Court : Delhi
1. A writ petition vide W.P.(C) 4582/2003 was filed by Kalyan Sansthan Social Welfare Organization before the Delhi High Court seeking action against defaulting engineers and officials of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short MCD') and for probing their nexus with the hierarchy in the engineering department, builders and the political functionaries. 2. Pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court in the aforesaid petition, a preliminary inquiry was held and pursuant to such preliminary inquiry (PE No.1/06/EOW-IV) a regular case RC No. RCSI8 2006 E 0009 was registered under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC') read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short PC Act') against five accused persons: three functionaries of the MCD and the other two who are the respondents in the present petition viz. M/s Sea Shell Marketing Private Ltd. and its Managing Director Ved Prakash Chaudhary. The aforesaid FIR was lodged on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ?) impugning the order dated 01.05.2015 whereby the learned single Judge has been pleased to set aside the interim award dated 26.06.2014 passed by the sole arbitrator dismissing the application filed by the respondent under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 31 of the Act. 2. The appellant had taken on rent premises at flat No. F “ 601 “ 608 and F “ 610 “ 619 on the sixth floor of Aditya Tower, Building/Plot No.5, District Centre, Delhi on a monthly rental of Rs. 1,50,000/- under lease deed dated 27.03.2008. The period stipulated in the lease deed was 10 years. However, the lease deed was neither sufficiently stamped being stamped on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/- only nor was it registered. 3. Since the lease deed was neither sufficiently stamped nor registered, the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: (a) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.3.2013 issued by Canara Bank (Respondents No.2and3 herein); (b) Issue appropriate, writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari quashing the letters dated 16.4.2013, 16.5.2013, 10.6.2013, 8.7.2013, 28.8.2013, 11.9.2013 and 3.10.2013 issued by Respondents No.2 and 3; (c) Issue appropriate, writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari quashing the executive instructions/clarification dated 15th May, 2008 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services (Respondent No.1); (d) issue any such further and other writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court deems appropriate and fit in the facts and circumstances of the case; and (e) award the costs of the present Writ Petition. ? 2. Some of the facts as noted from the writ petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: (a) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.3.2013 issued by Canara Bank (Respondents No.2and3 herein); (b) Issue appropriate, writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari quashing the letters dated 16.4.2013, 16.5.2013, 10.6.2013, 8.7.2013, 28.8.2013, 11.9.2013 and 3.10.2013 issued by Respondents No.2 and 3; (c) Issue appropriate, writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari quashing the executive instructions/clarification dated 15th May, 2008 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services (Respondent No.1); (d) issue any such further and other writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court deems appropriate and fit in the facts and circumstances of the case; and (e) award the costs of the present Writ Petition. ? 2. Some of the facts as noted from the writ petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. Whether an opportunity to rectify the defects/deficiencies specified by the Medical Council of India need be provided to the applicant under Section 10-A(3) and/or 10-A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short žthe Medical Council Act Ÿ) in cases which fall within the ambit of the provisos (a) to (d) to Regulation 8(3)(1) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (for short žthe Regulations Ÿ) is the issue that falls for consideration by us. Reference to the Full Bench: 2. W.P.(C) No.5041/2015 titled Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji Education Society and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. was filed by a Medical College whose request for grant of permission for third renewal for the Academic Year 2015-16 was rejected by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendation of the Medical Council of India by letter dated 11.05.2015 recommending not to renew the permission for the said College. The admitted facts were that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 20th August 2015, Mr. Niranjan Kouli, CIT (Judicial) is present in Court. He has handed over a status report prepared by him in which inter alia it is stated that there are altogether 1001 defective appeals of the Revenue beginning from the year 2006 onwards that have so far been identified. In other words, these 1001 appeals are yet to be numbered because counsel for the Revenue have not cured the defects pointed out by the Registry of this Court. 2. In response to a specific query by the Court as to the tax effect in all these 1001 appeals, the Court is informed by Mr. Kouli as well as by Mr. N.P. Sahni, learned Senior Standing counsel, some more time would be needed for that purpose. 3. The Court is also informed that the said status report has not yet been placed before the Secretary (Revenue), Government of India and that no instructions as such have been issued by him to the Income Tax Department (ITD) pursuant to this Court's orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This Appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 31st August, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') in Appeal No. 698/DEL/2012 for the Assessment Year ( ˜AY') 2008-09. 2. The Assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing equipment on hiring and manpower etc. for exploration and production of mineral oil and natural gas. The Assessee filed its income for the AY on 4th October 2008 declaring an income of Rs.49,31,260 as per provisions of Section 44BB (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜Act'). In computing the gross receipts for the purposes of determining the taxable income, the Assessee did not include a sum of Rs.2,09,24,553/- being the service tax received from its customers. 3. The Assessing Officer ( ˜AO') by order dated 7th February 2011 rejected the contention of the Assessee and included the aforementioned sum collected by the Assessee as service tax in the gross receipts for computing the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the respondent Border Security Force's (hereafter "BSF") action dismissing them from its services without holding any inquiry or giving them opportunity to explain their alleged misconduct in accordance with its parent law, the Border Security Force Act, 1968 ("the Act") or the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 ( Rules ?) framed there-under. 2. The facts necessary to decide this case are that all the petitioners were enrolled as constables with BSF at different points of time. The first two Petitioners who had joined BSF in 1986 and 1987 as Constables were promoted subsequently to Head Constable and L. Naik. The third and fourth petitioners had joined the BSF in 1994 and 1997. During the months of January- February 2000, five Companies of BSF were deployed for election duty in the erstwhile State of unified Bihar. All the petitioners were in F Company, which was deployed at Chatru Bandu under Police Station Ranka, District Garhwa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These are two appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜Act') by the Assessee and the Revenue against the impugned common order dated 28th September 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') in ITA No. 892/Del/99 for Assessment Year 1994-95. Questions of law 2. On 25th November 2002 while admitting the appeals, the following questions of law were framed for consideration: (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that lease for a period of ten years of plant and machinery along with land and building was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2 (14) of the Act?(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that lease of facilities i.e. plant and machinery along with and building amounted to transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act?(3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The petitioner, which is a company registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956, has challenged through the District Sales Manager of the company, the notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.') issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 23.4.2012 in CC No.599/11/WM. 2. The notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads hereunder:- I, Sheetal Chaudhary, MM, Patiala House Courts, do hereby serve notice u/s 251 of the Cr.P.C. upon you M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., B-100, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110028 through Sh.Gurmeet Singh. It is alleged against you that on 18.08.2010, the inspection was conducted by the complainant at the above place and a packet of tube packed by M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.12, Kheda Growth Centre, Pithanpur, Distt. Dhar (M.P.) PIN-454774 bearing packing date as 6/10, net size 1.467m and customer care No.022-42496400 was found with mutilated MRP. Thereby committed ...
Tag this Judgment!