Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003VIIAD(Delhi)1; 107(2003)DLT385; 2003(71)DRJ178; 2003(3)JCC1669
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. PREFACE 1. Every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. The journey, in the present case, has been navigated by the Designated Judge of the Special Court constituted under Section 23 of the Prevention of Terrorists Activities Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as POTA). In the Murder Reference and the connected appeals arising out of the judgment dated 16.12.2002, we are called upon to decide the legality and validity of the trial as also the sustainability of the judgment pronounced by the Designated Judge of the Special Court, POTA. By the impugned judgment, the learned Designated Judge has held that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charge of conspiracy against accused Nos. 1 to 3, for having entered into a conspiracy with the 5 slain terrorists who had attacked Parliament House on 13.12.2001 along with Mohd. Masood Azhar, Gazi Baba @ Abu Zehadi @ Abu Seqlain and Tariq Ahmed, all Pakistani nationals (declared as pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. The journey, in the present case, has been navigated by the Designated Judge of the Special Court constituted under Section 23 of the Prevention of Terrorists Activities Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as POTA). In the Murder Reference and the connected appeals arising out of the judgment dated 16.12.2002, we are called upon to decide the legality and validity of the trial as also the sustainability of the judgment pronounced by the Designated Judge of the Special Court, POTA. By the impugned judgment, the learned Designated Judge has held that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charge of conspiracy against accused Nos. 1 to 3, for having entered into a conspiracy with the 5 slain terrorists who had attacked Parliament House on 13.12.2001 along with Mohd. Masood Azhar, Gazi Baba @ Abu Zehadi @ Abu Seqlain and Tariq Ahmed, all Pakistani nationals (declared as proclaimed offenders), to procure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)81TTJ(Delhi)571
1. The following ground was initially raised in this appeal directed by the Revenue against the order passed by the CIT(A) : "On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) had erred in allowing exemption under Section 11 even though no order under Section 12A(a) was passed." 2. Subsequently by means of a written communication dt. 18th July, 2002, an additional ground was raised and which runs as under : "On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing exemption under Section 11 even though the assessee had been banned on 10th Dec., 1992 for a period of two years under Section 6 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.".3. The aforesaid ground has been admitted by means of an interim order of even date.4. Before we proceed to deal with the grounds certain facts are required to be set out and these are that the assessee was required to file the return of income for the year under consideration on or before 10th Oct., 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2002]257ITR609(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. CM No. 48 of 2002 : Allowed subject to just exceptions : I.T.A. No. 125 of 2002 : This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), dated October 19, 2001, in I.T.A. No. 7156/Delhi of 1994, pertaining to the assessment year 1991-92. 2. The main ground on which the assessed had been denied exemption under Section 11 of the Act was that the assessed-trust had allegedly made donations to an association which was involved in unlawful activities and had been declared to be so by the Central Government. While dealing with the said objection by the Department, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short 'the CIT(A)') and the Tribunal have noticed that the stand of the Assessing Officer is not correct inasmuch as the notification declaring the association concerned as unlawful has been quashed by the Tribunal. This fact has not been controverter in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2002)176CTR(Del)541
D.K. Jain, J.CM 48/02Allowed subject to just exceptions :ITA 125/022. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 19-10-2001 in ITA No. 7156/Del/1994, pertaining to assessment year 1991-92.3. The main ground on which the assessed had been denied exemption under section 11 of the Act was that the assessed-trust had allegedly made donations to an association which was involved in unlawful activities and had been declared to be so by the Central Government. While dealing with the said objection by the department, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have noticed that the stand of the assessing officer is not correct inasmuch as the notification declaring the association concerned as unlawful has been quashed by the Tribunal. This fact has not been controverter in the appeal.4. It is contended by Mr. R.D. Jolly, learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 99(2002)DLT147; 2002(63)DRJ563
ORDERThis order will answer the reference under Section 4(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').1. The Central Government vide notification No.S.O.960 (E) dated 27.9.2001, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, declared Students Islamic Movement of India (hereinafter for short referred to as 'SIMI') to be an unlawful association. Under proviso to Sub-section (3) of the Act, the Central Government also declared the said association to be unlawful with immediate effect, as in its opinion the circumstances so warranted. The Central Government by another notification No.S.O.961 (E) dated 8.10.2001, under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, constituted this Tribunal, and made the reference under Section 4(1) of the Act for adjudicating whether or not there is sufficient cause for declaring the said association unlawful. The notification was accompanied by a resume of facts and grounds on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002IVAD(Delhi)57; 96(2002)DLT559; 2003(1)SLJ11(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. The members of the petitioner No. 1/Association herein are/were working as Junior and Senior Residents in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that according to the Residency Scheme issued by the Central government under its letter dated June 5, 1992, the members of the petitioner No. 1/Association are entitled to free furnished accommodation in addition to the House Rent Allowance. Accordingly the members of the petitioner No. 1/Association have sought for a relief of issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant House Rent Allowance to the members of the petitioner No. 1/Association in addition to the free furnished accommodation with a further prayer that the respondents should be directed not to deduct House Rent Allowance from the respective salaries of the members of the petitioner No. 1/Association as the said action is unlawful, illegal and arbitrary. 3. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 95(2002)DLT133; [2002(93)FLR277]
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The defendants were once the employees of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a known Five Star Hotel. After the termination of their services for insubordination they started indulging in dirty and filthy gesticulations and slogan shouting, display of placards, demonstrations, picketing, abusing and harassing the guests and other visitors, business associates and the non-demonstrating staff entering the Hotel premises. The demonstrations and the shouting and abusing become more aggressive when a foreign tourist enters into or goes out of the Hotel. 2. Through this suit permanent injunction has been sought as these demonstrations are continuously held and the defendants 2 to 7 have threatened the direct action. The plaintiff also apprehends that there is a serious and immense danger of the defendants indulging in various acts of violence, threats, demonstration and tortuous action. 3. In view of the fact that the plaintiff is dealing with hyper-sensitive guests of differ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999VIAD(Delhi)821; 82(1999)DLT13; 1999(51)DRJ371
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. The present revision petitions are directed against the order dated 1.8.1997 passed by Shri V.B. Gupta, Special Judge, Delhi in C.C. No. 44/96 directing to frame charges under Section 120-B, IPC and under Sections 7/11/12/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioners. By this order, I propose to dispose of these revision petitions.2. A short conspectus of the case is that during the years 1988 to 1991, three brothers namely the accused S.K. Jain, B.R. Jain and N.K. Jain entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves, the object of which was to receive unaccounted money and to disburse the same to their companies, friends, close relatives, highly placed officials and prominent political leaders of the country. In pursuance of the said, conspiracy, the accused S.K. Jain, allured certain influential public servants, political leaders of high status including some Ministers and Government organisations in the power a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)706; 1998CriLJ988; 1998(1)Crimes38; 1997(43)DRJ699
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) These matters arise out of judgment of conviction passed by Court of Sessions in respect of Kishori, Mohd. Abbas and Duli Chand, who are appellants before this Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that these accused were among the rioters and the unlawful rioters assembly had the common object of killing Sikhs, looting and burning their properties and with this common object accused persons Along with their associates killed Sajan Singh, Inder Singh and Hoshiar Singh and burnt their house 2/85, Tirlokpuri, Delhi, and thereby committed offence under Sections 148, 302 Indian Penal Code read with Sections 149 and 436 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code It has also been held that rioters assembly also killed Gyan Singh, Mahinder Singh and Kishan Singh, the relatives of Ganga Kaur. (2) Along with these appellants, one Ram Pal Saroj was also held guilty but case against him abated due to his death during the trial. (3) For offence under Section 302 ...
Tag this Judgment!