Delhi Court November 1998 Judgments

income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Sunny Uppal (Also Ito V. Smt.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. Both these appeals by the Revenue involve consideration of similar point. Hence these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.2.1. Smt. Sunny Uppal is wife of Virender Uppal, Karta of the HUF which existed under the name and style of Virender Uppal HUF. The said HUF consisted of Karta, his wife (appellant) and two minor sons, Master Gaurav Uppal and Master Saurabh Uppal.2.2. The erstwhile joint Hindu family owned and possessed assets, properties at the time of partition on 27th March, 1989 aggregating to Rs. 1,06,15,434.34, the details of which have been given in the cl. 1 of the memorandum of partition executed on 29th day of March, 1989. The aforesaid assets were partitioned in equal proportion allotted to the aforesaid 4 members of the HUF in equal shares. Apart from this, the erstwhile HUF had interest in 2 business concerns which had considerable profits in the past and had also considerable profit potential in the immediate future. The partition of the value of rig...

Sushila Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)365; 1999(1)Crimes624; 76(1998)DLT826

Devinder Gupta, J.1.This petition is by the widow of Dilbagh Singh. He was one of the accused in case FIR No. 89/85 of P.S. Delhi Cant. for offences under Sections 186, 353, 332/34 and 307/34, IPC along with three others, namely Baleshwar Solanki, Ram Lal and Padam Singh. With respect to the same occurrence, another case was registered vide FIR No. 90/85 at P.S. Delhi Cant for offence under Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (Act No.54 of 1959) against Padam Singh, son of Subh Ram, the sole accused in that case. 2. Dilbagh Singh, the petitioner's husband was the holder of arms license No. 61/PS/Rai/SDM/S for 32 bore revolver No. H - 108289, Make-Smith & Wessions for which FIR No. 90/85 was registered against Padam Singh. The said revolver was recovered from the possession of Padam Singh and was case property in FIR No. 90/85. Padam Singh was tried for offence under Section 27 of Arms Act in FIR No. 90/85 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. During pendency of trial, Padam Sing...

Voltas Limited Vs. the Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)390; 1(1998)CLT55; 76(1998)DLT841; 1998(47)DRJ600; 1999(65)ECC879; 1999(112)ELT34(Del)

ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. On 29th August, 1996, an order of adjudication under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was passed against the petitioner resulting into raising a demand of Rs. 81,68,304/- on account of duty, and Rs. 35 lacs on account of fine with a penalty of Rs. 35,04,000/-. The petitioner sought for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of the recovery. On 14th February, 1997, the Tribunal passed an order under Section 35-F of the Act, directing the amount of Rs. 50 lacs be deposited within a period of three months and subject to such deposit the recovery of balance to remain stayed during the appeal.2. On 27th May, 1997, the petitioner pre-deposited Rs. 50 lacs in compliance with the above said order dated 14th February, 1997.3. The appeal was finally heard and decided on 4th March, 1998. It appears that the petitioner had produced in evidence voluminuous technical literature. The Tribunal formed an opinion that in order to effectively adjudicate upon the issue arising...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S. Technological Institute of Tex ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)386; 76(1998)DLT862; 1998(47)DRJ667

ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. M/S. Technological Institute of Textile Bhiwani is situated at Bhiwani within the State of Haryana. It made a claim for refund before the Assistant Collector at Bhiwani which was rejected. An appeal preferred before the Collector (Appeals) was also rejected. A further appeal filed before the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has been allowed directing the refund to be sanctioned if otherwise due and admissible.2. Feeling aggrieved, the Department filed an application under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking statement of case to High Court for its opinion on a question of law arising out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. That application has also been rejected. The Department has approached this Court by filing the petition under Section 35-G(3) of the Central Excises Act, 1944.3. On behalf of the respondent an objection has been raised to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition. I...

Rajinder Pal Singh Lamba and Others Vs. the Administrator of Delhi and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)813; 1999(48)DRJ186

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1.These two writ petitions involve a common question. thereforee, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in CWP. 1939/88 was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on the 1st of October, 1972 in the Office of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, respondent No. 3. In 1975 he obtained his graduation degree from the Delhi University. 3. The petitioner in CWP. 1152/88 was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on the 24th of November, 1969 in the Office of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, respondent No. 3. In 1974, he obtained his graduation degree from the Delhi University. It is not disputed that there were number of vacancies in the post of UDC. Whenever a Lower Division Clerk obtains his graduation degree, he is entitled to be considered for promotion in accordance with Rule VI, Chapter 18-A, High Court Rules & Orders, Vol. I framed under Section 35(3) of the Punjab Courts Act for subordinate Services attached to Civil Courts other than the H...

Ms. Kamna Prasad Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 77(1999)DLT456

J.B. Goel, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), the petitioner challenges the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 3.3.1997 passed by the learned Magistrate (MM) summoning the petitioner as an accused and of order dated 2.9.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (ASJ) dismissing her revision petition against the said order of the learned MM. 2. Briefly, the facts are that a surprise inspection was conducted by a joint team of DESU and the local police about theft of electricity in the area of Police Station Gautam Nagar, Delhi on 22.3.1995 and it was found that electricity was used by Ms. Kamna Prasad (Radio Network (P) Ltd.) at 216A/l,GautamNagar, Delhi for office purposes to the extent of 4.95 KW. by taking electricity direct from DESU mains. After this inspection, a report was lodged by A.E. concerned at Police Station defense Colony where a case under Section 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act and...

Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)873; 77(1999)DLT409

J.B. Goel, J. 1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), the nine petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 6.6.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Ses-sions Judge (ASJ), Delhi summoning the petitioners under Section 193 of the Code before trial has started to stand trial for offence under Sections 302/307/24 along with three other accused persons already challaned. 2. Briefly, the facts are that in an incident which took place at about 7.30 p.m. on 19.12.1997, deceased Kesho Ram and his son Dharmender Kumar were attacked by some persons at their House No.1357, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi in which Kesho Ram had received fatal injuries and his son Dharmender Kumar had received injuries. The deceased was removed to GTB Hospital, Shahdara by his injured son and daughter Sunita at 8.30 p.m. He was found 'brought dead'. Some one had given information on PCR which was transmitted to Police Station, Gandhi Nagar where DD...

Hoshiyar Singh Ghanghas and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 77(1999)DLT825

Arun Kumar, J.1. These petitions involve a common question as to validity of multiple applications made by the petitioners for recruitment to the post of Inspector, Central Excise, Income-tax etc. 1996. An advertisement appeared in the Employment News regarding the 1996 examination for recruitment to the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Income-tax etc. in November/December, 1995. The petitioners made applications in response to the said advertisement. It is common case of the petitioners in all the writ petitions except Civil Writ Petition No. 3350/ 97, that the petitioners made multiple applications because the examination was to be held throughout the country and for this purpose the country was divided into various zones. According to the case of the petitioners the examination was to be conducted zone-wise and, thereforee, they were entitled to apply in 'each zone. The prospects of employment in each zone were different. The result of the examination was to be prepared on an...

Shahid Khan @ Munna Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 76(1998)DLT865

Devinder Gupta, J.1. The grievance, which the petitioner has made in this petition is about his alleged illegal custody and torture by the police from 10.4.1996 to 16.4.1996 during the said period with a consequential prayer to quash FIR No. 112/96 registered at Police Station, Rohini, Delhi for offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and to direct holding of an inquiry into the alleged incident by an independent Investigating Agency.2. It is alleged that on 10.4.1996 at about 5 p.m. the petitioner was taken by SI Rakesh Dahiya, In-charge Police Post to Police Post at Church Mission Road, Delhi and was told that Inspector Ved Pal Singh Rana, S.H.O., Police Station, Shalimar Bagh was coming with his staff. On arrival, the petitioner was given ruthless beating by Shri R.A. Sanjeev, A.C.P. and Inspector Ved Pal Singh Rana. A ransom of Rs. 1,00,000/- was demanded in case the petitioner wanted to be saved from the clutches of the police. In the meanwhile, a w...

Court on Its Own Motion Vs. MoinuddIn Khan and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 76(1998)DLT788

Devinder Gupta, J.1. On 18.9.1996 transfer application [Cr.M.(M).2246/96] along with application for stay [Cr.M.4171/96] came up before learned Single judge of this Court. Because of the allegations made therein against the learned Judge, the said petition was directed to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who on going through the allegations considered it to be a fit case for taking up the same on judicial side for appropriate action under the Contempt of Courts Act as also under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the case was posted before a Division Bench on 20.12.1996. The petition for transfer and application for stay were signed by Moinuddin Khan and his Counsel Shri S.K.Chaturvedi, Advocate. Prima facie finding the averments made in Sub-paras (xv), (xvi), (xviii) and (xxi) of pica 3 of the transfer application and those in para 3 of the application for stay accompanying the said application for transfer, as tending to scandalise and lower the authori...