Delhi Court August 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Salora International Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]308ITR199(Delhi)

C. M. No. 1581/2007 (delay) in I. T. A. No. 173/20081. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Apparently there is a delay of about 12 days in filing the appeal. Although the application mentions only 9 days delay. The reason given for the delay is that the CCIT had directed that the opinion of the senior standing counsel be sought. This was done by a letter dated November 16, 2007. The senior standing counsel had given the opinion on November 27, 2007, and forwarded the same on November 28, 2007, to the CCIT-III. However, the said CCIT was taken ill and, unfortunately, he passed away shortly thereafter. The file was handed to another CCIT who was able to approve the filing of the appeal only on December 4, 2007, and forwarded the file on December 5, 2007.2. The delay in filing the appeal has occurred because of these circumstances and not because of any intentional or unavoidable delay on the part of the appellant.After hearing the counsel for the parties...

Pramod Kumar Pandey S/O Shri T.N. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, by virtue of this OA, has impugned respondents' order dated 27.6.2007, whereby his erstwhile service in Railways has not been counted for grant of pro rata pension.2. The facts are not disputed. Applicant while posted in the Construction Organization in 2004 though not fulfilled the qualifications for the post of Manager (Civil Design) in RITES Ltd. yet applied without proper channel. However, on the qualification when he was asked to appear in interview on 6.9.2004 a representation before that made, seeking NOC, was turned down by the respondents on 10.9.2004 on account of shortage of technical staff. Applicant on selection as Manager (Civil Design) in RITES Ltd. made a representation to give him permission to leave the Railways, but ultimately tendered his resignation on 2.11.2004 on the ground that he has taken up employment, which was accepted on 1.12.2004. Grant of pro rata pension for the service rendered in Railways when rejected, gives rise to the present OA.3. L...

Morepen Laboratories Ltd. and ors. Vs. Morgan Securities and Credits P ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR283(Delhi); 2008(105)DRJ408

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 17th July 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the appellant's Execution Applications (E.A) Nos. 296 of 2005 and 324 of 2005 in Execution Petition No. 13 of 2004.2. The facts are that by an inter-corporate agreement dated 19th September 2002 the appellant No. 1 Morpen Laboratories Limited (MLL) availed from the Respondent Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Limited (MSCPL) financial facilities in the form an inter-corporate deposit (ICD) of Rs. 5 crores for its business operations. The ICD was for a period of 120 days up to 17th January, 2003 and carried interest at 21 per cent per annum payable in advance with quarterly rests. In case of delay or default in making payment of principal amount or any part thereof, interest at 36 per cent per annum with monthly rests was payable by MLL from the date of default till the date of repayment of the deposit along with interest...

Naib Subedar Major Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ679

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army in the Mechanized Infantry on 22.06.1981 and earned his promotions up to the rank of Havildar. The petitioner was granted a Junior Commission as Naib Subedar in 1997. The petitioner claims to have earned outstanding ACRs which resulted in his posting in critical posts. The petitioner in September, 2003 came to know of his adverse ACR for the period 2002-2003 when he was asked to sign an extract of the said ACR. The petitioner had been granted four points out of nine points, which is an average grading. The consequence was that when the candidates were considered for promotion to the rank of Subedars, the petitioner was not promoted while his juniors were promoted on 01.04.20042. The petitioner submitted a non statutory complaint dated 21.04.2004 against the said ACR for the period of 2002-2003, but the same was rejected on 05.12.2004 Thereafter the statutory complaint filed by the petitioner dated 30.04.2005 was al...

Sonica Jaggi Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT601

Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. Admit.2. With the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing.3. The short question that falls for our consideration in this appeal is whether a teacher of a private school could move the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') seeking redressal of her grievance relating to fixation of her salary.4. The appellant has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to respondents No. 4 to 6, namely, the Manager, the Principal and the Chairman of Shakti Mandir Premwati Public School to refix the salary of the appellant in the proper pay scale of Physical Education teacher as provided by the Recruitment Rules and in accordance with Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned single Judge relying upon the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Kathuria Public School and Or...

Mr. Vijay Shah Son of Shri Vikram Shah Vs. Mrs. Padmini Shah W/O Sh. V ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)DMC570

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short as the 'Act') has been filed by the Appellant/Husband against the judgment/order dated 03.12.07 passed by Gurdeep Saini, ADJ, Delhi praying for setting aside the impugned order.2. The question that arises in the present appeal for consideration is as to whether a subsequent divorce petition, when earlier petition for divorce has been dismissed in default, is barred under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short as the 'Code')3. Appellant had filed a divorce petition at Family Court, in Jaipur on 25.07.94 on the grounds of cruelty. The said petition was dismissed in default in the presence of Respondent on 21.07.95.4. It is alleged by the Appellant that no application was made for restoration as the Respondent had promised for reconciliation. She, however, subsequently refused to do so. Thereupon the Appellant filed a fresh petition for divorce in Delhi on 22.01.96 on t...

Constable (Exe.) Rakesh Kumar S/O Vs. Commissioner of Police, Addl.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, 3rd respondent herein, by Annexure A-1 dated 15.02.2006, had imposed a punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service of the applicant permanently, entailing reduction in his pay, on the finding that the charges that had been alleged against him by charge-sheet dated 15.07.2005 stood substantiated. Taking recourse to a statutory remedy, an appeal had been filed by the applicant before the Additional Commissioner of Police, second respondent. But, however, after hearing him, the appellate authority found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Consequently, by Annexure A-2, appellate authority had rejected the appeal. The Original Application came to be filed in this context.2. As many as 37 grounds have been taken up by the applicant, to show that the orders as above were not legal or sustainable. We had heard Mr. Harpreet Singh, appearing on behalf of the applicant, who had taken us throu...

Radhey Shyam, Asi S/O Sh. Khazan Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chi ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. An Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, has been issued with a penalty advice, on 26.06.2007 (Annexure A-1) whereby he had been advised that his future increment would be withheld for a period of two years without cumulative effect. His suspension period was decided as period not spent on duty. The disciplinary authority held that in the domestic inquiry proceedings, it had been proved that he had failed to register the case on priority basis, the allegation which he was expected to answer. The appellate authority, however, by order dated 30.11.2007, held that as the allegations are proved partly, and some other charges are not proved, the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority was not to be deemed as commensurate with misconduct. According to him, the same is "little harsh particularly keeping in view the fact that the misconduct for which he was punished was not mentioned in the charge" The punishment was, therefore, reduced to withholding of future increment for one year...

Ramunia Fabricators Sdn Bhd and ors. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporati ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)CTLJ346(Del); 2008(105)DRJ664

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition, challenging the rejection of the bid, submitted by petitioner No. 1 in respect of B-22 Field Development Project. A direction is further sought for quashing of decision dated 14th May, 2008, by which the tendering process in respect of B-22 Field Development Project was annulled. Additionally, a direction is sought for award of contract in respect of project to petitioner No. 1 in view of the fact that petitioner No. 1 was the lowest bidder.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition and the subsequent developments necessary for disposal of this petition may be briefly noted:Petitioners challenge the decision of respondent No. 1/ONGC to annul the tendering process as mala fide and detrimental to public revenue. It is assailed as contrary to the directions given in the judgment dated 11th April, 2008 of this Court in WP (C) No. 9661/2007. It is urged that petitioners, whose bid was 108 million dollar less t...

Dr. (Mrs.) Shashi Ahuja Vs. Shri Kulbhushan Malik and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2009Delhi5; 152(2008)DLT196; 2008(106)DRJ212; (2008)152PLR52

Reva Khetrapal, J.IA No. 12625/2007 (application filed on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for impleadment)1. This is an application filed on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff Dr. (Mrs.) Shashi Ahuja under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for impleadment. The plaintiff Dr. (Mrs.) Shashi Ahuja is stated to have died on 13th September, 2007 and her death certificate has been enclosed with the application. The plaintiff left behind her the following legal representatives:(i) Shri Shyam Sunder Ahuja - Husband of the plaintiff(ii) Shri Aseem Ahuja - Son of the plaintiff(iii) Shri Paawan Ahuja - Son of the plaintiff(iv) Ms. Ruchi, wife of ShriSumit Khattar - Daughter of the plaintiff2. Reply to the above application has been filed by the defendants No. 1 to 3, opposing the application on the ground that after the death of the deceased-plaintiff, the cause of action does not s...