Delhi Court February 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.
Nand Kishore Vs. Through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2012
1. By filing this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 19.7.2011, as at Annexure A1 (page 17 of the paperbook), with further directions to the respondents to release the pension and pensionary benefits to the applicant along with cost and also to pay the arrears of pension from the date of declaring him medically unfit, i.e., from 20.02.1998. 2. The brief facts as projected by the applicant are that the applicant joined the Railways as Khallasi w.e.f. 03.05.1976 and thereafter w.e.f. 20.02.1990, the applicant was declared medically unfit and accordingly he was rendered medically decategorized and thereafter he was given appointment in accordance with his medical fitness and after medical examination, he was given appointment to the post of Safaikaramchari w.e.f. 20.2.1990 (pre-revised) in the scale of pay of Rs.750-940 and his basic pay was fixed at Rs.798/- in the aforesa...
Prakash Chauhan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: 1. The Applicant is an Assistant Assessor and Collector under the MCD. Through this OA he has challenged the penalty of reduction in pay in the present time scale by two stages for a period of two years. Though the penalty had been ordered to be with cumulative effect as per the order of the Disciplinary Authority (DA), subsequently the stipulation of its cumulative impact has been removed by way of modification by the Order of the Appellate Authority (AA). The OA seeks by way of relief: (i) quashing the DA’s Order dated 9.6.2009 and the AA’s Order dated 24.2.2011; (ii) a declaration regarding the Charge Memo dated 10.5.2006 being illegal and unjust; and (iii) a direction for restoring the reduced pay and release of arrears with interest. Besides, allowing costs in favour of the applicant and passing any other order deemed fit under the circumstances have also been prayed. 2. The learned counsels Shri M.K. Bhardwaj and Shri Duli Chand would appear respec...
M/S Parmarth Steel and Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2012
Mathew John, Member (Technical) Two appeals are being decided in this proceeding. Both the Appellants are controlled by closely related persons and are working in the jurisdiction of the same excise officers. Both the Appellants are manufacturers MS ingots and MS bars from steel scrap. On verification of stock conducted on 13.2.2006, the stock of finished goods was found to be short as indicated in the following table:- “Table” When the authorised signatories were confronted with this fact the Appellants opted to pay the duties involved on the goods found short. 2. However, Revenue felt that penalty also should have been imposed on the Appellants. Therefore Show Cause Notices were issued demanding duty and proposing penalty. The demand was confirmed for the said amounts. Duty amounts were already paid by the Appellants and the amounts were appropriated. Further penalty equal to duty amount was imposed on each of the Appellants under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1...
Lt Col Hardeep Sandhu Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2012
1. The OA No.15/2011 was filed in the Armed Forces Tribunal on 11.01.2011. Earlier it was dismissed by the AFT vide its order dated 13.01.2011. Against the said order, the applicant approached the Honble High Court of Delhi and obtained the order dated 25.05.2011 whereby the Honble High Court has remitted back the case to the AFT. Further, the Honble High Court also issued a stay order to the transfer/posting of the applicant from the present place of posting. As per the directions of Honble High Court, the case was again taken up for hearing in the AFT to its original number. 2. Vide this OA, the applicant has prayed that the action of the respondents by not to accept the application for premature retirement (PMR) be declared as unjust, arbitrary and against the fundamental rights as guaranteed under the Constitution. He has further prayed to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 09.10.2006 (Annexure-A-1) which deals with letter of resignation, letters of 08.04.2009 and 12.03....
Warrant Officer Jitendra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2012
1. The present OA No.280/2011 was filed in the Armed Forces Tribunal on 21.7.2011. 2. Vide this OA, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside of 21 Corps Postal Unit Order of discharge dated 15.07.2011 being contrary to the amended Army HQ Policy letter dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure A-1) which is operative from 01.04.2011. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant born on 05.08.1960. He joined the PandT Department on 05.05.1983. Thereafter, on 06.05.1985 he volunteered in the Army Postal Service as a Warrant Officer. Having completed 26 years of service he was given orders for discharge from service since he was a permanent LMC which he acquired in 2009. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the terms and conditions of the Army Postal Service personnel on deputation are governed by the Government of India letter dated 19.03.1985. As per that letter, a Warrant Officer is required to retire at the age of 54. At the time of submitting this OA, the age of the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kanti Bhai Damani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
$~R-65. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 190/2006 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus KANTI BHAI DAMANI ..... Respondent Through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER % 02.02.2012 In the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short), which relates to block assessment period 1st April, 1988 to 27th October, 1998, we are required to answer the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the block assessment and directing him to treat the protective assessment as having been made on substantive basis?".2. The respondent assessee is an individual and was working as a broker/agent in aluminum market. Search and ITA No. 190/2006 Page 1 of 7 seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 27th October, 1998. The...
Rn SoIn and Sons Pvt Ltd Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1757/2011 % Date of Decision : 2nd February, 2012. + W.P.(C) 1757/2011 RN SOIN AND SONS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rajat Naved, Advocate. versus APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.N.P.Sahni, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR SANJIV KHANNA,J: (ORAL).1. The present writ petition under Article 226 impugns the order dated 22.02.2010 passed by the Appropriate Authority under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short). The Appropriate Authority by the impugned order has passed an order for purchase u/s 269 UD(1) of the Act, inter alia, holding that the apparent consideration of Rs.23,80,387/- as declared in form No.37-I for WP(C) 1757-11 Page 1 of 22 purchase of property bearing No.20 Oak Wood Drive, Malibu Towne, Sohna Road, Gurgaon was under-stated..2. The relevant facts are that two individuals, namely, Yoge...
In the Matter of Vs. D.D.a
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.455/2007 Decided on : 2nd February, 2012 IN THE MATTER OF DIGVIJAY SINGH ..... Petitioner Through : Ms. Neha Tanwar, Adv. versus D.D.A. ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Ranuka Arora, Adv. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral).1. The facts of this case have been referred to and dealt with extensively in the order dated 16.9.2011. The said order is reproduced herein below : "1. The petitioner was a registrant with the respondent DDA for a self financing flat under the 6th Self Financing Scheme of the year 1992. The petitioner was vide letter dated 6-8 April, 1993 of the respondent DDA informed that he had been declared successful for allocation of a flat in Block-8, Category-II, Jasola, New Delhi on the ground floor at an estimated cost of `6,30,700/- payable in installments as under:- INSTALLMENTS AMOUNT DUE DATE FIRST `157675.00 31/1/92 SECOND `126140.00 31/7/92 THIRD `157675.00 31/1/94 FOURTH `126140.00 31/7/94.2...
Anand Education Society Vs. Director General of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5467/2010 % Date of Decision : 2nd February, 2012. ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Kanan Kapur, Advocate versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS),DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Anshul Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR SANJIV KHANNA,J: (ORAL).1. Anand Education Society has filed the present writ petition impugning the order dated 29.04.2010 passed by the Director General of Income Tax (Exemption) respondent No.1 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner in Form No.56D for grant of registration u/s 10(23C) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short) for the assessment year 2008- 09 onwards..2. The petitioner society was set up vide certificate of registration dated 4.11.1982. It has been managing and running a school in Delhi WP(C) No.5467/2010 Page 1 of 11 since 1988. The petitioner was re...
Nirmal Kishore JaIn Vs. Sunpack India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 02.02.2012 + CM (M) No. 382/2008 NIRMAL KISHORE JAIN ..... Petitioner Through Mr. P.N. Bhardwaj, Adv. versus SUNPACK INDIA ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Fanish K. Jain, Adv CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1 Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 23.04.2007 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) which has endorsed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 28.03.2003 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord Mirmal Kishore Jain seeking eviction of his tenant M/s Sunpack India on the ground contained in Section 14 (1) (a)(b)(c) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been dismissed. These are two concurrent CM(M) No. 382/2008 Page 1 of 14 findings of fact by the two courts below.2. Record shows that the premises in dispute is a suit property bearing No. 1063-64, Bazar Piawalan, Jama Masjid, D...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »