Delhi Court May 2009 Judgments

Ram Niwas Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through Commissioner of Polic ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

V. K. Bali, Chairman: Challenge in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to order dated 30.5.2006 (Annexure A-1) initiating departmental enquiry against the applicant; summary of allegations dated 19.6.2006 (Annexure A-2); findings of the enquiry officer dated 15.9.2006 (Annexure A-3); order of punishment dated 15.11.1006 (Annexure A-4) vide which three years approved service of the applicant has been forfeited; as also order dated 31.10.2007 (Annexure A-5) vide which the appeal preferred by the applicant against the order aforesaid has been dismissed. 2. The enquiry officer, after recording statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the department, framed the following charge: I, H.V.S.Rathi E.O. ACP/D.E. Cell, Delhi, charge you SI Ram Niwas NO.D-3777 (PIS No. 28821225) that while you were posted in Anti-Forgery Section/EOW, Crime Branch, Delhi and associated with Inspector Hanuman Dan of Anti Forgery Section, E.O.W...

Jagan Lal Vs. Union of India Through Secretary and Others

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

V. K. Bali, Chairman: Present is a long standing inter se seniority dispute between the applicant and H. K. Kaushal, the 3rd respondent herein, both belonging to reserved category of Scheduled Caste. The applicant has indeed given narration of facts in the Original Application, but we prefer to pick up the facts from a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court recorded as recently as on 4.2.2009 in WP (C) No. 6775/1999. The facts projected therein are not at variance with the facts given in the Application. The applicant was assigned seniority vide order dated 27.1.1993. However, vide order dated 9.12.1996 the seniority assigned to the applicant in 1993 was cancelled and promotions given to him as Investigator and thereafter as Assistant Director of Census Operations (Technical) were withdrawn. Aggrieved, the applicant challenged these orders in OA No. 421/1997 before this Tribunal. Inasmuch as, while passing the order dated 9.12.1996 the applicant was not heard in ...

Delhi Jal Board Vs. Digvijay Sanitations and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 160(2009)DLT92; (2009)155PLR46

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This petition was dismissed in default on 21 st September 2007. Thereafter, two applications being IA No. 3810 of 2008 under Section 9 Rule 4 of CPC and another application being IA No. 3811 of 2008 for condonation of delay were filed, which were listed on 31 st March 2008. On 31 st March 2008, none appeared for the applicant, the aforesaid two applications were dismissed in default on 31 st March 2008. Then another application being IA No. 6660 of 2008 was filed under Section 151 CPC for restoration of application under Section 9 Rule 4 CPC. 2. For the reasons stated in IA No. 6660 of 2008 under Section 151 CPC, the same is allowed and IA No. 3810 of 2008 is hereby restored to its original number. 3. IA No. 3810 of 2008 is for restoration of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, which was dismissed in default on 21 st September. The application is allowed for the reasons stated therein. The petition is restored to it...

Unitech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]19STJ364(Delhi); [2009]21STT330

1. The assessee has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 25-8-2008 passed in ST/221/2008 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the CESTAT') under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to service tax appeals as per the provisions of Section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The assessee is aggrieved by virtue of the fact that even though it was a recipient of taxable services of the nature of architectural services from a nonresident, viz., Callison Architecture Inc., USA, it was called upon to pay service tax in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The service tax demanded from the assessee is an amount of Rs. 1,83,10,592 on an amount of Rs. 22,61,54,796 paid to Callison Architecture Inc., USA.3. The CESTAT based on its own judgment passed by a three member Bench in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. CCE : [2009] 18 STT 67 (New Delhi-CESTAT)(LB) came to the conclu...

Jal Hotels Co. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Dir. of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN1(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The legal nodus that arises in these Appeals relates to the legal propriety of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short). Briefly stated, Jal Hotels Company Ltd. had, along with its Returns, filed copies of four Agreements that it had entered into with Sunair Hotel Ltd. - viz. (a)Hotel Management Agreement, (b)Technical Services Agreement, (c)Marketing Service Agreement and (d)Licence Agreement. The Assessment Orders dated 28.3.2005 are in respect of three Assessment Years, that is, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 and specifically record the existence of these four Agreements. No doubt, the Assessment Orders are remarkable for their brevity but it is well established that the Assessing Officer is not obligated to mention and discuss each and every argument or issue which has arisen in the course of Assessment. It has been opined in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 that -'We also cannot accept the submission of M...

A and B Vs. State Thr. N.C.T. of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2010CriLJ669

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. The present case arose out of a seemingly innocuous act involving the petitioners, a young married couple, outside the Dwarka Court complex on 18th September 2008. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, a conscientious Commissioner of Police had the case again inquired into. The result is that the misconceived prosecution of the petitioners for the offence under Section 294/34 IPC is by this judgment brought to a close.Background Facts: the version of the Petitioners2. The facts are that petitioners decided to get married of their own will, without the consent of their respective parents. Seeking to get their marriage registered under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, they engaged the services of a lady lawyer (hereafter referred to as LL). LL informed them that the marriage would be registered in two phases. First there would be a ceremony at the Arya Samaj temple followed by the registration. LL quoted a fee of Rs. 15,000. The petitioners were to pay Rs. 7,000 for...

Dr. L.B. Singh Vs. Registrar of Companies Nct of Delhi and Haryana and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]152CompCas264(Delhi); [2009]94SCL162(Delhi)

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The present petitioner is for quashing of compalint (C.C. No. 461/2002 dated 07.05.2002)). The ROC/Respondent has filed the said complaint under Section 63 and 628 of Companies Act, 1956 alleging mis-statement/wrong statement in prospectus dated 18.04.1995 (of M/s Cilson Finance and Investment Ltd.) against its directors/signatories. The prospectus was for public issue of 10,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. This has been admitted by the respondent (U/para 2 and 3) of complaint in page No. 22F of petition) that the company had filed prospectus dated 18.04.1995 with the office of respondent and the prospectus was also got registered by respondent before raising public issue. Thus, the respondent was fully aware about the factum of said prospectus from very inception, i.e., 18.04.1995. However, impugned complaint was filed by the respondent on 07.05.2002, i.e., after 7 years while limitation period prescribed under Section 468(2)(c) is 3 years as maximum penalt...

Sh. M.L. Mahajan Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 160(2009)DLT583

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This appeal by the petitioner in person challenges the judgment dated 23rd September, 1998 by which the objections of the respondent-Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA') in respect of claim No. 4 was allowed and the claim awarded by the Arbitrator in the sum of Rs. 2,64,688/- was set aside. The dispute between the parties arose from the construction of 60 Janata Houses at Dilshad Garden, Delhi. The disputes between the parties the same were referred to the Arbitrator by the Engineer Member (respondent No. 1) of the respondent-DDA. 2. The facts of the case are as follows:a. The date of start of the contract for the above work was 20th November, 1981 and the period of completion was 9 months.b. The date of the completion was thus 19th August, 1982.c. The contract was further prolonged for a period of 17 months and was completed on 11th January, 1984 when the completion certification was recorded, as noted in the Award.3. Clause 10 of the Contract reads as und...

Priya Shah Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]93SCL96(Delhi)

ORDER1. The appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) in the present appeal is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10-2-2009, whereby the learned Single Judge has only partially waived the amount that the appellant was required to deposit towards pre-deposit for his appeal to be heard.2.The allegations of the respondent Enforcement Directorate were that the appellant was guilty of contravention of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'FERA'), particularly Section 8(1). Apparently her father, Late Satnam Shah opened accounts in Swiss Banks as also in the Midland Bank, (later 'HSBC'), in the U.K. According to the Enforcement Department, the appellant was the joint holder of one account and also was under a duty upon the death of her father in terms of Section 8(1) of FERA to repatriate the funds in the account to India through banking channels. The adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.75 crores stating that the appellant had not ...

Anil Kapoor Vs. S.R. Sharma Thr. Lrs.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)155PLR53

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Admit.2. Learned Counsel for the respondents accepts notice.3. At request of learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.4. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of property bearing No. E-386, Grater Kailash-I, New Delhi. The respondent entered appearance and defended the suit. On the completion of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 15.9.1998 as under:(i) Whether Shri S.R. Sharma, the defendant received Rs. 4,00,000/- by way of friendly loan and not in pursuance to the agreements - Annexures A and B as alleged by him?(ii) Whether the defendant had not entered into agreements to sell as alleged by the plaintiff?(iii) Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement?(iv) Relief.5. It appears that thereafter the respondent passed away and his legal heirs were brought on record. The trial, however, did not commence for one reason or th...