Delhi Court August 2008 Judgments

Mr. Maunazir HussaIn S/O Lt. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant had joined the Delhi Development Authority as a Junior Engineer in the year 1979. During May, 1983 to March, 1985, he was in charge of the work of construction of LIG Houses of Nandnagri Pockets.On the report of Vigilance Cell, a notice had been issued to him in the year 1995, but the applicant had, according to him, established that there was no supervisory lapse on his side. No action was taken thereafter for a number of years. But, however, a charge sheet was issued on 05.03.2001 and after a departmental inquiry, a show cause notice was issued to him on 15.07.2004. The punishment proposed was stoppage of increment for a period of one year, which was non-cumulative in nature. The order had been served on him on 19.10.2004.2. However, in the meanwhile, DPC had considered the eligibility of officers, including the applicant for promotion as an Assistant Engineer. Perhaps overlooking that proceedings were pending against him arising from the charge sheet dated 05.03.20...

N.K. Taneja S/O K.C. Taneja Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of Original Application No. 672/2008 and Misc. Applications No. 1048/2008 and 1049/2008 in O.A.No. 543/2007, as the result in the two matters mentioned above is inter-dependent. O.A. No. 672/2008 has been filed by Shri N.K. Taneja, Executive Engineer in CPWD under the Ministry of Urban Development, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash memorandum of charge dated 19.2.2007 with direction to the respondents not to proceed further in the same in wake of the circumstances that this Tribunal in an earlier Original Application filed by him bearing No. 543/2007 decided on 31.8.2007, directed the respondents to complete the enquiry proceedings within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, and that the said direction has not been complied with. In short, the only plea raised in support of the Application is that inasmuch as, enquiry initiated against the applicant has not been completed in ...

Bishan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT582; [2008(119)FLR629]

Veena Birbal, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.12.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('the Tribunal') in OA No. 488/2007 by which prayer of the petitioner seeking direction to respondents to produce his service record and to grant him pension/service benefit has been rejected.2. Petitioner has alleged that he was engaged as fitter/Khalasi by respondents in Group D, Class C on 14.4.1953. As per him, he was engaged in running department at Loco Shed, Moradabad in 1969-70 where he worked uptil 1971. Petitioner has further alleged that he fell ill in 1971 and had taken treatment in Railway Hospital from where he was referred to AIIMS.There he remained admitted for 20 days and was further advised to take rest for 90 days. Petitioner has alleged that after his recovery he reported for duty but was not allowed to join. Thereafter from time to time he approached respondents for joining the duty but was not allowed. Ultimately he was t...

Avtar Vinayak Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT486; 2008(106)DRJ440

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, a former Secretary and President of the Society (respondent No. 3 herein), has filed the present petition seeking cancellation of the allotment of flats No. A-2 to A-5 to respondents No. 4 to 7. Petitioner contends that the flats were constructed unauthorizedly without sanction and the allotment had been made illegally and fraudulently in favour of respondents No. 4 to 7. Petitioner seeks demolition of these flats which, he alleges, were constructed at the place designated and approved for parking.2. Petitioner additionally seeks cancellation of the allotment of a shop made in favour of respondent No. 8, who at the relevant time, was the President of the Society as being contrary to the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, Rules and Bye-laws of the Society. Petitioner seeks a restraint on respondents 4 to 8 from participating in the Managing Committee of respondent No. 3-society.3. Petitioner alleges several illegalities frauds, forgeries ...

Prem Nath Bali Vs. the High Court of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT150; 2008(106)DRJ221

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The petitioner while working as UDC and in charge of Copying Agency (Criminal) at Patiala House was served with a charge memo dated 10th July, 1990 on a complaint made by Ms. Brij Bala Goel, LDC in the Copying Agency. It was reported by her to officer in charge of Patiala House that she closed the application register for supplying certified copies at 1 p.m. on 22nd January, 1990. However, some applications which were not even entered in the register on that day were entered in CD2/Dak register subsequently. Certified copies were got prepared of those applications on the same date. She was also pressurised to deliver the copies on the same date at 2.30 p.m. However, when she refused to deliver the copy, the petitioner quarreled with her. The other allegation levelled against the petitioner was for using unwanted words in the office, which were uncalled for.2. This complaint was forwarded to the learned District Judge and on that basis a preliminary enquiry was mad...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gupta Brothers

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR545(Delhi); 2008(105)DRJ630

Hima Kohli, J.1. The petitioner/MCD has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the award of the arbitral tribunal dated 30.11.2007. As per the aforesaid award, out of seven claims, the learned Arbitrator has granted three claims under Claims No. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the respondent/contractor along with pendente lite and future interest @ 9%. The counter claim of the petitioner was, however, rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/MCD entered into an agreement with the respondent/contractor for work pertaining to improvement and regrading of existing storm water drains in Blocks A, B, C and D of Suraj Mal Vihar, vide Agreement dated 31.3.2004. It is the case of the petitioner/MCD that the tender of the respondent/contractor was accepted for an estimated contractual amount of Rs. 69,28,996/-, @ 5% above the estimated rates of tender amount of Rs. 65,99,044/-. The st...

Court on Its Own Motion Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ677; 151(2008)DLT695; 2008(105)DRJ557

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The question for our consideration is whether Mr. R.K. Anand and Mr. I.U. Khan, Senior Advocates and Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate have committed criminal contempt of Court or not. We have found Mr. Anand and Mr. Khan guilty of criminal contempt of Court for reasons recorded in the judgment. Neither of them had tendered any apology or demonstrated contrition or repentance for their actions. Accordingly, towards the end of the judgment, we have pronounced the punishment awarded to them. We have found Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma not guilty of criminal contempt of Court.Background facts:2. On 30th May, 2007 a TV news channel ' NDTV ' carried a report relating to a 'sting' operation. The report concerned itself with the role of a defence lawyer and the Special Public Prosecutor in an ongoing Sessions trial in what is commonly called the 'BMW case'.3. On 31st May, 2007 a Division Bench of this Court, on its own motion, registered a writ petition being WP (Crl.) No. 796 of...

St. Stephen's College Rep. by Its Supreme Council Vs. University of De ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT228; 2008(106)DRJ401

Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. Rule.2. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1&2 waive service of notice. By consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing.3. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether the management of a minority college is free to choose and appoint any qualified person as Principal of the college or whether such management is hedged by any Ordinance of the University in doing so This controversy has arisen because the University of Delhi is insisting that the petitioner College shall follow the procedure of the Selection Committee for filling up the post of Principal as referred to in Clause 7 of Ordinance XVIII of the Delhi University.4. The petitioner St.Stephen's College is an aided minority educational institution established and administered by the religious minority of Christians. The College was established in the year 1881 and has maintained its Christian character till date. The management of the College is looked after by the Supreme ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Microsoft Corporation of India Pvt. Ltd ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Del)410; 2008(106)DRJ395; [2009]176TAXMAN395(Delhi)

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment dated 31.01.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as ITAT). By this judgment the ITAT rejected the appeal filed by the revenue confirming thereby the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowing the expenses incurred by the assessee, to the tune of Rs 1,30,60,957/- towards settlement of a foreseeable liability in respect of premature termination of an agreement for use of premises entered into with an entity by the name of, Paharpur Business Centre (hereinafter referred as to PBC).1.1 The only issue which arises for our consideration is that whether settlement expenses paid by the assessee fall within the provision of Section 37(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the Revenue, Mr R D Jolly contends to the contrary - the basis being, that since there was no obligation under the contract on the as...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raghunath Murti

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Del)102; [2009]178TAXMAN144(Delhi)

Badar Dunez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal is in respect of the asst. yr. 1998-99 and is directed against the order of the Tribunal passed on 23rd June, 2006 in ITA No. 1077/Del/2002.2. In this appeal, the Revenue seeks to raise the following questions:(a) Whether the learned Tribunal erred in law and on merits in holding that the sum of Rs. 10,17,112 refunded by the assessee did not constitute salary and thus cannot be taxed ?(b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the 'notional' interest on interest free deposit received in connection with the letting out of the property cannot be included in the rent received so as to constitute part of the annual letting value of the assessee's property determined under Section 23(1)(b) of the Act?3. Insofar as the proposed question (b) above is concerned, there is no dispute that the same stands covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by virtue of the decision of this Court in CI...