Delhi Court November 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
C.S. Aggarwal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. By this petition, the Petitioner had sought immediate release of the Petitioner and quashing of the orders dated 15th September, 2011 and 17th September, 2011 granting/extending the police custody of the Petitioner, appointment of new investigating officer and directions to ensure fair and unbiased investigation.2. Initially the matter was referred to the Hon'ble Division Bench in view of the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was under illegal detention and he was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, the Hon'ble Division Bench came to the conclusion that the relief sought by the Petitioner was essentially of seeking bail and other reliefs as enumerated in the other prayers of the amended writ petition. Therefore, by order dated 18th October, 2011, the matter was referred back to this Court. In the present writ petition the Petitioner confines his prayer to the grant of bail only.3. Learned co...
Ram Karan Gupta Vs. Dayanand Gupta and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. These are two petitions which have been filed by the petitioner Ram Karan Gupta.(i) The first is Execution First Appeal No. 15/2011. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order dated 24.03.2011 vide which the Executing Court had disposed of the application filed by the auction purchaser under Order 21 Rules 94 & 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code') as also the objections filed by the objector/ judgment debtor namely Ram Karan Gupta and had directed that since the auction of the suit property dated 08.10.2010 has been confirmed, a sale certificate be directed to be issued in the name of the auction purchaser and necessary documents for the mutation of the said property had been given. Execution petition had been disposed of accordingly.(ii) The second petition is CM No. 1093/2011 which has assailed the order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the Executing Court whereby the application filed by the auction purchaser under Order 21 R...
Venad Properties Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. The appellant-Venad Properties Private Limited in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short), has challenged the order dated 18th December, 2009 passed in ITA No. 374/DEL/1997 on the following grounds:(1) No search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on the appellant. Notice under Section 158BC of the Act was not served on the appellant and, therefore, the block assessment order dated 28th November, 1997 under Section 158BC read with Section 144 of the Act is void ab initio.(3) The tribunal has erred in holding that even if the notice under Section 158BC of the Act was not served on the appellant, it amounts to a mere procedural irregularity which can be rectified and is not an illegality. The tribunal has erred in relying upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shirish Madhukar Dalvi versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2006] 287 ITR 242, whereas there is a contrary binding judgment of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in ITA...
Jagatjit Industries Ltd Vs. Dy.Commr.of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. By order dated 8th February, 2001, the following substantial question of law was framed:-"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in not allowing investment allowance on enhanced liability of Rs.2,90,226/- representing the increase in actual cost u/s 43A on account of fluctuations in foreign currency rates?"2. The appellant-assessee is a company and the assessment year involved is 1983-84.3. We need not refer to the factual matrix of the case as the issue pertains to computation of investment allowance on enhanced liability of Rs.2,90,226/- representing the increase in actual cost under Section 43A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The enhanced investment allowance was claimed on the basis of fluctuation in the foreign currency rate on account of depreciation in the value of the Rupee at the end of financial year. This as per the stand of the appellant-assessee had to be accounted and added to the capital cost of imported plant and equipment, paym...
Subhash and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secreta ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
(Oral) 1. The counsel for the respondents placed on record a copy of order dated 9.11.2011 whereby the respondents have intimated that the case of the applicants has been processed for regularization but they have not been found due and they would be considered for regularization as per their seniority as and when vacancy arises. As such, nothing further survives for consideration in the present Application. 2. The learned counsel for the applicants seeks to go through the said order and seeks liberty to challenge the same, if so advised, in accordance with law. 3. The OA is disposed of as having become infructuous with liberty as above....
Lt. Col. Ln Bhargava (Retd.) Vs. the Union of India Through the Secret ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a)To issue an appropriate order or direction for quashing the decision of Respondents dated 10.2.2007 and 19.6.2009 rejecting the claim for payment of gratuity for the service of more than 31 years rendered by the wife of the Applicant; To issue an appropriate order directing the Respondents to pay the arrears of pay and allowances in revised pay scale as per 5th Pay commission as applicable to the post of Headmistress wef 5.9.1998 till 30.6.2002; (c)To issue an appropriate order directing the Respondents to pay Pensionary benefits for the period 1.7.2002 to 13.6.2003; (d)To issue an appropriate order directing the Respondents to pay commuted value of pension, leave encashment for the period accumulated and gratuity as per last pay drawn in revised pay scale of Headmistress after re-fixing the pay; (e)To issue an appropriate order to the Respondents to pay medical claim bill of Rs 8181.27 p due ...
Shiv Mangal Rai and Another Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
(Oral) 1. This Application is directed against the respondents’ communication dated 13.7.2010, a copy of which is at Annexure A/1. This communication is in compliance with the directions given earlier in OA 789/2008 to which the applicant herein was one of the parties, as the applicant. The applicant seeks directions to the respondents to pay the pension and other benefits to the applicant for having rendered long service with the respondents. 2. The applicant’s claim has been opposed by the respondents on the ground inter alia that there is no rule providing for the benefits which are being claimed by the applicant herein. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant fairly conceded this. Nevertheless, he seeks directions to the respondents to implement the directions given earlier in OA No.789/2008 which reads as follows:- “Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Government may be asked to consider the prayer of the applicants and in ...
R. Natarajan and Others Vs. the Secretary, Department of Consumer Affa ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A): 1. Nineteen applicants working as Assistant Registrar, Section Officers (SOs), Private Secretaries (PSs) and Court Masters (CMs) in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) - a statutory body constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have been aggrieved by the letter dated 24.02.2010 (Annexure A-1) wherein their request for grant of non-functional pre-revised scale of `8000-13,500 on completion of 4 years of service at par with Section Officers/Private Secretaries of CSS/CSSS was not acceded to, and the letter dated 02.09.2009 (Annexure A-1A) in which the proposal to revise and re-fix the pay of the applicants in NCDRC on the basis of the recommendations made by the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) has not been acceded to. Thus feeling aggrieved by the said letters and impugning the same, they have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following set of relief(s): “...
Vijay Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicant was a candidate for the post of Grade-IV (DASS) under Post Code No. 38/2008 under unreserved category. But, although he was provisionally selected for the post on the basis of the result notice dated 10.03.2010, his candidature was cancelled on the ground that his hand writing in the application form was not matching with that in the answer sheets. 2. The applicant submits that he had himself appeared in the examination and the skill test, the respondent Board had taken fool proof precaution against impersonation. It was unjustified to cancel his candidature without taking help of hand writing experts. He has scored higher marks than the selected candidates and had better claims for appointment on the post. Therefore, his prayer is to set aside the impugned order of cancellation of his candidature and to give a direction to the respondents to process his case for appointment and if necessary to obtain the opinion of hand writing experts. 3. ...
Sh. Kuldeep Singh and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Pri ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The sole grievance of the applicants is that their candidatures for the post of Fire Operator in Delhi Fire Service under Government of NCT of Delhi have been rejected by respondent No. 2 on the ground that they had put their signatures on the application form in Block Capital letters which was strictly not in accordance with the instructions to the candidates. They have qualified the written examination and other required tests and were eligible for appointment on the post. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in OA-2206/2010 and OA-4271/2010. In similar circumstances, the Tribunal following the ruling given on 07.09.2011 in OA-3789/2010 gave the following direction in OA-4271/2010:- “7. In view of the fact that this issue has already been decided by the Tribunal, we would direct the respondent No.2 to examine the genuineness of the signature of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »