Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI I.T.A. 804 OF 201.Reserved on:22. d March, 2013 Date of Decision:28. h May, 2013 % SHERVANI HOSPITALITIES LTD. ....APPELLANT Through Mr. Ajay Vohra and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RESPONDENT Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SANJIV KHANNA, J.This appeal by the assessee which relates to the assessment year 2001-02, in effect impugns order dated 26th March, 2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(tribunal for short) confirming imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short). By order dated 19th December, 2011, the following substantial question of law was framed:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. While framing the question of law, it was observed that the court was not framing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + (1) CRL. A. No. 535/2010 SHABAB KHAN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Banamali Shukla, Advocate. versus STATE Through: + (2) ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP. CRL. A. No. 536/2010 AFTAB KHAN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Banamali Shukla, Advocate. versus STATE Through: + (3) ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP. CRL. A. No. 538/2010 NAWAB ANWAR KHAN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Banamali Shukla, Advocate. versus STATE Through: % ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP. Date of Decision : May 24, 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.1. The present appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 15.3.2010 and 17.3.2010 wherein the learned trial court convicted the Appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.2. The brief facts of the present case are as under: On 28th March, 2004, at 8.01 p.m., an info...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. Appeal No. 671/2009 Reserved on:15. h February, 2013 Date of Decision:24. h May, 2013 % PHOOL CHAND MAURYA AND ORS. ....Appellant Through Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate for appellant Nos.1 and 3. Mr. Ajay Verma and Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwedi, Advocates for appellant No.2. Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Lao and Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutors. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SANJIV KHANNA, J: The appellants Phool Chand Maurya, Mohan Lal and Yogesh Kumar Maurya impugn common judgment against them by the Trial Court, dated 21st April, 2009 in FIR No. 155 of 2005, under Section 302/323/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder of Kuldeep and causing injury to his family members Raju and Dolly. By Order of Sentence dated 27th April, 2009 for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, they have been sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs 500/each, in default of which they s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :16. h May, 2013 Pronounced on :22. d May, 2013 + CRL.A. 214/2011 MUMTAZ Through : ...Appellant Ms.Charu Verma, Adv. Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ...Respondent Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL % G.P.MITTAL, J.1. In the recent past, Delhi - the Capital City of our Country has witnessed unprecedented protests by Aam Aadmi (common man) and there was public outcry to make the city safe for women who have been guaranteed equal rights to live with dignity. Delhi was referred to as Rape Capital by every newspaper highlighting instances and plight of rape victims. People from all strata of society came on the street with the demand of Death Penalty for Rapists. To address the concern of the citizens and to ensure speedy trial of rapists, Fast Track Courts were created to deal with the cases of sexual offences. Aim was to provide speedy justice and also send a strong message to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :13. h May, 2013 Pronounced on :22nd May, 2013 % + W.P.(CRL) 545/2003 R.P.MALIK Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr.J.K.Chawla, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Saleem Ahmed, Addl. Standing Counsel for the State with ACP Sheel Nidhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI % PRATIBHA RANI, J.1. In the year 2003, the petitioner R.P.Malik filed this Criminal Writ Petition No.545/2003 invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC for issuance of appropriate writ or direction for quashing the FIR No.60/2000 under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act) as well the chargesheet and the proceedings arising therefrom. In addition, the petitioner has also prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or direction to the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs (in pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-20-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 261/2003 Reserved on:14. h March, 2013 Decided on:20. h May, 2013 % K.LAL Through ..... Appellant Mr. Pramod Kr. Dubey, Mr. Amit Singh Rathore, Mr. Hemant Shah, Mr. Rohit Gupta, Mr. Suksham Chauhan, Mr. Shiv Chopra, Mr. Sourabh, Advs. versus C.B.I. Through ..... Respondent Mr. P.K. Sharma, SC with Mr. A.K.Singh, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By the present appeal the Appellant impugns the judgment dated 26th April, 2003 convicting the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 28th April, 2003 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that malafide prosecution has been lodged against the Appellant to wreck vengeance as the App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-16-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A.1433/2010 Prakash Kumar @ Pakka Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay M. Lal, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP AND + CRL.A. 1194/2010 Jai Kishan @ Jacky Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP AND + CRL.A. 1432/2010 Suraj Kumar Thakur Through: ..... Appellant Mr. G.S. Sharma, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP Date of Decision: May 16, 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. These appeals have been preferred under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 assailing the order dated 26th August, 2010 vide which the appellants Prakash Kumar @ Pakka, Suraj Kumar Thakur and Jai Kishan @ Jacky were held guilty for offences under Section 302/34 IPC while co-accused Prakash Raj @ Pintu was acquitted giving him benefit of doubt. Vide order d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : May-13-2013
G. George Paracken, Member (J) Applicants in this joint Original Application are serving as Senior Field Assistants(M) [SFAs(M) for short] and Assistant Field Officers(M) [AFOs(M) for short] in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB for short) under the Ministry of Home Affairs. They are aggrieved by the alleged illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of the Respondents in not giving them the Grade Pays of Rs.2400/- and Rs.2800/- respectively w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as given to their counter-parts serving in the various organizations under the Cabinet Secretariat. 2. The brief background of the case is that SSB was originally under the Cabinet Secretariat. From 14.01.2001, its administrative control was transferred to the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, the other similar organizations such as ARC, SSF and RAW continued to be under Cabinet Secretariat. All those organizations including SSB were having the posts of SFA and AFO and their pay scales from time to time were as under:-Details o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : May-13-2013
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) MA 3625/2012: The applicant has filed the MA for condonation of delay in filing the OA No.4333/2012. He has stated in the said MA that on the permission of this Tribunal in OA No.399/2003, decided on 30.05.2003 (Annexure A12), he filed OA No.1755/2003 by challenging the Scheme of the respondents, i.e., New Recruitment and Assessment Scheme (NRAS), but the said OA was dismissed on 06.05.2004 on the ground of resjudicata. He further stated that the Honble High Court of Delhi dismissed the WP(C) No.10394/2004 and 23790/2005, which was filed against the said decision of this Tribunal dated 06.05.2004, vide its Judgment dated 23.05.2011, which was also upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos.25894-95 of 2011 vide its order dated 24.09.2012. 2. However, the applicant stated that, in the present OA, the applicant has challenged the constitutional validity of another Scheme of the respondents, i.e., Merit And Normal Assessment Scheme (MANAS) and its Circular...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : May-09-2013
Swatanter Kumar, (Chairperson) 1. The Legislature has vested the Central Government with the power to issue directions, in writing, to any person, officer or authority, in exercise of its powers and in performance of its functions under the provisions of Section 5 of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short the Act). Section 5 has two distinct and significant features. Firstly, it opens with a non-obstante clause to give an overriding effect to such directions but such directions have to be subject to the provisions of the Act. Secondly, in explanation to Section 5, the scope of the power to issue directions has been described by use of inclusive language. It extends to issuance of directions even for closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process. It further goes to the extent of issuing directions with regard to the stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity or water or any other services. This wide power has been vested in the Central Go...
Tag this Judgment!