Delhi Court April 1996 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.
Ram Charan Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)58ITD131(Delhi)
1. In all the above appeals by the assessees, a common point relating to deduction under section 80-L out of interest on compensation allowed by acquisition authorities is involved.2. The common facts are that the land of the assessee was acquired by Meerut Development Authority under the Acquisition Act and on account of delay in payment of compensation, interest was paid. In the returns, all the assessees claimed deduction under section 80L out of the above interest. The assessment was made under section 143 (1)(a) of Income-tax Act. While making prima facie adjustment the Assessing Officer did not allow deduction under section 80L. The assessees then moved applications under section 154 of Income-tax Act claiming deduction of interest under section 80L. It was claimed by the assessees that similar interest was allowed in the case of Shri Om Prakash S/o Kedar Nath by the learned CIT (A) vide his order dated 18-8-1993.3. The Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Dy. Commission...
Jamila Begum Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ4292
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. This Judgment was not pronounced on 25-3-1996 as indicated in our earlier order but is being pronounced now. 2. This is a writ petition for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The detention order was passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities, 1974 (hereinafter called the COFEPOSA). The detention order was passed after three tea packages concealed in the baggage revealed Indian and foreign currency of Rs. 11,39,862. The petitioner was going to Dubai. The petitioner stated in her statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 that she was a graduate. 3. Though the detention order was passed on 4-12-1992, the detention could be effected only on 27-9-1995. The delay, however, is not questioned before us. 4. The point now pressed is the following. It relates to the delay in the disposal of representation dated 6-10-1995 to the 1st respondent (Union of India) and 2nd respondent (Lt. Governor, N....
Baron International Airways Vs. Haj Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)667; AIR1997Delhi247; 62(1996)DLT255; 1996(37)DRJ273
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order date 2.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant seeking quashing of the letter of the respondent No.1 dated 8.3.1996 where the respondent No.1 informed the appellant/writ petitioner that the latter had not- compiled with Para 5(1) of the Letter of Intent dated 23.2.1996 and accordingly the old letter of Intent was no longer valid and also the letter dated 13.3.1996 whereby the respondent No.1 asked the appellant to place aircraft by 14.3.1996 subject to certain conditions mentioned therein.(2) Few facts relating to the present case are required to be set out for better appreciation of the issues raised in this appeal. The respondents in order to facilitate air passage to the intending Haj pilgrims to go to Jeddah and back to the country invited global bids in response to which the appellant submitted its bid in the month of October, 1995. After the bids were evaluated,...
Vidyavati Vs. A.N. Wanchoo
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)644; 1996(37)DRJ297
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) The appellants are the Legal Representatives of the plaintiff and on the death of the original plaintiff they have been substituted in place of the deceased plaintiff. The appellants have filed this appeal against the order dated 2.2.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge vacating partially the ad interim injunction in respect of the lawn and the side land attached to the Annexe of 6, Friends Colony(West), New Delhi.(2) The original plaintiff, Shri D.N.Ahluwalia, who was the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants filed a suit being Suit No, 2348/1985 in this court seeking for a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff had become the absolute owner of annexe of Kothi No.6, Friends Colony(West), New Delhi, together with the case mentary rights, common passages etc. as shown in red in the plan annexed to the plaint by virtue of a Will dated 28.8.1984 executed by Smt. Rajeshwari in favor of the plaintiff and in the alternative by adverse possession being ...
Yogesh Kumar and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2724; 1996RLR260
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) It all started with an application u/Ss 328/329 of the Criminal Procedure Code . that the accused Yogesh Kumar was of unsound mind thus incapable of making his defense. It was claimed that he had already been examined by a Medical Board of the Hospital for Mental Diseases, Shahdara and declared as a person of unsound mind. (2) By an order of this court dated 15.4.88 it was directed that the report of the Board be taken on record and the Chairman of the Board be examined. Consequent thereupon, the report was taken on record and Chairman was examined. Unfortunately for the petitioner. the Report of the Board did not find favor with the M.M. who rejected the same as 'not tenable'. (3) Aggrieved by the order of Mm, a criminal revision was preferred. It was dismissed by a Additional Sessions Judge. Hence this petition. (4) It is contended that it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to try the fact of unsoundness and incapacity of Yogesh Kumar by affording the parties oppo...
S.N. Engineering Works Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ446
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order shall govern the disposal of CWPs 4686/95, 4687/95 and 4601/95. All the three petitions raising common questions of fact and law in the background of similar events were heard analogously.(2) In C.W.P.No. 4686/95 M/S. S.N. Engineering Works, petitioner No.1, is the sole proprietary firm of Shri Harish Kumar Bagchi, petitioner No.2. The petitioner is on the approved list of contractors of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (hereafter Mtnl, for short) from 1988 onwards. It has been getting annual rate contracts ever since 1988 in respect of the works of trenching and laying cables etc. The petitioner's elder brother - Shri M.K. Bagchi, is serving as Junior Telecom Officer in MTNL. On promotion he becomes Sub- Divisional Officer ( Training Co-ordination). In all the tenders for the years from 1988 to 1991 the petitioner had made a mention of the fact of his brother working as Junior Telecom officer in MTNL. In subsequent years, from 1991 onwards also, the petitio...
Lalit Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)389; 1997CriLJ848; 1996(3)Crimes466; 1996(37)DRJ306
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) By this common judgment, we would dispose of the Appeal filed by Lalit Kumaragainst judgment and order dated 31st of August 1994 passed by the Additional SessionsJudge, Delhi convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years under Section 365 Indian Penal Code and to death under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and the above-noted Murder Reference made by the Sessions Court for confirmation of the death sentence under Section 302 IPC.(2) The charge against Lalit Kumar was that on 17th of January 1992, he kidnappedAnil, aged about 9 years, son of Om Parkash, resident of P2-175, Sultanpuri, Delhi;and during the period 17th of January 1992 to 24th of January 1992 committed murder of the child in the forest of Avagarh in Distt. Aita, U.P.(3) The prosecution case is that on 17th of January 1992 Om Parkash (PW-10)lodged a report (EX.PW- 1/D) at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi, that his son Anil had gone out to ease himself at about...
Ram Mohan Wahee Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)686; 62(1996)DLT302; 1996(37)DRJ282
M.K.Sharma, C.J.(1) This is an application filed by the appellant/claimant seeking review of the judgment dated 18.7.1995 passed in R.F.A. 858/1987.(2) In pursuance of acquisition of land belonging to the appellant situated at Village Bahapur, the Land Acquisition Collector divided the land into two blocks and fixed the market value at Rs.2,000.00 and Rs.l,500.00 per Bighas for the land. The total land which was acquired by the notification issued on 30.11.1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the declaration under Section 6 was 20 Bighas in which the share of the appellant was one-third. On a reference being sought for by the appellant, the same was referred to the Additional District Judge, who fixed the market value of the land at Rs.7,250.00 per Bigha.(3) The appellant being aggrieved filed an appeal in this court against the aforesaid determination of compensation by the reference court which was registered and numbered as R.F.A. No. 858/1987. This court after takin...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Rajinder Kumar Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)648; 62(1996)DLT262; 1996(37)DRJ271; (1996)113PLR38; 1996RLR273
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.4.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.M. No.4484/1993 in C.W.No-1578/1989 directing the appellant to allot shop No.3 in Shopping Complex, Ber Sarai, New Delhi to the respondent No.1 at the rate which prevailed in the year 1988 when the original allotment was made.(2) The facts leading to filing of the writ petition by the respondent No.1 are that some land belonging to the grand father of respondent No.1 was acquired by the appellant and it was agreed upon between the parties at the relevant time that a residential plot and a shop at Shopping Complex at R.K.Puram, Sector Vi, would be allotted by the appellant to respondent No.l. The grand father of respondent No.1 having died in the meantime, the respondent No.1 applied for mutation in respect of the plot as well as the shop. The mutation was allowed in respect of the plot whereas the allotment of the shop was cancelled by letter dated 28.10.1988 for non-subm...
Air India Ltd. Vs. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT305; 1996(37)DRJ504
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.(1) The appellant,Air India, entered into an agreement with the respondent company on 1.11.1989 in respect of occupation of the premises called 'Scindia House' as a tenant for 5 years, subject to renewal for a further period of 5 years. The agreement was not registered nor was any regular lease deed executed. Under the agreement, the appellant had to pay a monthly rental of Rs. 3,54,321.00 and also an advance of Rs. 80,93,000.00 and the advance was repayable by the owners in 60 installments (spread over 5 years) at Rs. l,34,898.00 per month. In other words, the appellant-defendant would pay the landlord Rs. 3,54,321.00 per month, while the respondent would return back Rs. l,34,898.00 per month. Clause 4 of the agreement stated that the tenanted premises should be of top quality construction, which shall be carried out and completed at the cost of the owners and the said renovation and reconstruction should be completed within 3 months of the starting of the job. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »