Delhi Court September 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
S.V.Arumugam Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. The present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, seeks quashing of complaint No.1323/1/2006 filed by respondent No.2 impleading a private limited company, its Managing Director i.e. the petitioner and its Manager (Legal) as the accused and the order dated 02.09.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoning the petitioner to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 409/420/ 467/471 read with Section 120B IPC is also challenged. 2. In a nutshell, the relevant facts are that petitioner S.V.Arumugam is admittedly the Managing Director of the company Shiva Texyarn Limited (formerly known as Annamalai Finance Limited), incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956 and engaged in the business of finance. 3. On 04.04.1995 Annamalai Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Annamalai Company') sanctioned a loan in sum of `6,00,000/- to M/s.Ashok Kriplani & Co., a proprietorship concern of respondent No.2 Ashok Krip...
Vipul Medcorp Tpa Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. The five petitioners claim that they are Third Party Administrators (TPA, for short) and perform functions by acting as facilitators of the insurance companies, which provide cashless facilities to the mediclaim policy holders. The petitioner companies have been licensed by the respondent No. 2, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, to provide the said support insurance services. The petitioners state that they reimburse and make payments to the hospitals for the expenses incurred on the medical treatment of the policy holders of the insurance company. They discharge the liability of the insurance company under the contract of insurance entered into between the insurance company and the policy holder. 2. The petitioners have challenged circular No. 8/2009 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, respondent No. 1 herein on the ground that the circular requires deduction of tax at source (TDS) under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for short) when the T...
Prem Khera Vs. Subhash Goyal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree for `2,00,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum passed by the learned Trial Court in favour of the respondent. 2. The respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff", instituted a suit for recovery of `4.00 lakh under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure against the appellant, hereinafter referred to as "the defendant". 3. Vide Agreement to sell dated 28th February, 2007, the plaintiff agreed to purchase property bearing No.462, Pocket D-16, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi-110085 from the defendant for a total consideration of `18.37 lakh, out of which the plaintiff paid a sum of `2.00 lakh at the time of the agreement and the remaining amount was agreed to be paid on 29th April, 2007 and the sale deed was agreed to be executed on 30th April, 2007. According to the plaintiff, the defendant did not show the original documents of title and the documents relating to clearance of house tax, electricity and water bills to the...
M/S Selex Sistemi Integrati, Spa Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
A Division Bench of this Court referred the following issue to be dwelled upon by the Full Bench: "The question which thus arises for consideration is whether in the matter of scrutiny and award of tender, the fairness of procedure under Article 14 of the of the Constitution of India can be examined de hors the rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to carry on the business and trade at the behest of a foreign company invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially keeping in view of the fact that the issue of fairness in treatment and absence of arbitrariness when involved on the basis of Article 14 in tender matters is relatable to the doctrine that the State has to be fair in distribution of State largesse to its citizens." 2. When the matter was placed before us on certain dates, there was debate as regards the said issue. Thereafter on 4th February, 2011, learned counsel for the parties fairly stated that they have no object...
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and ors. Vs. P. Rama K ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. This intra court appeal under Chapter X of the Letter Patents Act has been filed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, the Council and the Disciplinary Committee of the said Institute, Ms. Vandana D. Nagpal, Director (Discipline). The main contesting respondent is P. Rama Krishna, respondent No. 1, who had filed Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 1721/2010, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 16th April, 2010. 2. At the outset, it may be stated that a very limited but an interesting issue arises for consideration in the present appeal. The appellants have substantially accepted the judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing the decision of the Council dated 3rd February, 2010, consequent upon which the communication dated 19th February, 2010, was written to the first respondent. The said communication has also been quashed. As the appellants have accepted the decision to this extent, we need not go into the said factual aspects or merits of...
M/S Shiva Taxfabs Limited and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. The petitioners six in number have prayed for quashing of Circular No. 929/19/2010-CX dated 29th June, 2010, issued by respondent No. 3, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ministry of Finance (Board, for short). It is alleged that the circular is patently illegal and contrary to the ratio approved and held by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT, for short), Northern Bench, New Delhi in the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur vs. G.P.L. Polyfils Ltd., reported in 2005(183) E.L.T. 27 (Tri. - Del.). 2. The contentions of the petitioners are three fold. The decision in the case of GPL Polyfils Ltd. (supra) was accepted by the respondents and was not challenged. The said decision, therefore, is binding on the respondents in view of the principle of consistency and uniformity. Reliance is placed on Union of India v. Kaumudini, (2001) 10 SCC 231; Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CTI, (2004) 12 SCC 42; Indian Oil Corporation vs. CCE, Baroda, (2007) 13 SCC 803; Co...
Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi (Central)-ii Vs. Manoj Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. These three appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) have been preferred by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II against Manoj Aggarwal. ITA Nos. 904/2009 and 905/2009 are directed against the common judgment dated 25th July, 2008 passed by the Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) in IT(SS) A No. 404/DELHI/2003 and IT(SS) A No. 415/DELHI/2003 preferred by Manoj Aggarwal and the Revenue respectively. These appeals pertain to the block assessment period 1991-92 to 2001-02 (upto 20th August, 2000). ITA No. 575/2009 is directed against the order passed by the tribunal dated 26th September, 2008 in ITA Nos. 5643/D/2004 and 5470/D/2004 preferred by Manoj Aggarwal and the Revenue for the assessment year 2001-02. In the order dated 26th September, 2008, the tribunal has remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to comply with the findings/observations in the order of the Special Bench dated 25th Jul...
Dr. Pramod Ramjee Sahare Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Railway ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman: 1. When ignored for promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG), for which DPC was held in 2008, the applicant filed Original Application No.2963/2010 which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide orders dated 8th April, 2011. The DPC considered five ACRs of the applicant for the period 2003-04 to 2007-08. Whereas, his ACRs for the years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 were commensurate to benchmark for promotion, the ACR for the year 2006-07 which was reported as “very good” by the reporting officer, was downgraded by the reviewing officer as “good”. ACR of the applicant for the year 2007-08 was graded as “average”. The applicant made representations against the said ACRs, which were rejected by separate orders. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed an appeal, which was rejected. In consideration of the fact that none of the orders passed by the concerned authorities either rejecting the representations of the applican...
K.C. Aggarwal Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Home A ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman: K. C. Aggarwal, the applicant herein, a DANICS officer of 1982 batch, has been ignored/superseded for appointment/promotion to Indian Administrative Service (IAS) against four vacancies for the year 2008. Aggrieved of the same, he has filed present Original Application seeking to quash and set aside his assessment as “good” in the selection committee meeting held on 7.7.2010 as well as in the re-convened meeting held on 28.12.2010, and in consequence of the same, to direct the respondents to re-assess him in a just and reasonable manner based on his ACRs within a time-bound manner, and also to give him all consequential benefits, which would include payment of arrears of pay and allowances in the higher grade from the date his junior Shri K. K. Jindal was promoted/appointed to IAS. 2. Brief facts on which the reliefs indicated above are sought to rest reveal that the applicant after resigning from Rajasthan J...
Bhim Singh Melha Vs. Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice-chai ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman: 1. Bhim Singh Melha, an Assistant Director with respondent-DDA, the applicant herein, sequel to a departmental enquiry, has been inflicted punishment of reduction of pay by one stage with cumulative effect vide order dated 5.1.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority in that behalf. The appeal preferred by him against the order aforesaid has since been dismissed vide order dated 8.1.2010 passed by the appellate authority. These are the orders that have been challenged by him in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. There may not be any need to give facts in details as we are of the opinion that orders passed both by the disciplinary and appellate authorities are cryptic and non speaking, wherein the defence projected by the applicant has not been taken into consideration, least discussed and adjudicated upon. 2. The applicant faced departmental enquiry on the charges as mentioned in the statemen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »