Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 2 of about 321 results (0.030 seconds)Ashok Soi Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)74ITD235(Delhi)
1. These cross-appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue, are directed against order 7th September, 1998, passed by the CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1995-96 and involve consideration of a common point relating to determination of the amount of capital gains liable to tax in the hands of the assessee in relation to sale of property bearing No. 22, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. "1. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred, both on facts and in law in not deleting the entire addition of Rs. 46,08,000 made by the learned Dy. CIT, under the head 'capital gains'. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate, the factual substratum of the case and has failed to appreciate that the property bearing No. 22, Darya Ganj, Delhi, the transferred property, was before the family settlement the property of the HUF of which the assessee was a member and as such, the only amount which could be assessed in the hands of the assessee could only be the value of the asset received as a result of fa...
Tag this Judgment!Om Parkash Vs. Shri Randhir Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)185; 82(1999)DLT210
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This application has been filed for obtaining of restraint orders against the Defendant from selling, alienating, encumbering, transferring or otherwise parting with the possession of sundry immovable properties which are the subject matter of the plaint. The suit is for the specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 27.3.1997 between the parties in respect of these properties. 2. When the case came up for hearing for the first time on 19.8.1997 the ex parte and interim injunction prayed for was granted, conditional on the deposit of the amount payable up to 26.9.1997; an amount of Rs. 7,25,000/- was deposited and has now been invested in Fixed Deposit. After summons and notices were issued on the Defendant he has filed his Written Statement and Reply to the application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 as also an application for vacation of stay under Order 39, Rule 4. Both these applications will be disposed of by this order. 3. The first contention of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Yasoda Devi Vs. Mineral and Metals Trading Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)171
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. These Objections have been filed against the Award dated 4.5.1997 passed by an Arbitral Tribunal of Justice R.S. Sarkaria (Retired), Justice Jaswant Singh (Retired) and Justice K.S. Sidhu (Retired). The only contention urged by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Objector was that an Application dated 29.4.1997 had been filed whereby the Statement made on behalf of the Objector on 26.4.1997, to the effect that 'Respondent is willing to give/pay Principal amount of M.M.T.C.' was sought to be retracted. It was contented in that application that the respondent 'has come to known that entire claim of M.M.T.C. is only compound interest and there exist no Principal amount'. Learned counsel for the Objector stated that on a bare reading of the impugned Award, it would be palpably clear that this application was not considered by the Arbitral Tribunal and that the Award was, thereforee, liable to be set aside. I have considered this ground but find no reason to int...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Mr. K.K. Modi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)188
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. I propose to dispose of this application filed by the Plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint. The suit is for declaration, permanent plaint. The suit is for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. 2. Three amendments are sought to be introduced into the plaint. Firstly, introduction of para 12 A which substantially lays the grounds for the grant of a mandatory injunction for the sale of 77256 shares of Godfrey Philips Ltd. which is presently held by a Trust in the name and style of Modipon Ltd. Senior Executives (Offices) Welfare Trust. Amendments 2 and 3 are merely the consequent changes in the valuation paragraph (Para 15) and the introduction of additional prayer. Ms. Mukti Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants 2, 3 and 5 made a statement that she has no objection to this application being allowed; however, it was vehemently opposed by Defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal ArorA. Vs. Manag./Director All India Institute of Medical Sc ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)38; 81(1999)DLT596; ILR1999Delhi403; (2000)ILLJ158Del
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Since these are two cross petitions filed by the parties writ petitions against same award dated 16th September, 1996 passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 244/95, the same were heard together and are disposed of by common judgment. 2. Shri Madan Lal Arora (workman) is the petitioner in CW, 163/97. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as, 'Management' for short) is the petitioner in CW. 1850/97. For the sake of convenience I shall take up the facts as per CW. 163/97. 3. Workman was employed as peon with the Management on 10th January, 1962. He was confirmed by order dated 11th June, 1974 w.e.f. 7th February, 1968. His services were terminated on 3rd June,1976. Workman raised industrial dispute against this termination and vide order dated 4th August, 1979 appropriate government referred the industrial dispute for adjudication by Labour Court with the following terms of reference:- 'Whether termination of services of the workman, Shri Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Monga Vs. Uco Bank and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)421; 81(1999)DLT879; 1999(51)DRJ176
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. First, the factual matrix:The petitioner was working with UCO Bank. He was appointed as Assistant Cashier on 26.8.1967 and was promoted as Special Assistant on 16.11.1977. As a Special Assistant he was in the workmen category. The workmen staff in the banks are governed by Bipartite Settlement, Shastri and Desai Awards in respect of various service conditions. He was promoted to the post of Junior Management Grade (Scale-I) (hereinafter referred to as JMGS-1 'for short') w.e.f. 1.5.91. As JMGS-1 he came in Officer rank. Officers in the bank in disciplinary matters, are governed by 'United Commercial Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 [hereinafter to be referred as (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations].2. While petitioner was working as Special Assistant and was posted in Chawri Bazar Branch of the Bank, three FDRs of Rs. 25,000/- each on the basis of transfer voucher were prepared in the name of one Shri Ramesh Kumar on 23.3.81 for a ...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Arora Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)679; 82(1999)DLT686; 1999(51)DRJ513
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. In I.A. 11627/97 it is stated that there is a delay of 7 months 23 days for filing of the Review Petition. It appears that knowledge of the Award being made Rule of the Court was obtained by the Respondents through the petitioner's letter dated 5.5.1997. Keeping in view the facts of the case it was to be expected that the respondents would react with immediacy. Instead, it appears that the Government Advocate was nominated on 28.5.1997 and a certified copy was applied for on 5.6.1997. It has been stated in the application that the nominated counsel was unwell and had not attended Court from 8th July, 1997 to 1st December, 1997 and on her rejoining, the review application was filed on 17.12.1997. 2. There is no doubt that the respondents has not prosecute the case with diligence. However in the interest of justice, the delay in filing of the Review Petition is condoned subject to the Respondents paying a sum of Rs. 2000/- as costs to the Petitioner. 3. The appl...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gauri Shankar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)905; 81(1999)DLT535; 1999(51)DRJ127; ILR1999Delhi417
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as MCD for short) which is petitioner in the instant case has filed this writ petition against award dated 13.1.1995 passed by Industrial Tribunal No. 2 (herein-after referred to as 'IT' for short) in I.D. 66 of 1987. 2. Respondent No. 1 Gauri Shankar was engaged as Mali-beldar by MCD on 25.10.1983 and he continued to work for a substantial period of time and thereafter claimed regularisation of his service on the ground that the job against which he was working was of a permanent and regular nature and carries pay scale of Rs. 196-230 with usual allowances. As MCD did not concede his demand, he raised industrial dispute through Municipal Employees Union which was referred by Secretary (Labour) vide notification No. F. 24(743)/87-Lab/9341-46 dated...... 10.3.1987 : Following are the terms of reference :- 'Whether Shri Gauri Shankar is entitled to be regularised as belder/mali and if so, from which date and w...
Tag this Judgment!Housing and Urban Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)792; 81(1999)DLT742; 1999(51)DRJ614
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. The point at issue as raised by the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (in short HUDCO) is; whether HUDCO is exempt from levy of property tax on the land allotted to it by Government of India.2. The controversy revolves around the applicability of the provision of Section 120(1)(c) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (in short the DMC Act). Secondly, whether HUDCO by virtue of allotment of letter/lease in its favor acquired leasehold rights in the property or is it only managing the property on behalf of the Government of India, and finally; whether the land allotted to HUDCO can be called 'land capable of being built'.3. No doubt provisions of Sections 120(1)(a), (b), & (c) as well as the provisions of Sections 116(4) and 119 of the DMC Act came up for interpretation in number of cases earlier, but keeping in view the facts of this case we have to see which of the sub-clauses of Sections 120 of the DMC Act are attracted in the facts of this case...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Vs. Mr. T.R. Arora
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)588; 86(2000)DLT371; ILR1999Delhi341; (2000)126PLR65
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of Rs. 1,51,319.61 including interest against the defendant. 2. Briefly the facts alleged are that the defendant is carrying on his business as a dealer in two wheeler automobiles in the name of M/s. Swa- deshi Motors at 1 E-2, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. He had a current account with the plaintiff bank at its Jhandewalan Extension Branch. On 3.6.1983, due to mistake/clerical error on the part of the bank, an excess amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh had been credited in his current account. The defendant on 4.6.1983 had issued a cheque in this account for withdrawing Rs.1.00 lakh and purchased a bank draft in favor of M/s. Bombay Oil Indus- tries Pvt. Ltd. His account was so debited and the bank draft was issued. Later on, in August 1984 the aforesaid mistake was discovered, the defend- ant was asked orally as well as in writing to deposit the said amount with the plaintiff bank which was not done. A letter of...
Tag this Judgment!