Delhi Court March 2009 Judgments

income-tax Officer Vs. Globe Walker

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]183TAXMAN167(Delhi)

ORDERMool Chand Garg, J.1. The complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents including one Manoj Burman was dismissed by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 3-11-1998 after the evidence was recorded and statement of the accused persons under Section 313, Cr. P.C. was also recorded but on the point that the complaint filed was bad inasmuch as the authorization provided under Section 279 of the Income-tax Act was taken from CIT either before 29-3-1990 or before that date itself and, therefore, the complaint filed was not tenable in law.2. A second complaint was thereafter filed by the petitioner under the same provision that is under Section 276C, 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1987-88 after obtaining fresh sanction. The ACMM dismissed the complaint by misreading the provision of Section 300, Cr. P.C. and discharged the accused persons vide order dated 15-9-2001. The observation made by the Magistrate are as under:1. This is an application un...

Gopendra Mohan Gupta and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ2098

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.CRL.M.A. No. 3159/2009Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.W.P.(CRL) No. 380/ 2009 & CRL.M.A. No. 3160/2009 (stay)1. Notice. Mr. Saleem Ahmed, learned Counsel for the State accepts notice.2. The prayer in this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('CrPC') is for the quashing of FIR No. 101 of 2008 registered at Police Station CAW Cell, Nanakpura under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC and all proceedings consequent thereto. The present petition is filed by the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant wife whose marriage with the Petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 24th November 2005.3. The perusal of the FIR reveals that specific allegations have been made against each of the petitioners by the complainant. It is stated that at the time of tikka and marriage on 22nd and 24th November 2005 respectively the mother-in-law demanded R...

Rajesh Arora Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2009Delhi111

Reva Khetrapal, J. 1. The genuineness of the will dated 1st June, 1995 of one Shri Tilak Raj Akalgarhia is in issue in the present case. The petitioner seeks probate of the said will by virtue of the provisions of Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, while the respondents No. 1 and 2, who are the real brothers of the petitioner, maintain that the will under which the petitioner is the sole beneficiary cannot be probated by this Court as the same is not a genuine document.2. The petitioner claims that the testator Shri Tilak Raj Akalgarhia expired on January 18, 1997 at Delhi after executing during his lifetime a will dated 01.06.1995, which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate, as Document No. 24927, Additional Book No. III, Volume No. 2376 on Page 142. The deceased Shri Tilak Raj Akalgarhia was survived by the following class I legal heirs:(i) Shri Rajesh Arora (son) - Petitioner (ii) Shri Anil Kumar (son) - Respondent No.2 (iii) Shri Nutan Kumar (son) - Resp...

Badarpur Power Engineers and Workers Union and ors. Vs. the General Ma ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ757Del

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The appellant Union and its workers filed a Civil Writ Petition in this Court bearing No. 610/1995 against respondents 1 & 2 herein alleging that they were the canteen workers of the canteen of respondents 1 & 2 located at Badarpur. It is alleged that the canteen was run through its contractors for twenty (20) years and though the contractors used to change, the workers in the canteen remained the same. Approximately 60 workers are stated to have put in service in the canteen for various posts such as cook, canteen boy, cash clerk, etc. and the service period is alleged to be from 6 to 15 years. The appellants alleged that the wages were being paid by the respondents and even provident fund was being deducted from the year 1990. The appellants alleged that on 14.2.1995 they came to know that their services were going to be terminated and on 16.2.1995 they were prevented from entering the premises. The appellants claimed that their termination is illegal and inv...

Bindu Vs. the State (Nct) of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4582

Aruna Suresh, J.1. A ghastly murder took place on the intervening night of 25- 26.07.2005 in a jhuggi near Ganda Nala, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. Appellant Bindu used to reside with deceased Chanda in her jhuggi. Appellant was an alcoholic. He had borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,000/- from Chanda. But on demand to repay the loan by Chanda, he used to quarrel with her. On the fateful night, the appellant picked up a quarrel with Chanda in the jhuggi, gave her physical beating and killed her and threw her dead body on the railway track.2. The investigating agency swung into action on receipt of information on 26.7.2005 on wireless at Police Post Kishan Ganj at about 2.05 P.M. from HC Subhash that in Block No. 65 Chowk, Railway Line, Ganda Nala, Kishan Ganj a lady had been run over by the train. This information was recorded in DD No. 12 (Ex.PW-5/A) by Lady Ct. Kavita PW-5. On receipt of this information through additional SHO Shri O.P. Sharma, Insp. Jagjit Singh, SHO went to the Railway track near jhug...

Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited Vs. Harish Kumar Goyal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On the allegations of having denied the possession of two shops booked by the respondent with the appellant and in spite of having deposited the amount with regard to the excess area at the agreed rate and delaying the possession by six years, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 9.9.2008 held the appellant guilty for deficiency in service and given the following directions: (a) OP (Appellant) will immediately deliver the possession of two shops to the complainant bearing No. 22E and 230E as for the excess area the amount has already been deposited with OP at the agreed rate of Rs. 900. OP will not make an further demand of any amount from the complainant in respect of these shops. (b) OP (Appellant) was deficient in service in delaying the possession of two shops by six years on account of which the complainant suffers business losses, etc. besides mental agony, harassment for which OP will pay Rs. 4 lacs to the complainant as compensatio...

K.K. Mohta Vs. the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]320ITR387(Delhi); [2009]182TAXMAN40(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) seeks quashing of Complaint Case No. 827/1994 titled K.K. Sharma, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mohta Electro Steel Limited and Ors. under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), New Delhi insofar as the petitioner is concerned.2. The aforementioned complaint states that Mohta Electro Steel Limited (MESL) was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of carbon steel strips. MESL filed its return of income on 31st July, 1983 for the assessment year 1983-84 declaring NIL total income. It is stated that the return of income as well as its verification was made and signed by accused No. 2 K.K. Mohta (petitioner herein) in his capacity as Managing Director of MESL. Assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1982-83 were initiated by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) by issuing notices under...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Mrs. Vidyawati and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ738Del

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this petition the petitioner DTC seeks issuance of writ and directions in the nature of mandamus to quash the award dated 7/10/1998 passed by the learned Labour Court.2. The brief facts relevant for deciding the present case are as under:The deceased workman was an ex-serviceman and served the Indian Army for 19-1/2 years. He joined DTC as a driver on 24.11.1981 and his badge No. was 10504 & P.I. No. was 21278. He suffered heart attack in the course of his employment with the DTC and after recovering from the said attack he was recommended by the doctors, both at Military Hospital and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where he was treated that he should be given light duty. The said certificates were presented before the Management and the Management of DTC advised him to appear before the Medical Board of DTC. The Medical Board advised the Management of DTC to give him light duty but the Management did not give him light duty. He requested the Management t...

Asian Fans and Appliances Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Usaka Industrial ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4083

Kailash Gambhir, J.1 . By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C, the petitioners seek to set aside the order dated 1.5.2007 passed by the court of Shri N.K. Gupta, ASJ, Delhi in revision petition No. 17/2007, preferred by the respondent against the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the court of learned M.M. Delhi in complaint No. 400/2005 thereby acquitting the present petitioners.2 . The brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are that the respondent filed a criminal complaint No. 400/2005 under Sections 138 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners. The petitioners while appearing before the court of learned M.M. Delhi, took a preliminary objection that the complaint filed by the complainant respondent is not maintainable as the same did not fulfill the mandatory requirements of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheques in question were not presented for encashment during...

Jagdish Prasad Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 160(2009)DLT599

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is directed against an order dated 22nd February 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Delhi allowing Crl.A. No. 18 of 2005 filed by the Respondent No. 2 against an order dated 9th September 2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) Delhi in an application filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 340 CrPC. By the said order dated 9th September 2005, the learned MM came to the prima facie conclusion that Respondent No. 2 had committed an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and ought to be prosecuted for the same. The learned ASJ has, in the impugned order, set aside the order dated 9th September 2005 on the ground that the learned MM had not determined if it was expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be held for ascertaining whether the Respondent No. 2 should be prosecuted for the offence under Section 193 IPC...