Delhi Court November 2012 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON:05. 11.2012 PRONOUNCED ON:20. 11.2012 + W.P.(C) 213/2012, C.M. APPL. 452/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .. Petitioner Through : Sh. Deepak Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ..... Respondent Through : Sh. Kaanan Kapoor, Advocate, for Respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. In this writ petition, the revenue challenges the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (Commission, in short) dated 21.10.2011 whereby the Settlement Commission, by a majority of 2:1 admitted applications under section 245C, Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) for settlement of cases even after the expiry of the time limit prescribed for making an order of assessment under section 143/144 of the Act.2. In this view, the short question that arises for consideration in this wr...
Multi Fashion Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI [ Date of decision:20. h November, 2012 % + LPA No.756/2012 MULTI FASHION PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Mayank Goel & Mr. L. R. Luthra, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari & Mr. Ravjyot Singh, Advs. For UOI. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW D. MURUGESAN, CHIEF JUSTICE 1 The appellants had filed W.P.(C) No.80/2008, from which this appeal arises, impugning the order dated 11th October, 2007 of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants for the reason of the failure of the appellants to pre-deposit 10% of the penalty amount i.e. Rs.15 lacs as directed. The learned Single Judge while issuing notice of the writ petition directed the appellants to deposit some amount to show their bona fide. In pursuance thereto a sum of Rs.3 lacs was deposited by the appellants. The appellants thereafter deposited a f...
Cit Vs. Icc India P. Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:20. h November, 2012 + ITA 396/2012 CIT Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Puneet Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Gayatri Verma, Advocate. versus ICC INDIA P. LTD Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. Arta Trana, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J: (OPEN COURT) The Revenue is aggrieved by an order of ITAT dated 30.09.2011 in ITA No.1174/Del/2011. It urges that the following questions of law arise for consideration:1. Whether the Tribunal fell into error in deleting the additions of `1,32,88,530/- made by Assessing Officer under Section 28(iv) of the Act on account of write back of share application money? 2. Whether in the facts of the case the ITAT fell into error in deleting the addition of `45,41,542/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 41(1) of the Act on account of write back of loan? 2. The as...
Talewar Sharma Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :31. t October, 2012 Pronounced on :20. h November, 2012 % + CRL.REV.P.292/2001 TALEWAR SHARMA Through : .....Petitioner Mr.P.K.Sharma, Adv. versus STATE & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State/R-1. Mr.G.P.Thareja and Mr.H.C. Kamra, Advs. for R-2 and R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI % PRATIBHA RANI, J.1. The petitioner is father of deceased Bhagwati Prasad who is aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2001 in Sessions Case No.33/2000 by the learned ASJ whereby respondents No.2 to 4 have been acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC.2. Respondent No.1/State has not impugned the order of acquittal in Sessions Case No.33/2000. Though prayer of the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of acquittal was turned down by the State, he was permitted to file a private petition against the order of acquittal and no objection dated 08.05.2001 to this effect was given by the State.3. The petit...
Constable Kartar Chand and Others Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Poli ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
Shri G. George Paracken: Earlier, the respondents have dealt with the applicants departmentally vide Office Order dated 18.05.1990 on the allegation that on 12.05.1990, they were conducting illegal checking of vehicles with ulterior motive. After a detailed inquiry and on the basis of the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority awarded them the punishment of dismissal from service vide Office Order dated 25.02.1992 and their suspension period from 18.05.1990 to the date of the dismissal was also decided as period `not spent on duty. 2. The applicants preferred appeals against the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority but the appellate authority rejected them, vide its order dated 28.05.1993. Thereafter, they have filed the O.A No. 977/1994 before this Tribunal and it was disposed of by quashing and setting aside both the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and further directing the respondents to reinstate them with all co...
Ms. Santosh Vs. the Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through the Secretary of Ed ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
(ORAL) Ms. Jayati Chandra, Member (A) The instant OA has been filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash the order dated 09.01.2012 (A-1) by which the respondents have turned down the request of the applicant for compassionate appointment. 2. Further she has sought the regularization of her husband Late Shri Neeraj Kumar, part time sweeper posthumously w.e.f. 12.01.2009. Her husband expired on 17.04.2009. 3. The applicants husband was engaged as a Part-Time Sweeper w.e.f. 10.11.1995 (A-2). He had enjoyed a position of trust and responsibility as is evident from his deputation for election duty in 1998. He had made a request to Respondent No.2 on 12.01.2009 seeking to regularize his services in accordance with the directions of the Honble Supreme Court in AIR 2006 SC 1806. 4. The application was duly forwarded on 08.06.2009 (A-7). It was also directed that the applicant be engaged as part-time Sweeper till her husband could be regularised posthumously....
Sh. Tosh Kumar Nichani Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secreta ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
G. George Paracken: This Original Application has been made against the order dated 20.08.2010 by which the disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of only one year with cumulative effect upon the applicant and the order of the appellate authority dated 11.03.2011 rejecting his appeal. He is also aggrieved by the decision of the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 09.07.1999 to 24.03.2005 as period `not spent on duty for all purposes. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant while functioning as TGT (Science), there were some complaints against him and his wife alleging certain financial irregularities against them and the Anti Corruption Branch of the respondent-department conduced an inquiry but stated that, despite their sincere efforts, they could not locate any kind of financial institutions as has been allegedly running by them. However, they have stated in their report that the...
Ms. Neetu Sharma Vs. Union of India Through Secretary (Revenue), Minis ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
(Oral) The applicant is aggrieved by the respondents decision by which her request for transfer on Spouse Ground has been rejected for the reason that she had not completed the probation period. 2. Brief Facts of the present case are that the applicant was initially appointed as an Inspector in Central Excise on 08.02.2011 on the basis of the competitive examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. At present, she is serving as Inspector-ICT, Central Excise Zone, Ahmedabad. Later on, she was transferred and posted as Inspector of Central Excise and Customs to Rajkot Commissionerate vide Order dated 25.01.2011. She joined there on 08.02.2011. 3. The husband of the applicant is a permanent employee of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and his services are non-transferable. She has, therefore, submitted an application dated 16.03.2011 for transferring her to Delhi in terms of the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEandC) policy issued vide letter No. A....
Sh. Gyanendra Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
G. George Paracken: The applicant is aggrieved by the Annexure A-1 notice dated 20.12.2010 to show cause as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police should not be cancelled. The reasons indicated in the proposed notice are that he had applied for the aforesaid post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2009 under the category of Ex-serviceman OBC. He has mentioned so in Column No. 7 of the prescribed application form. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, he was provisionally selected. However, before issuing the offer of appointment on verification of his original documents, it was found that he belongs to JAT caste in Uttar Pradesh which is not covered in the Central List of OBC category. Thereafter, he submitted an application to change his category from Ex-serviceman OBC to Ex-serviceman General category. But his said request was not allowed as the final result of the selection was already d...
Sam Mathew, Technical Assistant Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Its ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
G. George Paracken: The relief sought by the applicant in this Original Application is to prepone his date of promotion as Technical Assistant to 30.01.2001 from 11.09.2007. The facts necessary for adjudication of this case are delineated as under. 2. The applicant was appointed as a Lab Assistant with the Respondent No. 3, namely, Maulana Azad Medical College w.e.f. 04.08.1978 through the Staff Selection Board. Thereafter, he was appointed as Lab Technician, again through Staff Selection Board w.e.f. 10.06.1986. From the said post of Lab Technician, he was promoted as Technical Assistant w.e.f. 27.11.1998. The aforesaid order of promotion was challenged by one Mrs. Savitha Sharma and others before this Tribunal in OA 2487/1998 on the ground that the promotion was given to the applicant by relaxing the eligibility conditions. This Tribunal allowed the said O.A and set aside the promotion of the applicant vide order dated 04.11.1999. Even though the applicant challenged the aforesaid or...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »