Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-23-1999
Reported in : 1999VAD(Delhi)65; 81(1999)DLT61; 1999(50)DRJ712; [2000(84)FLR245]
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This petition is directed against the award dated 6.4.96 passed by Sh. Dharam Paul Arora, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. III Delhi whereby the Industrial Tribunal has directed the MCD to appoint Sh. Bhori Lal, respondent No. 1 to the post of Baildar on compassionate ground. 2. One Sh. Chunna Ram was working with MCD as Baildar in the Engineering Department at Karol Bagh Zone as regular employee. He died on 9.2.87 while in the employment. After his death, his son Sh. Bhori Lal respondent No. 1 herein, moved an application with the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The application was rejected by MCD. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 raised Industrial Dispute,which was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication as per Notification No. P26 (1573) /89-lab./13021-26 dated 5.5.89. The terms of reference is as under:- 'Whether Sh. Bhori Lal is entitled to be appointed as Baildar in place of his deceased father late Sh. chunna Ram on compass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-23-1999
Reported in : 1999VIAD(Delhi)723; 82(1999)DLT648; 1999(51)DRJ363
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant in this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has impugned the judgment and order dated 24th August, 1982 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 36 of 1971. By the impugned judgment and order, it was directed that the Award dated 16th July, 1970 passed by Respondent No. 1, the Industrial Tribunal be set aside and it was held that the termination of the services of Respondent No. 2 Workman was void ab initio and inoperative. The learned Single Judge further directed that the Workman continues in service with consequential benefits, namely, full back wages. 2. The Workman was initially employed by the Appellant as a Retainer Crew Conductor on 25th February, 1966. He was thereafter appointed on 2nd November, 1966 as a Conductor on probation for one year. The probation period was extended till 31st October, 1968. On 29th/30th October, 1968 the services of the Workman were terminated by the Appellant in exercis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Nov-08-1999
Reported in : (2000)72ITD1a(Delhi)
..... industrial development bank act, 1964 (18 of 1964); (c) the life insurance corporation of india, established under the life insurance corporation act, 1956 (31 of 1956); (d) the general insurance corporation of india, established under the general insurance corporation (nationalisation) act, 1972 (57 of 1972); (e) the unit trust of india, established under the unit. trust of india act, 1963 (52 of 1963); (f) the industrial credit and investment corporation of india, a company registered under the companies act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (g) the subsidiaries of any of the corporations or companies specified in (a) to ..... responsible person who shall add his address. share of the company shall be transferred in the form prescribed under the companies act, 1956 or in such other form as may be prescribed from time to time under the law applicable to the company.the share transfer form prescribed under section 108(1a) of the companies act was also prescribed under the dse in rule 17. rule 18 is the following: the board of directors may decline to register the ..... that such a close relation would not be required to acquire individual share or individual membership, and (3) on the death of the person who holds the share, the membership of the exchange shall cease under rule 43.rule 43 does not make any distinction between a person who has formed a partnership or who is doing business in his individual capacity.transfer of share is also discretionary. in this connection, our attention is drawn to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-16-1999
Reported in : 1999VAD(Delhi)254; AIR1999Delhi383; 81(1999)DLT228; 1999(50)DRJ751; ILR1999Delhi58
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. The plaintiffs who are husband and wife have filed this suit seeking decree of (1) specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 6.6.1977 executed by defendant No.1 in their favour, (2) for possession (of ground floor part) and (3) for damages.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No. 1 had executed an agreement to sell dated 6.6.1977 of property No. 227 in Block E, Greater Kailash, New Delhi measuring 208 sq. yards in their favor for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees Two lakhs) and in accordance with the agreed terms a sum of Rs. 1 lakh (Rs. 21,000/- as earnest money and Rs. 79,000/- as advance part payment) was paid by them to him on 9.6.1977 at the time of execution and presentation for registration of the said agreement before the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi when the defendant No. 1 had delivered vacant physical possession of the first and second floors of the said property to them. The sale was to be completed by the defendant within 81 d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Dec-08-1999
Reported in : (1999)(115)ELT238TriDel
..... of the appellant, who was during the election a development officer under the life insurance corporation (lic). under regulations 25 of the lic of india (staff) regulations 1960 framed by the lic, all its employees were under an embargo on taking part in municipal elections save with the permission of the chairman of the lic. the appellant was an employee of the lic and had not sought or got the chairman's permission. it was charged that the appellants laboured under legal in-eligibility as contemplated in section 15 (g) of the city of nagpur corporation act, 1948. the hon'ble supreme court observed ..... make such goods eligible for the benefit of small scale exemption.the definition of 'person' in the general clauses act is illustrative and is not applicable to all contexts and purposes. under section 3(42) of the general clauses act, 1897, 'person' shall include any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. the definition is illustrative and is not exhaustive. in the case of duli chand laxmi narayana v. commissioner of income tax, nagpur, air 1956 (43) s.c. 354, the hon'ble supreme court had observed that to read the definition of the word .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-19-1999
Reported in : 1999IVAD(Delhi)777; [1999]97CompCas939(Delhi); 80(1999)DLT593; 1999(50)DRJ630; ILR1999Delhi116
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs. 14,88,300/- on the premise that they are legal heirs of late Shri Kailash Chand Garg who was entitled to the benefits of four insurance policies for a total sum of Rs. 13,17,654.20 Shri Kailash Chand Garg died on 24.6.1997 leaving behind his widow, plaintiff No. 1 and children, plaintiffs No. 2 to 4. The Defendant have preferred the present application under Order xxxvII Rule 3 (5) and Section 151 of the C.P.C. praying for unconditional leave to defend the suit. It is this application which falls for determination.2. The plaintiffs had demanded the said sum from the Defendant Life Insurance Corporation of India in terms of their notice dated 7.4.1998, and the latter had declined to make payment on the ground that a 'Succession Certificate' should be obtained by the plaintiffs. The defendant relies on Sections 212 to 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jun-04-1999
Reported in : 1999IIAD(Delhi)777; 78(1999)DLT738; 1999(49)DRJ268
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition has been filed by Zee Telefilms Ltd. for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the action and decision of the respondents in declining the live telecast of the Lux Zee Cine Award, 1999 on 14th March, 1999 from 8.30 p.m. onwards till the conclusion of the said event and consequently to allot the said time slots to the petitioners. The petitioners further contend that they will abide by the terms and conditions of the rate card etc. issued by the respondents for that purpose. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not granted permission to telecast the above-said event on DD-I Channel which is vocative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the act of the respondents in declining to provide slots to the petitioners while having already telecast Film fare Manikchand ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-27-1999
Reported in : 1999VIAD(Delhi)151; 1999CriLJ4762; 82(1999)DLT180; 1999(51)DRJ495
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This revision by the State is directed against the order dated 16th May, 1989 of a Special Judge, Delhi, dropping the criminal proceedings against respondent-accused.2. Indisputably, chargesheet by the Anti Corruption Branch of Delhi for the offences under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was filed alleging that the respondent on 26th December, 1987 while posted as Manager, New Bank of India, Rana Pratap Bagh obtained Rs.21,000/- from Kamaljit Singh, complainant, as illegal gratification for handing over the loan-bank-draft of Rs. 21,000/- and, thereforee, he being a public servant was guilty for the said criminal offences. Impugned order was passed at the stage the case came up for consideration of framing of charge against the respondent.3. Relying on the decision in Union of India and another Vs . Ashok Kumar Mitra : 1995CriLJ3633 , the submission advanced by Ms. Mukta Gupta for the State was that New Bank o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-20-1999
Reported in : (2000)72ITD485(Delhi)
1. These two appeals of the assessee involve common grounds that is why both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order for the sake of convenience.2. Relevant facts as noted by authorities below are that the assessee who was a Government servant, opened account No. NSS-236 with Parliament Street, Post Office, New Delhi, under National Savings Scheme, 1987 on 29-2-1988. He deposited Rs. 20,000, Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 24,000 in the said account during financial years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 respectively. He claimed the amount of deposits as deductions under section 80CCA of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) while computing the net taxable income for assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 respectively. The appellant withdrew Rs. 20,000 on 15-4-1991 the amount deposited by him during financial year 1987-88. While filing the return of income for assessment year 1992-93, the assessee had shown Rs. 20,000 so withdrawn ou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-21-1999
Reported in : 1999IVAD(Delhi)125; 79(1999)DLT644; 1999(50)DRJ79
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, management, has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 21.7.1995 by which the Labour Court had directed the reinstatement of the workman with full backwages. The question referred to the Labour Court, as mentioned in the award, is:-'Whether termination of services of Shri S.L.Thukral is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled?'2. On the pleadings, the Labour Court framed following issues:-'1. Whether Shri Virender Singh, Secretary (Labour), abused his powers in making the reference as alleged? 2. Whether Shri S.L.Thukral was a workman as defined in Section 2(S) of the I.D. Act? 3. Whether the reference was barred by virtue of provisions contained in the Delhi Shops & Establishment Act and this court had no jurisdiction to decide the reference? 4. Whether the workman was guilty of mis-conduct as alleged in para 9 of the W.S.? 5. Whether the termination of the workman was in accordance with the terms of contra...
Tag this Judgment!