Indian Law Reports Delhi Series 2013
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
I.L.R. (2013) IV DELHI Part-II (August, 2013) P.S.D. 25.8.2013 (Pages 2919-3258) 600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS Annual Subscription rate of I.L.R.(D.S.) 2013 (for 6 volumes each volume consisting of 2 Parts) DELHI SERIES 2013 In Indian Rupees : 2500/- Single Part : 250/- (Containing cases determined by the High Court of Delhi) VOLUME-4, PART-II (CONTAINS GENERAL INDEX) EDITOR MS. R. KIRAN NATH for Subscription Please Contact : REGISTRAR VIGILANCE CO-EDITOR Controller of Publications MS. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA Department of Publication, Govt. of India, (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE) Civil Lines, Delhi-110054. REPORTERS Website: www.deptpub.nic.in MR. CHANDER SHEKHAR MS. ANU BAGAI Email:[email protected], [email protected] (DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE) MR. SANJOY GHOSE Tel.: 23817823/9689/3761/3762/3764/3765 MR. GIRISH KATHPALIA MR. ASHISH MAKHIJA Fax.: 23817876 MR. VINAY KUMAR GUPTA (ADVOCATES) MS. SHALINDER KAUR MR. LORREN BAMNIYAL MR. GURDEEP SINGH MR. KESHAV K. BHATI MS. ADITI CHAUDHARY JOINT REGISTRARS MR. ARUN BHARDWAJ MS. ANU GROVER BALIGA MR. DIG VINAY SINGH (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGES) PRINTED BY : J.R. COMPUTERS, 477/7, MOONGA NAGAR, KARAWAL NAGAR ROAD DELHI-110094. PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AND PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI, BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-110054. BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-110054—2013. (i) (ii) NOMINAL-INDEX Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Limited v. The Member, Sales Tax VOLUME-4, PART-II Tribunal & Ors. ........................................................................... 3035 AUGUST, 2013 Pushpa Khatkar v. D.D.A. & Anr. ..................................................... 2968 B.N. Sanawan v. UOI & Anr. ............................................................ 3169 Rabindra Nath Tripathy v. Union of India & Ors. ............................. 2944 Beg Raj Indoria v. Union of India & Ors. .......................................... 2955 Ravinder Kaur v. Delhi Development Authority ................................. 3073 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income ..... 3125 Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-(LTU) and Anr. ....................................................... 3091 Bijender Chauhan @ Bijender Kumar v. Financial Eyes (India) Ltd. ................................................................................... 3234 Sachin and Ors. v. Krishna Kumari Nangia and Ors. ........................ 3204 C.P. Inasu v. DDA ............................................................................. 3083 Satish Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. ............................................. 3253 The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-II v. Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. ....................................................................................... 3156 Sangit Agrawal v. Praveen Anand & Anr. ......................................... 3218 Hardeep Gill v. Pumpkin Studio Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ............................. 3246 Servel Industries v. Alcobrew Distilleries (India) Pvt. Ltd. ............... 3191 Jankalyan Telecom Coop. Store v. M.T.N.L. & Ors. ....................... 3069 Shivalik Bimetal Controls Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer ...................... 2936 Madhu Arora Alias Hony Monga v. Delhi Development Authority.... 3001 Surinder Kumar Jain v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. .......... 3145 Madhu Gupta v. Director of Income-Tax (Investigation) Surjeet Singh and Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. ....... 3015 and Others.................................................................................... 2919 Thakur Tankers v. D.D.A & Anr....................................................... 3056 Major Arvind Kumar Suhag v. Union of India and Ors. .................... 2989 Vipin Chanana v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence....................... 2941 Mohinder Kaur Bajaj & Ors. v. D.D.A and Anr. ............................... 2977 Vijaya C. Gursahaney v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.......... 3006 NB Ris Ravinder Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors. ............... 3106 Pioneer Multifilms v. Pacquick Industries Ltd. .................................. 3180 (iv) SUBJECT-INDEX is liable to be charged —Direction issued to DDA to allot and VOLUME-4, PART-II issue a Demand—cum—Allotment Letter for LIG flat of same AUGUST, 2013 size and in same locality as flat which was allotted to Petitioner earlier and preferably of same flat unless it has been allotted ADMINISTRATIVE LAW—Petitioner applied for allotment of to any other person at cost prevailing at relevant time. flat under IVth Registration Scheme on New Pattern, 1979 mentioning her address at "SB"—Later on, Petitioner intimated Pushpa Khatkar v. D.D.A. & Anr. ........................... 2968 to DDA her correspondence address of Haryana—Petitioner ARMY ACT, 1950—Section 63—Section 80/82—Summary was successful in draw of lots held by DDA—However, Trial—Conviction—Brief Facts—Petitioner was enrolled as a Demand-cum-Allotment Letter admittedly was sent on old Sepoy on 10.3.2003 and posted with 22nd Batallion Rajputana address of Petitioner which was received undelivered—Since Rifles—Unblemished service record—In March, 2012, no response received from petitioner, allotment was Petitioner sent to Jaipur on temporary duty for an official cancelled—petitioner preferred writ petition praying for attachment—Received a message of minor daughter’s issuance of a mandamus to DDA to allot her flat in lieu of sickness—Petitioner’s case is that he requested the Adm cancelled one at cost prevailing at time of original allotment— Commandant of Station Headquarter Cell, Jaipur for two days Held—Onus of proving that letter of petitioner informing casual leave from 08 to 09 May, 2012—Having been granted change of address was not received by it was upon DDA such leave, Petitioner proceeded to his home town; took his which DDA has miserably failed to prove—petitioner has daughter to a nearby hospital for treatment and thereafter discharged initial onus placed upon her of proving that she returned to Station Headquarter, Jaipur Cell within time—On had intimated DDA about her change of address by placing completion of the temporary duty, Petitioner was sent back on record a letter showing diary registration number and seal to his parent unit on 12th May 2012.—Petitioner’s parent unit of DDA and onus thereupon shifted to Respondents to prove objected to his having taken casual leave from the that no such intimation was received—Petitioner is not Administration Commandant, Station Head Quarters and not custodial of records of DDA and therefore, she cannot be from Capt. Gaurav Tewari who was deputed as Admn. asked to produce same—It is now for Respondents to produce Officer of the Station Cell at Jaipur—Consequently, Petitioner relevant entry in diary register, for which adverse inference subjected to a summary trial under Section 80/82 of the Army is liable to be drawn against respondents in case they fail to Act, 1950 on the aforenoticed charge—Petitioner entered a produce same— respondents had a duty to search in files of plea of guilty Respondents have recorded that the Petitioner petitioner for any other address for correspondence after returned a plea of guilty and was thereafter sentenced to 7 receiving report that no such person was residing at earlier day rigorous imprisonment—Hence the present petition— address of petitioner—It failed to do so and that too in Petitioner contended that he could not have disputed that he circumstances when a long time had expired between date of had taken casual leave but it was his categorical stand that registration of petitioner and date of issuance of demand— the casual leave and had been duly sanctioned by the Station cum—Allotment letter—"Wrong Address Policy" of DDA is Commandant, who was the competent authority to have applicable in case of petitioner and as she had approached DDA granted the station leave—Contended that looked from any within 2 years from date of allotment, she is clearly entitled angle, seven days rigorous imprisonment which would vest to allotment of a flat at old cost, prevalent at time when her the petitioner with a red ink entry in his record is unduly and priority matured and allotment letter was issued, and no interest completely disproportionate to the nature of the offence for (iii) which the petitioner was charged. Held—Petitioner was (v) (vi) charged with unauthorised absence from duty—Respondents not yet been impleaded a party, response of BSNL on aforesaid are unable to dispute the correctness of the petitioner’s communication could not be ascertained—This letter does not statement that he had sought the permission before proceeding obviate necessity of impleading BSNL as a party which is on two days casual leave with the authority of Station head necessary for purpose of determining ownership rights of quarter at Jaipur—Petitioner has submitted that he was tense MTNL / BSNL— Application allowed— Amended memo of on account of sickness of his minor daughter—He had taken parties taken on record. sanction of leave from the Station Commandant— Jankalyan Telecom Coop. Store v. M.T.N.L. Undisputedly, the Station Commandant was the highest & Ors. ........................................................................... 3069 authority in the Station Headquarter—Petitioner could not have been summarily tried and punished in the proceedings—No — S. 37—Defendant claimed Leave to defend on the ground that statutory provision, law or regulation which prescribes