Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-02-2008
1. The present case provides a classic example how lightly and by complete lack of application of mind, some times, the authorities entrusted with handling/dealing with enquiries against employees act, who may be visited with such punishments that may totally ruin their career.2. Bharat Singh, the applicant herein, faced a regular departmental enquiry on the following charge, which came to be framed by the enquiry officer after recording statements of HC Sunil Kumar (PW-1), Const.Dalip (PW-2), HC Ramanand (PW-3), SI Yad Ram (PW-4), Inspr. Ombir Singh (PW-5), Inspr. Jagdish Pandey (PW-6), and Ramesh Kumar Chauhan (PW-7): I, H.V.S. Rathi, E.O. ACP/DE Cell, Delhi charge you SI Bharat Singh No. D-633 (PIS No. 16970165) that while you were posted at CAW Cell, South Delhi, the investigation of case FIR No. 393/03 under Section 498-A/406/420 IPC P.S. H.N.Din, New Delhi was entrusted to you. During investigation of the said case, L.O.C. of accused Darshan Kumar Sharma was got opened at Immigr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-06-2008
Reported in : (2008)113ITD655(Delhi)
1. These appeals of the assessee were decided by the Tribunal vide consolidated order dt. 9th March, 2007 reported as Smt. Krishna Verma v. Asstt. CIT (2007) 109 TTJ (Del) (SB) 193Ed. Thereafter, the assessee filed miscellaneous applications bearing Nos. 327 and 264/Del/2007. The said miscellaneous applications were disposed of by the Tribunal vide consolidated order dt. 24th Aug., 2007.2. In the miscellaneous applications filed, the grievance of the assessee was that the Tribunal had decided only one ground of appeal which related to the defect in the notice issued under Section 158BC by giving less than 15 days notice to the assessee to file block return and this Tribunal did not adjudicate upon the other grounds of appeal raised in the above appeals filed by the assessee. Since the Special Bench constituted to decide whole of the appeal and certain other legal grounds involving jurisdictional aspect, which were raised but have not been adjudicated upon, there was a mistake in the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-08-2008
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4107
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Pablo Picasso, a renowned artist said, 'Art is never chaste. It ought to be forbidden to ignorant innocents, never allowed into contact with those not sufficiently prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art.'2. Art, to every artist, is a vehicle for personal expression. An aesthetic work of art has the vigour to connect to an individual sensory, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. With a 5000-year-old culture, Indian Art has been rich in its tapestry of ancient heritage right from the medieval times to the contemporary art adorned today with each painting having a story to narrate.3. Ancient Indian art has been never devoid of eroticism where sex worship and graphical representation of the union between man and woman has been a recurring feature.1 The sculpture on the earliest temples of 'Mithuna' image or the erotic couple in Bhubeneshwar, Konarak and Puri in Orissa (150-1250 AD); Khajuraho in Madhya Pradesh (900-1050 AD); Limbojimat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-25-2008
Reported in : 152(2008)DLT132; 2008(106)DRJ241
Vipin Sanghi, J.WP(C) No. 4584/2008Rule.CM No. 8838/20081. The petitioners viz. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (DSGMC), Shri Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa College, Shri Guru Nank Dev P.G. College, Shri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce, Mata Sundri College for Women have jointly filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the aforesaid four colleges, namely, petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 which are being managed by the petitioner No. 1 DSGMC are Minority Educational Institutions (MEI for short) within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 (NCMEI Act for short) and Section 2(f) of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (CEI (R and A) Act for short). They have also sought a declaration that the reservation policy of the Central Government for admission and recruitment of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is not enforceable against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5. A direction is also sought th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-2008
Reported in : 156(2009)DLT172
Gita Mittal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Aditya Khanna assailing the action of the respondents in revoking his passport bearing No. F 4812183 without issuance of a notice to show cause and grant of an opportunity to represent against the proposed action. The action is assailed also on the ground of malafide and that no order has been communicated to him till date.2. Certain public allegations into the administration and management of the United Nation Oil for Food Programme in Iraq were made. As a result, the United Nations Security Council appointed an independent high level inquiry headed by Mr. Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the United States Federal Reserve to look into the administration and management of the programme in Iraq. On 27th October, 2005 the Volcker Committee submitted its fifth and final substantiative report setting out the manner in which Iraq had manipulated the programme to dispense contracts on the basis of political preference and to derive ill...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on : Mar-18-2008
1. Pursuant to a departmental enquiry, Satish Kumar, a constable in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been inflicted punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service temporarily for a period of one year entailing reduction in his pay from Rs. 4560/- p.m. to Rs. 4475/- p.m. The enquiry officer after recording the statements of HC Suraj Singh (PW-1), W/HC Adesh Kumari (PW-2), ASI Harpal singh (PW-3), SI Jasvinder Singh (PW-4), Krishan Singh (PW-5), Const. Syambir Singh (PW-6) and Inspr. Ishwar Singh (PW-7), framed the following charge against the applicant: You Const. Satish Kumar No. 2149/SD is hereby charged that while you were posted in P.S. Hauz Khas, on 16/07/99 at about 2.35 A.M. you const. Satish Kumar illegally trespassed in the flat No. F-4 Police Colony, P.S. Hauz Khas of Inspector Ishwar Singh while you were under the influence of liquor and was wearing only underwear. Shri Krishan Singh brother of Inspector Ishwar Singh was sleeping in the room who awakened and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-11-2008
Reported in : 156(2009)DLT129
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The above four petitions give rise to a common question about the jurisdiction of Civil Court and are being disposed of jointly by this common order. The learned ADJ where the petitioners filed suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act observed in his order dated 16.10.2006 that in view of the provision of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and returned the plaint. The petitioners aggrieved by the order have preferred these Civil Revisions under Section 115 CPC.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these petitions are that the petitioners are member of Defendant Society (respondent No. 3 herein). This Society purchased 44 acres of land in Village Neb Sarai, Mehrauli from various landholders viz. respondents No. 4-7. The society developed this land into a housing and cultural center. Residential plots were demarcated, boundary walls were erected, roads, sewerages, culverts...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-15-2008
Reported in : (2008)219CTR(Del)397; [2008]306ITR182(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Admit.2. The following substantial question of law arises for our consideration:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in accepting the assessee's claim of expenditure of Rs. 14,03,835/- towards renovation of rented premises under Section 30(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in holding that the Assessing Officer had wrongly disallowed the same on the ground that the same was allowable as a deduction towards depreciation under Section 32 of the said Act?3. The counsel for the parties agreed that no paper books would be necessary and that this appeal be heard straight away.4. The facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed the aforesaid expenditure of Rs. 14,03,835/- as a deduction under Section 30(a)(i) of the said Act. The expenditure was in respect of tenanted premises which had been taken by the assessee on lease for the purposes of its business. The expenditure was towards false ceiling, fixing tiles, replacing glasses, wooden part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-12-2008
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4632; 149(2008)DLT591
S. Muralidhar, J.1. These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seek the quashing of criminal complaints filed against the plantation companies by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for offences under Sections 11B, 12(1-B) read with Section 24 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (`SEBI Act') read with Regulations 5(1), 68(1), 68(2), 73 and 74 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 (`CIS Regulations'). These petitions raise common questions of law and are, thereforee, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In the early 1990s, a large number of plantation companies came to be incorporated. Each of them promised attractive returns to persons prepared to invest their monies in what were known as 'collective investment schemes'. When it transpired that many of these schemes were in fact non-starters, and the investors were not getting back their monies, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-08-2008
Reported in : 154(2008)DLT346
Manmohan Singh, J.1. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 23rd July 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No. 2467 and 2468 of 2000 in Suit No. 2480/98 whereby the application of the Defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed and the plaint as such was rejected mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by strict provisions and rigours of Sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the suit is not maintainable under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure.2. In the nutshell, brief facts for deciding the appeal are that on 12th November, 1996, there was a mid air collision of Saudi Arabian Airlines Boeing 747 ( flight SV 763) with Kazakistan Airlines near Charkhi Dadri, Haryana. One Ms. Farah Mumtaz was a passenger on board of Saudi Arabian Airlines. She died as a result of the said collision. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Farah Mumtaz and claim compensation and damage...
Tag this Judgment!