Delhi Court March 1993 Judgments

Jawahar Lal Goyal Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1993)47ITD171(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1980-81 is directed against order of CIT (A) upholding levy of penalty of Rs. 7,000 under Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act.2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee-HUF made construction of godown on land measuring 420 sq. yds. Total sum of Rs. 64,840 was spent on construction. Assessee was asked to explain the source of aforesaid construction. It was explained that 1/2 of total amount was spent by the HUF by taking loan from others. This claim was accepted. The other 1/2 portion was claimed to have been spent by Sh.Mukesh Kumar as per agreement dated 2-8-1979. Shri Mukesh Kumar was further stated to have paid Rs. 15,000 to the assessee representing 50% of price of portion of land which was part of Rs. 35,000 spent by the assessee as his share. The Assessing Officer summoned Shri Mukesh Kumar and recorded his statement on oath. On the basis of deposition of Shri Mukesh Kumar, the Assessing Officer held that sum of Rs. 24,...

Ram Jawai and ors. Vs. Shakuntala Devi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1993Delhi330; 51(1993)DLT219; 1993(26)DRJ93

S.C. Jain, J. (1) This case has a chequered history. Shri Bhag Mal Jain,, deceased defendant/ judgment Debtor, who is now represented by his legal representatives as judgment debtors, was the owner of property No. 2659 constructed on plot Nos. 226 and 227, Block L, Gali Nos. 2and 3, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi which was mortgaged by him for Rs. 94,000 with Balkishan Dass, plaintiff decree holder by means of a deed dated 19th September, 1958 registered on 24th September, 1958. (2) In the suit filed by Balkishan Dass, on the basis of this mortgage, a preliminary decree was passed under order 34 Civil Procedure Code by Shri S.S. Kanwar, Sub Judge, Delhi, but all the reliefs claimed by plaintiff were not granted. He, thereforee, filed an appeal which was accepted and a preliminary decree under Order 34, Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code was passed on 31st August, 1970 by this Court granting four months time to the judgment debtor to pay the decretal amount. It was further ordered that in c...

Piara Singh Vs. Amrik Singh Lyalpuri

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 51(1993)DLT159

Usha Mehra, J. (1) The revision petitioner, Shri Piara Singh hasassailed the order of Additional District Judge dated 20/10/1992, pursuance to which his application filed under Order 37 Rule 3(7) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the 'C.P.C.') was dismissed and the suit was decreed against him. (2) The admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 52.550.00 under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code against the present petitioner. Summons for appearance were issued by registered post as well as by ordinary process on 26/10/1990. The service by registered cover was effected for the date of hearing dated 6/02/1991. Since the present petitioner defendant before the Trial Court did not enter appearance thereforee the case was listed for further proceedings on 11thMarch/February 1991. The petitioner filed an application under Order 37Rule 3(7) C P.C. on 19/03/1991 on the ground that he was told telephonically by the decree hol...

Renu Vohra and anr. Vs. Shreyans Paper Mills Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT335; 1993RLR341

R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) against an order dated 14-1-1992 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Cr. R. No. 36 of 1991. After recording evidence in the complaint filed by respondent No. 1, the learned Magistrate was of the view that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners and others under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners filed a revision against that order. In the light of some authorities, learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the summoning order in this case was an interlocutory order, and so in view of the bar of Section 397(2) of the Code, the revision was not maintainable. (2) The complaint against the petitioners, their husbands and the firm M/s. Natraj Industries of which all four of them were, alleged to be partners, stated that the complainant was a public limited Co. having its r...

Jawaharlal Goyal Vs. Income Tax Officer.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1993)47TTJ(Del)38

ORDERVIMAL GANDHI, J. M. :This appeal by the assessed for the asst. yr. 1980-81 is directed against order of CIT(A) upholding levy of penalty of Rs. 7,000 under S. 27(1)(c) of IT Act.2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessed HUF made construction of godown on land measuring 420 sq. yds. Total sum of Rs. 64,840 was spent on construction. assessed was asked to explain the source of aforesaid construction. It was explained that 1/2 of total amount was spent by the HUF by taking loan from others. This claim was accepted. The other 1/2 portion was claimed to have been spent by Shri Mukesh Kumar as per agreement dt. 2nd Aug., 1979. Shri Mukesh Kumar was further stated to have paid Rs. 15,000 to the assessed representing 50% of price of portion of land which was part of Rs. 35,000 spent by the assessed as his share. The Assessing Officer summoned Shri Mukesh Kumar and recorded his statement on oath. On the basis of deposition of Shri Mukesh Kumar, the Assessing Officer held that s...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ram Chander

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal has been filed against the order of District Forum No. 1 dated 21/24th August, 1992 for directing the respondent to get rectified the cracks in the roof and the wall joints in the flat allotted to the complainant. 2. Briefly the facts are that Shri Ram Chander complainant was allotted a LIG flat in Dilshad Garden, Shahdara, Delhi-110095, in February, 1985. It is alleged by the complainant that immediately after the allotment of the flat, the iron bars in roof of his flat become visible and cracks developed in the walls. A complaint was lodged with the D.D.A. and an Assistant Engineer inspected the house in November, 1987 and admitted in his letter on 10.11.1987 that there were cracks in, the roof and the walls which required rectification. 3. It is pleaded that the house has not been repaired by the opposite party inspite of repeated requests. Consequently, it is prayed that the opposite party director to carry out the necessary repairs. 4. The op...

Lalita Bhojwani Vs. Narender Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT671; 1993(25)DRJ576

P.N. Nag, J. (1) This revision petition is filed against the order dated 28.3.1990 passed by Shri Kuldip Singh, Sub Judge First Class, Delhi whereby he has dismissed the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for leading additional evidence. (2) By way of additional evidence, the petitioner-plaintiff-applicant wanted to place on record a certified copy of the judgment and decree sheet in Roshan Lal Sood v. Narinder Kumar and Satinder Kumar (Suit No.37/81). (3) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner-applicant Shri Murlidhar Bhojwani filed a suit for declaration and injunction to the effect that the sale deed pertaining to the suit property executed by defendants 1 & 2 in favor of defendants 3 to 6 may be declared null and void and not binding on the petitioner and the plaintiff-petitioner may be declared as legal vendee of the property and further an order for specific performance be passed ...

V.K. Dewan and Co. and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ600

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner is a firm of contractors and is registered with the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi (M.C.D.). The petitioner seeks a declaration that he is the lowest tenderer for the award of the work of 'Construction of Ground Reservoir and Pumping Station, Rohini-II (Sector XI) Civil Works', and that the tender is illegally being awarded to the fourth respondent also a contractor. (2) M.C.D. invited tenders for the said work. Ten contractors including the petitioner and the fourth respondent quoted the rates and it is stated that the lowest tenderer was the fourth respondent at 139.90% above the tender cost. (3) M.C.D. in answer to show cause notice issued on this petition stated that planning department of the second respondent Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking had worked out the justification for the approximate cost at which the project could be executed which worked out to 99.12% above the tender cost. Technical Communities of the M.C.D...

Ramaswamy Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ1

Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition for release of the petitioner on bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The prosecutrix, who is Ii years old and is a student of six class in her statement has alleged that at about 11.15 a.m. on 16th November, 1992, the petitioner came to her house when she was all alone and closed the outer door and thereafter he caught hold of her and tried to open the nala of salwar. She has further staled that when she tried to make hue and cry, the petitioner shut her mouth with his hand and at that moment her aunt Mrs. Paramjit Kaur, who is a resident of Raghubir Nagar Extension, New Delhi happened to come to their house and the petitioner ran away.(2) Mr. Kalra. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that as per the allegations made by the prosecutrix, no case is made out under section 376 read with Section 511 of the Code. In this connection he drew my attention to secti...

Ravinder Singh Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1993)113CTR(Del)183; [1994]205ITR353(Delhi)

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) Statement of case in the both the reference applications is same and pertain to the assessment year 1976-77. Referable questions in each of these applications are as under:- I.T.R No. 298/92: (assessed Ravinder Singh-HUF) 'WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the applicability of the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act and sustaining the inclusion of the amount of Rs.24,885.00 to the income of the assessed ?'I.T.R. No. 299/82: (assessed Joginder Singh-HUF) 'WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the income- lax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the applicability of the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Income-lax Act and sustaining the inclusion of the amount ofRs.51,320.00 to the income of the assessed ?'(2) It were the assesseds who sought reference of these questions on applications filed under section 256(1) of the Income-...