Delhi Court March 1993 Judgments

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Nuchem Investments (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1993)45ITD294(Delhi)

1 to 11. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 12. The next grievance of the revenue relates to allowance of investment allowance on the machinery which was leased out. The claim was rejected on the ground that the assessee had not utilised its machinery for manufacture or production or an article or a thing.Therefore, it is not entitled for investment allowance.13. When the matter came before the CIT (Appeals), the CIT (Appeals) following the decision of the Madras Bench of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of First Leasing Co. of lndia Ltd. v. ITO [1983] 3 ITD 808 (Mad.), deleted the addition and allowed investment allowance.14. The learned Departmental Representative taken us through the Madras Bench decision in the case of First Leasing Co. of lndiaLtd. [supra) where the view has been taken that the investment allowance is allowable to the assessee who does not himself engage in the manufacture or production of article or things but leased it out on ...

Jamit Rai and Co. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994ACJ809; 50(1993)DLT279

P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This Regular Second Appeal has been brought against judgment dated 7/05/1976 of Additional District Judge by which he had allowed the appeal of the Union of India and had set aside the judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge dated 28/01/1975 and had dismissed the suit of the appellant seeking recovery of Rs. 2,817.92 paise. (2) Facts, in brief, are that a consignment comprising of 236 bags of Bajra was booked from Rampur Phul Railway Station for Rohtak on 1/03/1967. The appellant is an endorsee in the railway receipt. It is the case of the appellant that at the time when the delivery of the goods was taken from the railways, 10 bags of Bajra were short delivered and it is only after two years that remaining 40 bags were offered for deliveryi.e. on 16/07/1969 and they were in badly damaged condition. After calculating the value of the damaged goods, the plaintiff claimed the said amount Along with cost and interest. (3) The Trial Court had held the Union of India negl...

Haveli Ram Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT214; 1993(26)DRJ152

P.K. Bahn, J. (1) This Second Appeal is brought against judgment and decree dated January 21, 1976 by which the appeal of the appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated May 14, 1975 of Sub Judge dismissing the suit of the appellant, was affirmed. (2) The dispute-pertains to a chabutra and a tin shed constructed over the drain lying in front of the shop of the appellant. The case set up before the Trial Court was that this particular chabutra and the tin shed are the part of the property bearing municipal No. 1084, Ward No.1, Mehrauli, New Delhi and the Municipal Corporation and its employees have threatened to demolish the said chabutra and tin shed and thus, permanent injunction was sought restraining the Corporation from demolishing the said chabutra and the tin shed. (3) The Municipal Corporation contested the suit pleading that this chabutra and tin shed are not part of the property bearing municipal No. 1084, rather they arc part of the public road and the Municipal...

Court on Its Own Motion Vs. State (Delhi Administration) Malayalees We ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT344

R.L. Gupta, J. (1) On 27-1-1993 I was shocked to read a news item under the caption, 'Mystery shrouds girl's death' in Hindustan Times. The report stated that a young Keralite lady Bina Thomas was working as a Laboratory Technician in a private Nursing Home, Okhla which belonged to one Dr. Akbar. She was alleged to have committed suicide and that Okhla Police had tried to 'hush up' the matter. Her sister, Alphonsa thomas was also reported missing for the past few weeks from her Kidwai Nagar house. They hailed from a poor family of Kerala and few years ago had come to Delhi. Alphonsa Thomas worked in a private firm in Kamla Market. In fact, the complete summary of the facts now emerges from a complaint made by her to the Sho, Pp Okhla. In her complaint dated 17-12-92 she requested for registration of a case and investigation with regard to the death of her sister Bina Thomas in suspicious circumstances at the Akbar Nursing Home, 541/5, Nursing House, Jamia Nagar, Okhla on the evening of...

Sarup Lal Singla Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT235; 1993(25)DRJ552

Arun Kumar, J. (1) The plaintiff filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in the Civil Courts at Bhatinda. The said petition was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to appropriate Court on the ground that the Courts at Bhatinda had no territorial jurisdiction vide order dated 16th October 1990. The plaintiff filed the present petition in this court on 6th December 1990 Along with an application for leave to exclude the time spent by the plaintiff in pursuing his remedy in the Civil Courts at Bhatinda. This order will dispose of plaintiffs application under Sections 12 and 5 of the Limitation Act 1963. (2) At the outset counsel for the plaintiff has regretted the fact that in the title of the petition it has been stated that the petition is under Section 12 and 5 of the Limitation Act. According to the counsel it should read as Sections 14 and 5 of the Limitation Act. The mention of a wrong provision of law in the heading of the application does not ...

Union of India Vs. Ram Chander

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ595

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This appeal filed by the Union of India under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Acl,1894(for short 'the Act') arises out of the judgment dated 28/11/1969 of the learned Additional District Judge. Delhi, passed on a reference under section 18 of the Act. (2) The acquired land is situated in village Bagrola. Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 26/9/1964 and declaration under section 6 on 25/1/1965. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award No. 1835. He bifurcated the land in the village in Blocks 'A' and 'B'. For Block 'A' he fixed the market value at Rs.700.00 per bigha and for Block 'B' at the rate of Rs.400.00 per bigha. It is stated that the land in the present appeal forms part of Block 'A'. On a reference made under section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge by his judgment dated 28/11/1969 enhanced the market value of the land in question to Rs. 4,800.00 per bigha. (3) Respondent has filed his croscoinpensation (C.M.No. ...

Sushil Kumar and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ573

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this application the appellants seek to amend the memo of appeal and want to claim compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000.00 per bigha of the acquired land. Originally in the appeal the claim was made for Rs.4,000.00 per bigha. There is no opposition to this application which is allowed. Deficiency in court fee has already been made. R.F.A. No. 103/74:(2) The acquired land is situated in village Ghonda, Chauhan Khadar, Shahdara, Delhi. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was issued on 13 November 1959 and declaration under section 6 on 7/8 July 1966. The Land Acquisition Collector made his Award on 11 June 1969, it being Award No. 4/69- 70. He bifurcated all the land in the village in Block A and Block B. For Block A he fixed the market value at Rs. 1,500.00 per bigha and for Block Bat the rateofRs.500.00 per bigha. It is stated that the land in the present appeal forms part of Block A. On a reference made under sect...

Smt. Satya Wati and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ581

D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. These two appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (forshort 'the Act') arise out of a common judgment dated 10 December 1969 of the learnedAdditional District Judge, Delhi, passed on a reference under Section 18 of the Act. 2. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 18 January 1960 acquiringplots bearing No. 18, 20 to 24, 102 and 103 situated in Roop Nagar, Delhi. Plots No. 18and 20 to 24 abut on main G.T. Road while plots No. 102 and 103 are in the back laneof the other plots. Thus, while plots 18 and 20 to 24 are in Block 'A', plots 102 and 103are in Block 'B' of the Roop Nagar. The Land Acquisition Collector by his Award No.1865 dated 12 November 1965 arrived at the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 53/- per square yard for the plots abutting on the main G.T. Road, and the market value ofthe plots Nos. 102 and 103 was arrived at Rs. 36/- per square yard. On a reference made,the learned Additional District Judge fix...

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 the 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 dated 10.11.87 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 be directed to carry out the necessary repairs. 4. ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Wings Wear Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1994]205ITR502(Delhi)

1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following two questions : '1. Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the directions issued by it to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were binding upon him even though these were contrary to the available decision of the jurisdictional High Court under which both the appellate authorities were functioning 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to allow deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the light of its earlier orders, on outward freight expenditure, which expenditure is not covered by the then provisions of sub-clause (iii) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, as interpreted by the Delhi High Court ?' 2. It appears that in respect of the assessment years 1977-78 to 1979-80, with which we a...