Delhi Court August 2008 Judgments

Manmohan Taneja Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ371

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is mainly aggrieved by his transfer from Noida to Gandhi Nagar in Gujarat vide impugned transfer order dated 31.3.2008. He has filed this writ petition seeking grant of following reliefs:(a) To release the salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.03.2007 onwards and pay the same forthwith;(b) To direct the respondents to promote the petitioner for the two promotions to which the petitioner was eligible from March, 2002 (as per the commitment of the Selection Committee at the time of selection as selection package) onwards in accordance with the rules and regulations of the respondents and after the petitioner is promoted, all the dues payable in the promoted grade be also paid to the petitioner;(c) To quash the impugned transfer order dated 31.03.2008 whereby the petitioner was transferred from the NOIDA office, STIP to Gandhi Nagar, Gurajat and further to direct the respondents not to implement the said transfer order in any manner wh...

Ashok Chawla Vs. Director of Income-tax (investigation)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]176TAXMAN202(Delhi)

1. This application has been filed by the petitioner seeking interim directions with regard to release of certain properties from the restraint orders as well as the attachment orders. The properties which are under restraint orders/attachment orders are:1. B-9, Saket, New Delhi.2. 2/11, Pratap Singh Building, Janpath, New Delhi.3. 40/98, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi.4. N-116, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi.5. E-6, Anand Niketan, New Delhi.6. D-1/24, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.7. Farm Land at Gawal Pahari, Tehsil Sohna, Rectangle M 39, Gurgaon, Haryana2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Panchsheel Park property does not belong to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the revenue, the tax recoverable, amounts to approximately Rs 14.11 crores towards income-tax dues and approximately Rs. 3.34 lakhs towards wealth-tax dues. He submits that the attachment of all these properties is disproportionate to the amount of tax that ...

Razia Begum and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT630

S.L. Bhayana, J.1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing and setting aside deportation order dated 23.04.08, passed by respondent No. 4, i.e., DCP, Foreigners Regional Registration Office, New Delhi. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 28.12.2007 acting on a secret information 16 persons including petitioners No. 2 to 5 were apprehended from the area of P.S. Khanpur, New Delhi by the Deportation Cell, South District. On enquiry, it was revealed that they all were illegal migrants from Bangladesh and came to India illegally. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that all the petitioners, namely, Razia Begum, Mohd. Nizammuddin, Sheikh Hasina, Mohd. Shahid, Hatim Ali and Marjina Begum are Indian nationals and in support of his contention, he produced picture of lineal descendents of Razia Begum, petitioner No. 1, who has filed the present writ petition. Chart of lineal descendents of Razi...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Deepak Aggarwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)307; [2009]308ITR116(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These appeals have been filed by the revenue against the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 30.11.2007 in IT (SS) A. No. 1/Del/2004 (in respect of the assessee - Deepak Aggarwal) and IT (SS) A. No. 204/Del/2004 (in respect of assessee - Mangla Marbles & Granite Pvt. Ltd). Sh. Deepak Aggarwal is one of the directors in Mangla Marbles & Granite Pvt. Ltd.2. The common issue that arises for consideration in these appeals is with regard to the provisions of Section 158BE, Explanation 2 read with Section 158BE(1)(b). A search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') was conducted as per warrant dated 31.10.2000. In view of the provisions of Section 158BE(1)(b), the block assessment under Section 158BC ought to have been completed on or before 31.10.2002. However, it was completed on 27.12.2002. The assessee's stand was that this was beyond the time prescribed under Section 158BE(1) and, therefo...

Pawan Kumar and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT631

Manmohan, J.1. The present writ petitions have been filed seeking a declaration that the intended possession by the Respondents of the Petitioners' land comprising of Khasras No. 35/9/1 and 35/9/2 admeasuring 3600 sq. yd. situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Samaypur, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the said land) is not for any public purpose and not required for acquisition. The Petitioners have also sought a prayer of Mandamus directing the Respondent - Land Acquisition Collector not to interfere with the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the said land.2. Briefly stated the material facts of this case are that the Petitioners, who are father and two sons, are joint owners of the said land.3. On 27th July, 1984, a notification under Sections 4 read with Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act') was issued by the Respondent for acquisition of 2122 bighas and 15 biswas of land, which included the ...

Kingston Computers (i) P. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Travancore

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)153PLR18

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide order dated 21.5.2007 the appeal was admitted. Filing of the paper book was dispensed with. Trial Court Record was summoned.2. Thereafter, from time to time/matter was adjourned for final hearing.3. The matter has been heard for final disposal today.4. Before noting the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant appeal it may be noted that the respondent was served with a notice of admission of the appeal somewhere prior to 3.10.2007. On said date counsel appeared for the respondent.5. No cross objections have been filed. Period of limitation for filing cross objections has lapsed. No cross appeal has been filed.6. Appellant company had opened an account with the first respondent, State Bank of Travancore. Being a company registered under the Companies Act, the appellant had to inform State Bank of Travancore as to who would operate the account on it's behalf. It is not in dispute that vide Ex.PW-1/C the necessary information was conveyed to the bank. T...

Rakesh Verma Vs. Apple Finance Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Vide impugned order dated 30.8.2004, the complaint of the appellant seeking appropriate relief in view of the illegal action of the respondent by taking forcible possession of the vehicle by using muscleman for the recovery of unpaid instalments, was dismised by the District Forum. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. In identical cases we have taken a view which has been upheld by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 737 of 2005 titled Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. Vijayalaxmi, III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC) and subsequently by the Honble Supreme Court in Appeal (Crl.) 267 of 2007 titled Manager, Icici Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur and Ors., III (2007) SLT 1=138 (2007) DLT 248 (SC)=I (2007) DLT (Crl.) 865 (SC)=I (2007) CCR 538 (SC)=II (2007) BC 504 (SC), that no financier, bank has authority to forcibly take possession of the vehicle as the loan agreement or the hypothecation agreement are civil contract and, therefore, have...

Radhika Fashion Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Shri O.P. Nahar, Chairperson: 2. By this appeal the appellant has challenged adjudication order No. SDE(R)III/20/93 dated 19.2.1993 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,50,000 against the appellant for contravention of Section 18(2) read with 18(3) FER Act on the reasons that appellant after exporting goods for the value of Rs. 15,87,724 failed to take reasonable steps for repatriation of export proceeds of the goods sent through 12 GRIs. The appellant has already pre-deposited the amount of penalty on 22.1.07. This statement of the appellant is confirmed by Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA. Presently this appeal is taken up by final disposal on merits. 3. We have heard Shri Rajesh Gulati, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant and Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA, on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate. Shri Rajesh Gulati, Advocate, has also filed written submissions which are taken ...

Hc (Exe.) R. Chandra Shekaran Vs. the Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In matters of promotion and confirmation, the subordinate ranks of Delhi Police are governed by Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). They are framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 147 of the Delhi Police Act. Rule 5 prescribes that promotions from one rank to another and from lower grade to the higher grade in the same rank, are to be made by selection tempered by seniority. Efficiency and honesy are considered as main factors governing selection.2. Rule 15 refers to List 'D'. It is a list of confirmed Head Constables considered suitable for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector and it consists of separate list of Executive Technical and Ministerial Branches. A Head Constable selected is to be brought on List D-1 keeping in view of the number of vacancies likely to occur in one year. They are to be detailed for training in the Intermediate School Course. Those, who successfully qualify the course, ...

Shri Vinod Kumar S/O Shri Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. PT 97 of 2007 filed by the applicant had been accepted and applicant had been permitted to proceed with the OA filed by him before the Principal Bench although his place of employment at the time of termination was Dehradun. He had challenged the termination notice issued to him dated 08.12.2004. When the matter had come up for hearing in January, 2008, there was no representation from the applicant. It was dismissed on 24.01.2008, but later on, at the instance of the applicant, the order had been recalled and the OA had been restored to its original number on 14.07.2008.2. Applicant is seen to have been appointed in the Indian Military Academy on 14.11.1998 in the temporary post of Cook Special. It was probation for a period of two years. Noticing his unauthorized absence, his period of probation was extended from time to time, and on another occasion, he had been punished with reduction in pay to the lower stage for a period of three years. Although a DPC had been convened to loo...