Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 6 of about 438 results (0.040 seconds)Ang Auto Ltd. (Formerly Ang Exports Ltd.) and anr. Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:29. 05.2014 W.P.(C) 7669/2007 ANG AUTO LTD. (FORMERLY ANG EXPORTS LTD.) & ANR. ..... Petitioners versus UOI & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms Sonia Mathur, Advocate for UOI Mr Rohit Madan, Advocate for CIT CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. In this writ petition the petitioners have made the following prayers:(a) WP(C) 7669/2007 Declare the provisions of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 insofar as it relates to the retrospective amendments of section 28 and 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, (Annexure No.1) as ultra vires the Constitution and liable 2. (b) Declare that the CBDT circular No.2 of 2002 dated 17.01.2006 as ultra vires and unauthorised by insofar it relates to the levy of tax retrospectively on taxpayers by denying the legitim...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. JaIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 340 of 2008 Reserved on: May 21, 2014 Decision on: May 29, 2014 S.K. JAIN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .... Respondents Through: Mr. Ashok Panda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kr. Matta, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2905.2014 1. This appeal under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 ('FEMA') read with Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA), is an off-shoot of the 'Jain Hawala Diaries' case which ended in the quashing of the criminal proceedings as a result of the judgment of the High Court upheld by the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC410[hereinafter referred to the V.C. Shukla case]..2. The present proceedings which emanated under FERA are stated to stand on a different footing, not affected by the closure of the criminal proceedings since FERA is a complete code in itself. The Backg...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Enterprises and anr. Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:29. 05.2014 W.P.(C) 5240/2007 BHARAT ENTERPRISES & ANR. ..... Petitioners versus UOI & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms Sonia Mathur, Advocate for UOI Mr Rohit Madan, Advocate for CIT CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. In this writ petition the petitioners have made the following prayers:- WP(C) 5240/2007 (a) Declare the provisions of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 insofar as it relates to the retrospective amendments of section 28 and 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, (Annexure No.1) as ultra vires the Constitution and liable to be struck down; and (b) Declare that the CBDT circular No.2 of 2002 dated 17.01.2006 as ultra vires and unauthorised by insofar it relates to the levy of Page 1 of 4 tax retrospectively on taxpayers by denying ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt.Kamlesh Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Smt.Veena Rani Aggarwal and ors
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Pronounced on :29. 05.2014 + CS(OS)2337/2008 SMT.KAMLESH AGGARWAL & ORS. ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Himanshu Upadhyay, Advocate. versus SMT.VEENA RANI AGGARWAL & ORS. ..... Defendants Through Mr.J.P.Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.IA No.7431/2011 (u/O7R11CPC) in CS(OS)2337/2008 1. This is an application filed by defendant No.4 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of not having paid adequate court fees.2. Plaintiff No.1 is the mother of plaintiffs No.2 and 3. The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of late Sh.Vijay Kumar Aggarwal. The dispute pertains to the estate pertaining to late Sh.Vijay Kumar Aggarwal. It is urged that the mother of late Sh.Vijay Kumar Aggarwal vide Will dated 17.11.1969 of her father, inherited 55% share in the property bearing No.C40, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. On the death of the mother on 04.10.2002, her estate intestate dev...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Kumar, Delhi and Others Vs. Chief Secretary Govt. of N.C.T. of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. 2. M.A. No.1624/2014 filed under Rule 4(5)(a) of C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together, is allowed. 3. In the present original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have sought issuance of directions to the respondents to regularize their services by formulating one time policy in view of the judgments of the Honble High Court and Honble Supreme Court and further by considering the decisions of the other States, which have regularized the services of the contractual employees. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents appointed the applicants as Staff Nurse in G.T.B., Dilshad Garden, Delhi on contract basis and have been continuing in such capacity for quite long. According to him, the initial appointment of the applicants was based on an interview. He submitted that once the Government of Jammu and Kashmir could tak...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Sigmn Surendra Bahadur Singh Vs. the Chief of the Army Staff and O ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
R.C. Mishra Member (J): 1. By virtue of section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, brought into force w.e.f. 07.08. 2009, this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pending before the High Court of Delhi, stood transferred to this Tribunal. It was filed on 20th April, 2009 for issuance of (i) a writ/order in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent no.1 to treat the petitioner as having continued in service with all consequential benefits and (ii) a writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned proceedings of SCM (Summary Court Martial) and the documents connected therewith including the order dated 02.11.2008,passed by the respondent no. 1,rejecting the petitioners Statutory complaint, under Section 164(2) of the Army Act,1950. 2. Background facts may be summarized as under:- The petitioner was enrolled as Signalman in the Indian Army. At the relevant point of time, he was serving in 14 Rapid Signal Regiment. On 21.03.2007,he was tried and convicted on his p...
Tag this Judgment!Manjit Singh and Others Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi, Throu ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. 2. M.A. No.1648/2014 filed under Rule 4(5)(a) of C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together, is allowed. 3. In the present original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have sought issuance of directions to the respondents to formulate a policy to regularize their services in view of the judgments of the Honble High Court and Honble Supreme Court and further by considering the decisions of the other States, which have regularized the services of the contractual employees. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents appointed the applicants as Paramedical Staff in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital of Govt. of NCT of Delhi on contract basis and have been continuing in such capacity for quite long. According to him, the initial appointment of the applicants was based on an interview. He submitted that once the Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Chandra Mishra, New Delhi Vs. Indian Council of Agriculture Res ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral ). G. George Paracken, Member (J). OA No.1933/2014 The applicant has filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:- 8.1.Direction be passed to the Director (R2) to conclude the disciplinary proceeding at fast pace in unbiased, just and fair manner strictly following the relevant CCA(CCS) rules. 8.2.Direction be passed to the Director (R2) not to suspend me without prior approval from Honble Court viewing his proven mala fides intent and arbitrary action. 8.3.Cost of the application be allowed from ICAR. 8.4.Damage be allowed to me as suffered hardship, agony, financial loss and loss of reputation due to misuse of power of the Director, thus be allowed from the salary of the Director. 2. As far as the first prayer to conclude the disciplinary proceedings at fast pace in unbiased, just and fair manner strictly following the relevant CCA (CCS) rules is concerned, we have inquired from the applicant whether any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. a Duraisamy, Scientist-f, New Delhi and Another Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A). 1. The applicant of this OA is working as Scientist F posted in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. He is aggrieved and has approached this Tribunal on account of denial to him of uniform application of residency period in implementation of Flexible Complementary Scheme (FCS, in short), according to which, the in situ FCS promotion has to be granted on completion of the prescribed minimum residency period, subject to fitness. The grievance of the applicant is that he was due for promotion in terms of FCS much prior to the date from which he has actually been granted such promotion. He has claimed that this decision is contrary to the judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court dated 05.10.2010 in CWP No.14263/2004 in the case of Dr.S.K.Murti vs. Union of India and Others, a copy of which has been produced by him at Annexure A-2, and the judgment of the Honble Apex Court delivered on 02.05.2011 in SLP (Civil) No.13133/2011 (C.C.6864/2011) ...
Tag this Judgment!Patanjali Sharma, Dehradun and Others Vs. the Union of India, Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. These four connected cases were heard together, reserved for orders together and are, therefore, being disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of these cases will be discussed, as described by taking up the case of applicant of OA No.3651/2011 first. 2. The short question involved in these cases is as to when a person, who is duly selected, by the prescribed method and procedure for selection, for appointment to a post, but is not issued a letter of appointment for over a decade, and thus does not join his duties in time, and is then issued a very much belated letter of appointment, and joins duties after more than a decade of his original selection, whether he would be entitled to ante-dated seniority on the basis of his seniority in the original merit list/panel prepared by the selecting body, more than a decade back, irrespective of the rights created in the interregnum in favour of his own panel mates, as well as those who...
Tag this Judgment!