serving from February, 1982 to 14.8.1991 total 799 days, he was discharged from service but was assured that his name would be kept in the casual labour live register and would be re-engaged subject to availability of work. Applicant was granted CPC scale in the year 1993 and arrears were also paid to him.3. On 18.12.2005, a notice was issued in the daily Hindi Newspaper Amar Ujala calling applications from the ex-casual labourers of Allahabad Division who fulfilled the following...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Smt. Mala Ramakrishnan, Irs and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Smt. Mala Ramakrishnan, IRS, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, has filed Original Application bearing No. 180/2008 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in the Mumbai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, calling in question her supersession in appointment on the post of Member, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). She is also aggrieved on account of supersession in the matter of appointment to the said post by Shri Ajay Singh, private respondent No. 3 in the Original Application, her junior in the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Primarily, it is the case of the original applicant that she is an officer of Indian Revenue Service (IRS), 1972 batch. She joined service as Income Tax Officer on 16.4.1973 and promoted to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax on the basis of her performance, vide order dated 29.4.2005. Shri Ajay Singh and Shri S.S. Khan, private respondents 3 and 4 in the Original Application are stated to be juniors...

All India Gdmo Association Through Its President and ors. Vs. Union of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT496

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 28th January, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA Nos.2232/2007 and 200/2008.2. The short question before the Tribunal was whether the age of superannuation of General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs) should be increased from 60 to 62 years as has been done in the case of non-teaching specialist sub cadre, teaching specialist sub cadre and public health sub cadre. The Petitioners relied upon a decision of this Court in Dr. Asha Aggarwal and Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) Nos. 460, 557, 643 and 2115/2007 decided on 11th January, 2008). In that decision, this Court has mentioned that it is prima facie of the view that the Government was not justified in excluding GDMOs from an enhancement in the age of superannuation. However, the Court did not express any final opinion and left the matter to be decided by the 6th Central Pay Commission.3. Following the order passed by this Court, the Trib...