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 : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on : Jul-29-2008
1. In this OA applicant has challenged recovery of penal rent from his gratuity for overstaying in the quarter unauthorisedly on the ground that without following the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, no recovery could have been made.2. He has further sought 18% interest on delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment.3. It is stated by the applicant that he was allotted Quarter No. 9C/1, NPL Colony, New Delhi while working as Technical Officer 'C'. He retired on 31.1.2001 and was allowed to retain the said quarter up to 31.5.2001. As his wife was very sick, he sought further extension vide letters dated 24.5.2001, 4.11.2003 and 29.4.2004 but no reply was given. They asked him to vacate and filed OA No. 3046/2002 seeking direction to the applicant herein to vacate the premises and for recovery of dues. The said OA was dismissed on 21.10.2003 (page 37) for want of jurisdiction.4. Grievance of applicant is that respondents have deducted pe...
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!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-29-2008
Reported in : 153(2008)DLT92
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the two appellants, who are real brothers, against the judgment dated 21.11.2001 and order dated 22.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Session Case No. 90/2000 whereby they were convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' in brief) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to a fine of Rs.5000/- each, with a default stipulation, for the murder of one Kapil and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.5000/-each, with a default stipulation, for the attempted murder of his mother. 2. The incident leading to the prosecution of the two appellants(hereinafter to be referred to as the accused persons) was narrated by PW-2 Santosh Sharma in her first information statement to the police(Ex.PW- 2/A) on 12th December,1998 when the incident had taken place. She had claimed that that day i.e. 12th December, 1998, her sons Kapil(the deceased) and Anuj(PW-5) ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-17-2008
Reported in : [2010]321ITR104(Delhi); [2009]182TAXMAN59(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the common order dated 21.4.2006 passed in IT Appeal Nos 3416 and 3417/Del/2003 in respect of financial years 2000-01 and 2001-02, respectively. The sole issue sought to be raised in these appeals is whether the services rendered by the non-resident company Noble Denton and Associates Ltd, (NDAL), UAE for the transportation and jacking up of rigs, review of design and issuance of suitability certificate is covered under Section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 2 thereto or under Section 44-BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This is in connection with deduction of tax at source.2. The Tribunal concluded that a reading of the provisions of Section 44-BB as well as Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the said Act clearly showed that the consideration in question paid or payable by the assessee to NDAL for the services rendered was covered by the provisions of Section 44-BB and not by Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.3. This conclusion of t...
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 : 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 : Mar-19-2008
Reported in : 148(2008)DLT598; LC2008(2)35; 2008(37)PTC71(Del)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. This order disposes of is 642/2008, an application seeking ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendant from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling and exporting the drug Erlotinib, for which the plaintiff holds a patent. Emergent notice was issued, and the parties filed their pleadings as well as documents in support of their contentions, in the suit and the interlocutory proceedings. The application was heard finally for disposal.I The suit1. The Plaintiffs in this suit seek permanent injunction restraining infringement of their patent rights in the drug Erlotinib, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up of the infringing goods.2. The first Plaintiff is a company organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland and has its principal office at Grenzacherstrasse, 124 CH 4070, Basel Switzerland. The second Plaintiff is a company organized and incorporated under the laws of the United States with its registered office at 41, Pinelawn Road, Melville,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-2008
Reported in : 149(2008)DLT338; 2008(103)DRJ596; 2008(37)PTC227(Del)
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants claiming that the defendants were infringing trade mark and registered design of the plaintiff and were passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. Defendants also claimed damages and rendition of accounts. The above application being is No. 1881/07 is made by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.2. The brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this application are that plaintiff claimed that it was marketing 'Dabur Amla Hair Oil' in bottles having a distinctive design having semi circular shoulder with curvaceous back and front panel converging taperly into each other. The shape and configuration of plaintiff's bottle was unique, novel and original and was registered as design No. 17324 under the Designs Act and was valid up to 24th February, 2011. The green cap put over the bottle was also unique and this was registered under Designs Act as design No. 171486 valid...
Tag this Judgment!