Delhi Court August 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kapil Dev

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Del)110; [2009]177TAXMAN6(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue in respect of the assessment year 1991-92 and is directed against the order dated 15-2-2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 4787/Delhi/2003. The impugned order is a composite order in respect of the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. Separate appeals have been filed in respect of each of the assessment years. In the present appeal we are only concerned with the assessment year 1991-92.2. The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is with regard to the validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). Since the reassessment was done admittedly after a period of four years of the completion of the assessment under Section 143(3), the proviso to Section 147 would be applicable.3. It is clear that in view of the said proviso to Section 147, the assessment could be reopened only in case the assessee ...

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sudesh Kohli

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. This appeal has arisen due to the discrepancy in the orders passed by the District Forum. Both the orders are dated 27.7.2007. Prior to this an order was passed by the District Forum on 10.7.2002 which on appeal was set aside by this Commission vide order dated 20.2.2006, with the direction to the District Forum to decide it afresh after specifying the exact amount of compensation. Operative part of the said order was as under: Since there appears to be a dispute as to the amount deductible from the alleged claim in terms of the impugned order, we at the outset set aside the said impugned order being ex parte and in view of the controversy raised by the appellant remand the case back to the District Forum for deciding it afresh by awarding the claim for specific amount including the cost and compensation of Rs. 20,000 awarded by the District Forum. The matter shall be decided by the District Forum positively within two months. 2. The impugned orders ar...

H.N. Saini S/O Late Sh. L.R. Saini Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a retired Administrative Officer, by virtue of this OA has assailed respondents' order dated 15.11.2007 where his request for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Admn.) was turned down for non-availability of a vacant post. Applicant has also sought consideration for promotion with consequential benefits.2. Applicant got his last promotion as Administrative Officer and as per the Recruitment Rules, 1999, the promotional post of Administrative Officer with 8 years regular service is Deputy Director (Admn.), the cadre strength was two posts. Applicant, who was regularly promoted as Administrative Officer on 6.4.1998, on 5.4.2006 has completed eligibility to be considered for promotion as Deputy Director (Admn.).Two posts of Deputy Directors fell vacant on 1.10.2004 and 5.3.2005 respectively. Names of four persons were forwarded for consideration and one Shri R.K. Kanth was promoted on 28.8.2006 as Deputy Director.Applicant was also directed to officiate as Deputy Dir...

Dr. MozaffaruddIn S/O Late Shri S. Vs. Employees State Insurance

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. None appeared for the respondents, even on the second call. As the matter is listed for regular hearing, we proceed to dispose of the matter under Rule 16 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. However, reply filed by the respondents is perused.3. It is trite that a contractual appointee is governed by the terms and conditions of service as per the decision of the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab that the continuity of service cannot be denied, on setting aside of the order of termination. In a tenure appointment in case of wrongful termination, no re-instatement is to be ordered but benefits have to be accorded, as held in A.P. State Federation of Spinning Mills v. P.V. Swaminathan . In the matter of termination when it is founded on a misconduct, it is punitive in nature, as ruled by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh 2004 (2) SCSLJ 357. Recently, the Apex Court in Nehru Yuvak Kendra v.Mehboob Alam 2008 (1) SCC (L & S) 45...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Modern Laminators Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR489(Delhi)

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The Union of India (Railway Board) has preferred this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 for setting aside of the award No. ARB/AKG/RB/ML/GKP dated 20th December, 2004 of Shri A.K. Goel, Chief Materials Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi acting as the sole arbitrator appointed under the terms of the agreement between the parties.2. The undisputed facts are that the Railway Board placed a supply contract on the respondent for textile material. Out of the material supplied by the respondent under the said contract at several Railway Depots, one of depots rejected certain quantities of white cloth stating that the material was inferior in quality and withheld the payments therefor. 3. It was the claim of the respondent before the arbitrator that the goods were duly inspected by the technical team of DGS&D; prior to clearance; that similar goods consigned to other depots of the railways had been accepted; that initially only a small quantity w...

Ex. Hav. Army Education Corps Rajesh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ411

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army Education Corps on 03.06.1992. The petitioner had already filled in a application form on 29.05.1992 for the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police but this fact was apparently not disclosed by the petitioner while enrolling with the Army. The petitioner while undergoing training received a call for the written examination to be held for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector in the Delhi Police on 26.07.1992 (which was a Sunday) and claims that with the prior permission of the Subedar Major In Charge of his company/unit, he went to write the examination at New Delhi. There is however nothing on record to show such a permission having been obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have again applied for leave to appear in the interview and physical endurance test, which was recommended by the Company Commander. The petitioner left the station on 18.02.1993 and joined back on 25.02.1993 after appearing for the ...

Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr. Vs. Dr. Prem Prakash

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT1; 2008(106)DRJ449

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common judgment, two petitions namely 'Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Prem Prakash' being WP(C) No. 13435-37/2006 and 'Government of NCT of Delhi v. G.R. Arya' being WP(C) 12968/70/2006 are being decided, since both involve the question of extent of reimbursement of medical claims to Government employees-ex employees. Vide orders dated 6.3.2006 in O.A. No. 1776/2005 and judgment dated 3rd February 2006, in OA No. 2242/2005 the Central Administrative Tribunal granted reimbursement of their expenses on medical treatment. The Tribunal allowed the applications of the respondents holding them entitled to be reimbursed the entire amount of medical expenses since these were incurred at the empanelled hospitals with treatment being authorized by the Government of NCT.2. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi by these writ petitions, is seeking quashing of the orders of the Tribunal. In WP(C) No. 13435-37/2006 referred to as Dr. Prem Prakash's case, out of the total amou...

Brij Lal Sharma Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ216

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Plaintiff Brij Lal filed a suit for possession, mandatory injunction and recovery of damages against the defendants alleging therein that the plaintiff was owner and landlord of property bearing no. 414 (old No. 11-12), Ward No. 18 Kashmere Bagh, Kishan Ganj, Delhi as he had purchased the property from Sh. Ashok Kumar s/o Sita Ram vide registered sale deed dated 5th December, 1991. Sh. Ashok Kumar was beneficiary under a 'Will' executed by late Sahib Ditta Mal, the original owner and the landlord of the property. The plaintiff stated that Sahib Ditta Mal, during his lifetime had instituted an Eviction Petition No. E-9/84 against the defendant. However, the learned ARC dismissed the petition vide order dated 3rd February, 1992 on the ground that letting in this case was in respect of open land and the Court of Rent Controller had no jurisdiction. 2. Another petition filed by Sahib Ditta Mal against the defendants was dismissed in default. The plaintiff pleaded...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mittal Steels

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR551(Delhi); 152(2008)DLT797

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether objections to an arbitration award admittedly filed in the court of an Additional District Judge not only after the expiry of three months from the date on which the arbitral award was received by the applicant but also after a lapse of further 30 days from the expiry of said three months were rightly dismissed as barred by time or could the time period be extended depending upon the cause shown in the application for condonation of delay? 2. The limitation period for filing objections to an arbitral award is provided in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short called 'the Act of 1996'). This is how it runs:34(3) - An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had ...

P.M. Diesel Ltd. Vs. Patel Field Marshall Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(38)PTC69(Del)

ORDER11.08.2006After some arguments learned Counsel appearing for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this application with liberty to approach the learned single judge. Permission is granted. The application stands disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.Records of the learned single judge shall be returned forthwith. The same shall be made available as and when the appeal is taken up for hearing. Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JHima Kohli, J.August, 11, 2006.12. The defendant thereafter moved the present application, IA No. 13850/2006. The Division Bench made the following order, on 31-1-2008, (on an application of the plaintiff, for modification of its previous order, permitting the defendant to approach this Court):31.01.2008Present : Mr. Abhay Nath, Proxy Counsel for the appellantMr. Shailen Bhatia with Ms. Amita Kapur for the Respondent.FAO (OS) No. 232/1999.Counsel appearing for the parties state that the application, which is filed by the respondent seeking for a directi...