Delhi Court September 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lotus Trans Travels (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN37(Delhi)

ORDER1. These appeals arise out of the common order of the Tribunal dated 6-7-2007 which relates to the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The issue which arises in these appeals pertains to the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the said Act'). This issue arises in connection of the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80HHD.2. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length and have also examined the orders passed by the authorities below. We note that the Tribunal has observed that the action of the assessee in excluding the disclaimed foreign exchange receipts from the total foreign exchange receipts as well as from the total business receipts for the purposes of computing deduction under Section 80HHD has been finally accepted by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings and consequently, the very basis to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of this aspect does not survive. The counsel for the parties have informed t...

Lalit Mohan Vs. Dda and ors. (Through the Lt.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The pleadings had been complete and the parties were ready to go on with the case when it had been listed for orders. The challenge is about the sustainability of the disciplinary proceedings, which have culminated in a penalty advice. According to the applicant, he is at the fag end of his career, and the proceedings were ill advised and perhaps had been initiated so as to wreck his career prospects. We may examine the rival contentions raised by the parties, so as to come to a conclusion whether there is substance in the allegations of the applicant and whether there was justifiable reason for imposition of penalty and the sustainability thereof.2. The applicant is working as an Executive Engineer in the DDA.According to him, he had unblemished career. On 30.11.2005, a memo was issued to him. Proceedings were initiated under Regulation 27 of DDA Conduct Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999. It was in respect of certain alleged lapses, which had occurred while he was function...

B.L. Kaul, Sr. Asstt. Director, Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The three Transferred Applications initially had been filed before the Delhi High Court and in view of the Notification issued under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 stood transferred, by order dated 07.11.2007. The applicant in all the three cases is one and the same person, who at present is working as a Senior Assistant Director in the Delhi Development Authority. By the impugned orders, penalty has been inflicted on the applicant, whereby his pay has been reduced with cumulative effect. The different orders have been separately subjected to challenge.2. In T.A.178 of 2007, an order had been passed, on 09.03.2005 by Finance Member imposing the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for two years. In an appeal filed by him, the Vice Chairman had apparently taken a lenient view and had modified the punishment to reduction of pay for one year. A further review application, however, had been rejected. Similarly, in TA 185/2007, the Finance Member, DDA by proceedings dated 0...

Shri Mangat Ram Sharma (Deceased) Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Writ Petition 1386 of 2005 came to be filed before the Delhi High Court when the petitioner, who was working as Superintending Engineer, had been retired from service in exercise of powers conferred on the Vice Chairman under FR 56(j). The order is Annexure P-7 dated 24.02.2003. The order indicates that a review committee constituted for purpose of review of cases under FR 56(j) after considering the overall service records and the details of vigilance cases had concluded that the applicant shall be retired from service. The normal date of retirement of the person would have been 31.08.2005. Although an appeal had been filed against the order, it was rejected, on 20.01.1995 by Annexure P-5. The writ petition filed had been transferred over to this Tribunal, in October, 2007. The case had been listed for final hearing on 17.03.2008. Later on, it was made known by MA 03 of 2008 that the applicant had expired. As at present, legal representatives of the applicant have been brought on ...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shri Gian Chand

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT360

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) has filed this writ petition seeking to challenge the impugned awards/orders dated 8.11.2004 and 4.7.2005 of the Labour Court, Delhi holding the findings of the Inquiry Officer to be perverse and declining opportunity to the Management to lead evidence to prove the misconduct of the respondent/workman before the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide its impugned award has directed reinstatement of the respondent/workman in service with 60% back wages, continuity of service and all other legal benefits.2. The factual matrix of the case giving rise to the present challenge is as follows:3. The respondent was employed by the petitioner as a conductor. 'On 23rd January, 1992 the respondent was performing his duty on Bus No. 9115 on route 'Sahibabad-Delhi'.' Shri R.C. Dahiya, Ticket Inspector and other members of the checking staff of the petitioner checked the bus at about 1035 hours at Nand Nagri Dep...

Bilori Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT499

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner is a sacked employee of DTC and he has filed the present writ petition seeking setting aside of award dated 21.07.2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No. 61/2001 and for directions to the respondent to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was working as Conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation (respondent herein) and on 04.10.1988 he was performing his duty in bus No. 9467 of route No. Delhi to Ballabgarh. Sh. Jagan Nath Parshad, T.I. along with his staff checked the bus at Y.M.C and found that group of three passengers was without ticket. The petitioner had taken Rs. 4.50 Paise @ Rs. 1.50 Paise per ticket from those passengers but had not issued them ticket from Old Faridabad to Ballabgarh. The petitioner admitted his fault and issued three unpunched tickets No. 25-27518 to 25-27520 of Rs. 1.50 paise e...

Glaverbel S.A. Vs. Dave Rose and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT577; 2008(38)PTC204(Del)

Hima Kohli, J.IA No. 240/2008 in C.C. No. /2008 (to be numbered) (by plaintiff for condonation of delay in filing the written statement to the counter claim of the defendants/counter claimants)1. Pursuant to the order dated 25.4.2008, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit dated 27.5.2008 in support of the present application by which condonation of delay is sought for delayed filing of the written statement to the counter claim of the defendant. The defendant has also filed its response thereto. 2. It is stated in the said affidavit that while the plaintiff may have been aware of the cited references and various documents relied upon by the defendants in their written statement-cum-counter claim, however, the same does not constitute relevant prior art documents. It is further stated in the affidavit that the said documents were never considered or examined as prior art documents by the plaintiff as on the date of institution of the suit and that only when the said documents were relied...

Child Welfare Committee Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT586

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The genesis of this petition is a letter dated 12th September 2007 addressed to a learned Judge of this Court by Dr. Bharti Sharma, Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Nirmal Chhaya Complex, Jail Road, New Delhi. That letter was treated as a public interest litigation. In the said letter Dr. Sharma referred to the case concerning the illegal adoption of a male infant born on 13th August 2007 to a girl who was a rape victim as well as a minor. The case was first brought to light by the reporter of a television channel, CNN IBN. The minor girl was a domestic worker with a placement agency by the name of Adivasi Sewa Samiti, Shakurpur. According to the minor girl, the placement agency sold her infant to a couple. Taking a cue from Section 228A IPC, and with a view to protecting the identity of the girl, she will be referred to hereafter in this judgment as S.2. On 2nd September 2007 when the above facts were brought to the notice of the CWC by an NGO, PALNA , t...

Sunita Devi W/O Mohinder Pal Singh Vs. Government of Nct Through Secre ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT137

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 7th August, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 1614/2008.2. The Petitioner had obtained employment on the basis of a certificate issued by the Naib Tehsildar certifying that she belonged to Dhanaka community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community in Rajasthan. Subsequently, on verification it was found that the Petitioner had obtained a false certificate and the matter was referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. It appears that an FIR has been lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation and a case is pending against the Petitioner in this regard before the Metropolitan Magistrate in the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. 3. A departmental chargesheet was issued to the Petitioner on 6th February, 2006 alleging that she had obtained a fake or false certificate for getting the benefit of reservation. It was alleged that this amounts to gross misconduct, lack of integrity a...

Hargian Singh S/O Kartar Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Admittedly, Hargian Singh, the applicant herein was deprived to hold the promotional post for seven long years, proved from records, owing to fault exclusively attributable to the respondents. Remedial measures in promoting the applicant came about, as mentioned above, after seven years. The only question that arises for determination in the present case is as to whether when an incumbent to an office may not have worked on the promotional post, will he be deprived of pay and allowances admissible to the promotional post on the principle of 'no work no pay', or that such payment would be depended upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Whereas, the applicant would contend that the principle of 'no work no pay' cannot be attracted whatever be the circumstances of a case, the respondents would, however, endeavour for us to hold so.2. Brief facts to resolve the question as framed above, as set out in the present Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals...