Delhi Court May 2009 Judgments

R.V. Ahirwal Vs. M.C.D.Through Its Commissioner and Others

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): Dr. R.V. Ahirwal working as Medical Officer (MO) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the Applicant herein, was appointed in the MCD on 19.12.1977 and got promoted to the pay scale of Rs.12000-16500 in 1991. The MCD sought report on RDA/Chargesheet/Enquiry if pending against 47 Doctors vide letter dated 30.9.1997 (Annexure P1) who were under consideration for promotion and the name of the Applicant figured at Sl. No.38. A similar report was called for by MCD vide eter dated 5.9.2000 (Annexure P2) on 17 Doctors and the name of the Applicant was at Sl. No.15. Vide Office order dated 24.9.2001 (Annexure P3), 17 Medical Officers were promoted on adhoc basis to Non Functional Selection Grade (GD) in the pay scale of Rs.14300-18300. It is stated that the Applicant was not promoted in the said order. The Applicant represented to the Commissioner, MCD vide his letter dated 22.10.2001 (Page 24). The Applicant avers that though he was informed about his ...

Microfibres Inc. Vs. Girdhar and Co. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2009(2)229; 2009(40)PTC519(Del)

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This appeal bearing RFA (OS) No. 25/2006 arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13 th January, 2006 in Suit No. 1480/2002. 2. Since certain common issues arise in this appeal and the other two appeals i.e. FAO (OS) No. 326/2007 filed by Dart Industries Inc. and FAO (OS) No. 447/2008 filed by Mattel Inc., on the question of interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act read with Section 2(d) of the Designs Act and Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act and their interplay with each other, we have permitted the parties in the connected appeals also to make submissions on the common legal principles arising in these appeals. However, the aforesaid two appeals bearing FAO(OS) Nos. 326/2007 and 447/2008 will be taken up for hearing on facts and other pleas after the pronouncement of the judgment in the present appeal bearing RFA(OS) No. 25/2006 in the appeal titled Microfibres v. Girdhar & Co. and Anr. 3. The appellant manufactures and sells uphol...

Guru Ram Das Bhawan and ors. Vs. Doon Apartments Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 160(2009)DLT148

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The plaintiff No. 1 claims to be an Association of the occupants of Guru Ram Das Bhawan constructed by the defendant at Plots No. A3 & A4, Community Centre, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi. The plaintiffs No. 2 & 3 are the President and the Secretary of the plaintiff No. 1 Association. The record reveals that the Delhi Municipal Corporation on 11th March, 1979 held a public auction in respect of perpetual lease hold rights of the aforesaid plots of land and the bid of the defendant was highest and was accepted and the defendant was put into possession of the said land on 19th July, 1979. The defendant constructed on the aforesaid plots of land a Multi Storeyed Building with a number of offices, flats, shops and godowns. The said building was named 'Guru Ram Das Bhawan'. The defendant entered into separate agreements with different persons regarding the offices/flats/shops/godowns in the said building and agreed to sell the offices/flats/shops/godowns in the said buildi...

K.K. JaIn Vs. Union of India Through Secretary and Another

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman: K.K. Jain, applicant herein, came to be appointed as Junior Engineer in CPWD on 28.10.1971 and then promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 21.06.1985. On his appointment in Central Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service Group-A as a direct recruit on 23.02.1994, he resigned from his earlier post. In his new assignment, however, he was appointed in the same department i.e. C.P.W.D. A charge memo dated 14.05.2008 has been issued to him proposing to take action under Rule 16 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 pertaining to the incident which occurred 17 years before, i.e., in 1991, when he was holding the promotional post of Assistant Engineer having been promoted from the post of Junior Engineer, as also 14 years after he resigned from the said post. The applicant takes serious exception for proceeding against him at this distance of time. It is his case that merits of the controversy apart, he woul...

Saint-gobaIn Glass India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(166)LC71(Delhi); 2009(240)ELT495(Del)

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. The captioned writ petitions lay challenge to notice of initiation of safeguard investigation dated 16.01.2009 issued under Rule 6 of the Customs Tariff (Transitional Product Specific Safeguard Duty) Rules, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'), the notification of preliminary findings dated 30.01.2009 issued by the Director General (Safeguards)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Director General'), and the consequent notification bearing No. 37/2009-Customs dated 20.04.2009 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue imposing a provisional safeguard duty at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem in respect to soda ash falling under sub-heading 283620 of the first schedule to the Act on its import into India from People's Republic of China (in short 'China').2. Petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 8749/2009 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Saint-Gobain'). The said petitioner is in the bu...

S.R. Batliboi and Co. Vs. Department of Income Tax (investigation)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Del)369; [2009]315ITR137(Delhi); [2009]181TAXMAN9(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner, S.R. Batliboi & Co., reputed Auditors and Accountants against the Department of Income Tax entreating the issuance of an appropriate writ to prevent the Respondents from forcibly gaining or securing access to the data contained in two laptops belonging to them. The brief facts adumbrated before us are that while conducting an audit of EMAAR on 11.9.2007, the laptops of two employees of the Petitioner were seized by the Deputy Director, Income Tax (DDIT) in the course of conducting a Search and Seizure operation against EMAAR. Subsequently on 17.9.2007, the DDIT issued summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for the sake of brevity) on 17.9.2007 to Ms.Sandhya Sama and Shri Sanjay K. Jain, the employees of the Petitioner firm and their statements were recorded on 18.9.2007. It is further stated by the Petitioner that on the request of the DDIT these employees provided him with the elec...

Ats Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Del)457; [2009]318ITR299(Delhi); [2009]183TAXMAN486(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This is the second salvo of the Petitioners seeking to invoke extraordinary of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners challenge the transfer of their cases from Delhi to Meerut in terms of the impugned Order dated 1.4.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-I, New Delhi under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short), Section 11 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and Section 7 of the Gift Tax Act, 1958. The relevant details stand clarified in the Table below:Sl. Name of the assessee From ToNo.__________________________________________________________________(1) (2) (3) (4)1 M/s Alstonia Township (P) ITO Ward ACIT, CentralLtd. 1(3), New Circle, MeerutPAN AAECA4455A Delhi__________________________________________________________________2 Shri Ashwani Talwar DCIT, Circle ACIT, CentralPAN AAAPT0920E 2(1), New Circle, MeerutDelhi__________________________________________________________________3 Shri Anil Kumar ...

Jagbir Singh Vs. Jai Singh Panwar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 160(2009)DLT219

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A suit for possession, recovery of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation, declaration and permanent injunction was filed by respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondents No. 2 to 5 in respect of the property bearing Municipal No. 35-B, Village Shahpur Jat, Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as, 'the suit property'). Respondent No. 1/the original plaintiff claims to have left for United States of America (USA) in the year 1980 leaving behind the house in the care and possession of one Master Hari Chand Kadian, relative. The son of respondent No. 1 visited India in February, 1990 when a marriage was finalized and thereafter solemnized with one Kumari Sneh Singh, daughter of respondent No. 2. The marriage, however, did not succeed. Respondent No. 1 has alleged that respondent No. 2 in collusion with the appellant and respondents No. 3 to 5 illegally took possession of the house built on the land and that they had even forged and fabricated documents a...

Pappu Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ3342

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Noting that none had been appearing for the appellant and vide order dated 6.5.2009, the request of the appellant to be released on bail, after furnishing a personal bond was rejected and the appeal was fast tracked for hearing, and listed today for final hearing, we appointed Ms. Meera Kaura Patel Advocate, as the Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant, since learned Counsel happened to be in Court to argue another appeal.2. We fix her fee at Rs. 5,500/-.3. The paper book was handed over to learned Counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae to enable the counsel to acquaint herself with the record. We requested learned Counsel to inform us whether she would be in a position to argue the appeal today itself, for the reason we find that only 8 witnesses have been examined at the trial. The testimony of the 8 witnesses spans only 18 pages; 8 of them being typed on less than half a sheet i.e. the total testimony actually spans 14 ...

Amit Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi, Through S ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): Shri Amit Kumar Sharma and 21 others, the Applicants herein, have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with a common prayer to quash and set aside (i) the advertisement dated 23.02.2009 issued by the Respondent and (ii) their termination notice dated 4.12.2008. They have also prayed to direct the Respondent to allow the Applicants to continue on the post of Peon till the regular incumbent Sare recruited. 2. At the admission stage, the request to maintain status quo was considered and the same was granted, as a result of which, all the Applicants are presently continuing in their respective posts. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Department of Women and Child Development (WCD) of Government of NCT of Delhi implementing integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) have sanctioned many ICDS projects as well as the staff required for each project. The Government of India has sanctioned 55 ICDS Pro...