Delhi Court January 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sudhir Chaudhary Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi391; 1995(32)DRJ623
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Petitioner has challenged the notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the Act) issued by Delhi Administration dated 6th March, 1987, published in the Indian Express on 8th March,1987. Declaration was made on 10th March,1987 under Section 6 of the Act. The challenge to the said notification is primarily based on three grounds namely (1) lack of urgency, (ii) fraud on the power of appropriate Government and. lastly (iii) that the acquisition of the property by the respondent for official use is contrary to the approved use of the property i.e. residential.(2) Brief facts of the case are that this property bearing No.11 Lancers Road, Delhi was acquired by the petitioner by means of gift from from his mother on 22nd May, 1963. The entire property was taken over on lease for five years by Delhi Administration on 6th January,1965. However, on 16th March, 1990 (sic.), the Administration informed the owner that property will...
Mahender Singh Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1995
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)632; 57(1995)DLT384
ORDERThe services of Shri Mahendra Singh, Supdt. Central Warehouse, Dasna are hereby terminated under Regulation 10(1) of the Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1966 with immediate effect.2. He is being paid one month's pay in lieu of one month's notice.Sd/-(A.N.LALLER)For Managing Director19.6.1980 (4) The appellant felt aggrieved by the impugned order of termination and filed a suit in the court of Senior Sub Judge Delhi for declaration that the order of termination dated 19/06/1980 is illegal and ultra virus and prayed for relief of re-instatement with consequential benefits of salary etc. The suit was contested by the respondents and written statement was filed. It may be relevant to refer to the plea of the respondents, as contained in paragraphs 6,9 and 11 of the written statement and the same read as follows: '6.Allegations of para 6 of the plaint, as stated there, are denied. It is submitted that during the extended period of probation, it was reported by the ...
Ashok Kumar Goel Vs. Assessing Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1995
Reported in: (1995)53TTJ(Del)303
ORDERN.D. RAGHAVAN, J.M. :This is an appeal of the assessed challenging the order dt. 30th Dec., 1993, of the CIT(A) as erroneous on facts and in law.2. The facts of the case are briefly these : The assessee, a resident, having the status of individual and following the mercantile system, the accounting period ending with 31st March, 1988, for the asst. yr. 1988-89, filed his return on 29th Sept., 1988, declaring a total income of Rs. 33,500. The assessment was completed under S. 143(1)(a) of the Act. While making the assessment it was detected that the assessed received compensation amounting to Rs. 1,37,270, Rs. 39,853 and Rs. 40,98,650 during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year in question. This was received in respect of land measuring 21 bighas and 10 bids was situated in village Bhalepur Khadar. The compensation of Rs. 1,37,270 and Rs. 39,853 was received by the assessed as per the order of the Commissioner (L&D;). The compensation of Rs. 40,98,650 was received ...
Parle Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT619TriDel
1. M/s. Parle Beverages manufacture "Frooti" in its factory at Vaniwali. On 19-10-1985, the Central Excise officers who had come to the factory found a van, loaded 720 cartons of these drinks parked near the factory gate. The driver of the van or the staff in the factory, could not produce a gate pass for the goods. In the last gate pass issued on two days earlier on 17th October, no debit of duty on 720 cartons had been found to have been made in the personal ledger account. The officers therefore seized these cartons. They also seized 90 cartons of Frooti manufactured on 6th October which they found kept outside the store room without their particulars having been entered in the RG Register. Adjudication proceedings were initiated and ended with the Assistant Collector of Central Excise confiscated the cartons of the drinks and the van, but with option to redeem them on payment of duty. He also imposed penalty on the company. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals), Bombay reduced the re...
Pragati Construction Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)54ITD153(Delhi)
1. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A), XI, New Delhi on the following grounds :- 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has erred to disallow Rs. 31,05,000 as bad debts claimed by the appellant which is against the fact of the case and bad in law. 2. Without prejudice, the said loss of Rs. 31,05,000 is a trading loss and CIT(A) has erred to disallow the same. 3. The 1d. CIT(A) has erred to disallow entertainment expenditure of Rs. 20,638. 4. The 1d. CIT(A) has erred in not disposing off the ground of appeal regarding interest paid of Rs. 46,133. The said disallowance was wrong and totally uncalled for.2. The assessee filed duplicate return of income on 12-1-1990 declaring total income of Rs. 12,87,750. The assessee-firm was having income from business and house property and the business consisted of sale of flats in the building called Devika Tower. The Assessing Officer noted from the partners' account that there was withdrawal of capital and at the same time the firm h...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)53ITD19(Delhi)
1. Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "DDA") was constituted by the Delhi (Control of Building Operations) Ordinance, 1955 which was later on replaced by the Delhi Development Act, 1957.The primary object was to promote and secure the development of Delhi in accordance with the Master Plan as also the Zonal Development Plans to be prepared by the "DDA" and approved by the Central Government. The further relevant fact to be recorded is that the Delhi Development Authority is working under the control and superintendence of the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India.2. One of the avowed objects of the DDA is to provide housing facilities to the public at large and with a view to fulfilling the aforesaid object, it has been floating various Housing Schemes from time to time. One such scheme is the Self-Financing Scheme popularly known as "SFS", the salient features being as follows:- (1) Application's are invited for registration within a given period of ...
Rahul Butalia Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)978; 58(1995)DLT762; 1995LabIC866; (1995)IILLJ242Del
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner challenges the order dated May 22, 1990 of the Chief General Manager of the first respondent whereby the petitioner was deemed to have voluntarily abandoned and resigned from the service of the bank. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are as follows : 2. The petitioner was appointed as a probationary officer in the respondent bank on September 10, 1975. He was confirmed in their Officers grade w.e.f. September 10, 1977. The petitioner worked in the bank in various capacities, namely, as accountant in the Regional Stationery Department at Patna, Officer-in-Charge Foreign Exchange in Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi, Field Officer, Overseas Branch, Parliament Street, New Delhi, Manager at Asian Games Village Branch and Manager, Rajpur Road Branch, Dehradun. In January 1988 the petitioner was selected for Commercial and Institutional Project and was transferred to Central Office Bombay. While at Bombay the petitioner...
M.S. Nulon India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: [1996]219ITR736(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated April 27, 1994, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-III, New Delhi, under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). In fact, the application of the petitioner under section 264 of the Act had been dismissed on the ground that there was delay in filing the application which delay had not been properly explained. 2. Under section 264 of the Act, the Commissioner may, either of his own motion or on an application by the assessed for revision, call for the record of any proceedings under the Act, and pass such order as may be appropriate as mentioned in sub-section (1) thereof. Under sub-section (3) of section 264, if an application for revision is made by an assessee, the application must be made within one year from the date on which the order in question was communicated to him or the date on which he otherwise came to know of it, whichever is earli...
D.C. Sankhla Vs. Ashok K. Parmar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)111PLR68; 1995RLR292
M. Jagannadha Rao, J. (1) This appeal arises out of the order dt. 6.10.1994 passed by the learned Single Judge on the preliminary issue as to whether the suit is barred by limitation. No doubt, this appeal itself is filed with an application for condensation of delay u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act, but for deciding the point raised in (he appeal, we are not taking notice of the S. 5 application. (2) The first respondent filed a suit for recovery of damages for the tort of libel. The alleged insinuation is said to have been made on 11.9.1986 in a newspaper. The plaint was prepared on 10.9.1987 and was presented before the concerned officer authorised to receive the plaint on the Original Side of this Court. The suit was, thereforee, treated as a suit coming within Article 75 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. The said Article 75 says that the suit has to be filed within one year from the date when the libel is published. The presentation of the plaint is, thereforee, clearly within li...
Kamlesh Sharma and anr. Vs. Bhu Dev Gaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT534
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16/11/1988, passed by Additional Senior Sub Judge, Delhi. The learned Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 15/10/1988, by which the Trial Court allowed the application of the respondent/plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the petitioners were restrained from forcibly evicting respondent without due process of law.(2) The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants for restraining them and their agents from taking forcible possession of the shop in his occupation situated at a piece of land forming part of Khasra No. 112 in the revenue estate of village Civil Station in the area of Timarpur,Delhi, and as shown in red colour in the site plan, which was filed with the plaint.Respondent also moved an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code for ad interim injunct...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »