Delhi Court September 1999 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 Batra and ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner, Delhi and Others.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)954; 81(1999)DLT849; 2000(52)DRJ35
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by an Order dated 23rd October, 1992 passed by Shri S.R. Sharma, Financial Commissioner, Delhi by which land allotted to the petitioners was withdrawn and the same was directed to be allotted to respondent No. 3. The facts which emerge from the reading of the petition are that consolidation proceedings started in Village Alipur, Delhi under the provisions of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the year 1986 and the scheme of consolidation prepared under Section 19 of the Act by the Consolidation Officer was confirmed under Section 20 by the Settlement Officer on 24th July, 1987. The petitioners allegedly purchased the land in Field No. 324 (4B-16B) at Alipur by registered sale deeds dated 17th September, 1986 and were recorded bhumidars of the land and Haqdars (right-holders) at Nos. 304 to 306 for the purpose of repartition of land that was to be...
Ms. Ranjana Arora Vs. Satish Kumar Arora and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT537
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The plaintiff is the sister of the defendants and the parties are the legal heirs of late Sh. Madan Lal Arora. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for partition of immovable properties allegedly, belonging to Sh. Madan Lal Arora & Co. It is stated in the plaint that the immovable properties mentioned in paragraph No. 5 of the plaint were acquired by defendants with the funds of the firm M/s. Madan Lal & Co. and the plaintiff claiming to be legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Madan Lal Arora, claims her share in the properties. In paragraph No. 10 of the plaint the plaintiff has submitted that on proper rendition of accounts of the firm and other assets, the plaintiff estimates that he would be entitled to a sum not less than Rs. 10 lacs and on partition of properties, it is mentioned in the plaint, her share will be of the value of about Rs. 30 lacs. The plaintiff, thereforee has valued the suit for purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 40 lacs and has fixed a tentative C...
Smt. Madhu Chawla and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: 82(1999)DLT7; 1999(51)DRJ594; 1999RLR558
D.K. Jain, J. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek a direction to the Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA) to issue a no objection certificate/sale permission in respect of the industrial plot No.X-10, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi, which was sold on 17th April, 1993, by auction under the order of the Court, after charging the un-earned increase at the approved rates.2. To appreciate the controversy involved, some material facts may be noticed.3. In an open auction of the said plot on 19th February, 1974, by the DDA, the bid of one M/s. Work Enterprises Private Limited, in the sum of Rs. 78,500/- was accepted and a lease deed was executed in their favor on 17th February, 1977. After obtaining in permission from the DDA, the plot was mortgaged by the said company with Punjab & Sind Bank for raising loan. The project having failed, the Bank filed a suit (No. 470/80) in this Court for recovery of its dues. During the p...
Sohan Pal Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)352; 83(2000)DLT558
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. The petitioner was registered for allotment of a Flat of Janta Category with the respondent/DDA in the year 1989 under Special Housing Registration Scheme for SC/ST persons. Draw of lots was held in 1994 and the petitioner was allotted a Janta flat on hire purchase basis, Bearing No. 37-A, Sector-D, Pocket II, Group II, Kondli Gharoli, Delhi at a disposal cost of Rs. 1,11,700/- with initial deposit of Rs. 52,100/-. The allotment-cumdemand letter was issued to the petitioner on 1st/6th March, 1995. 2.It appears that when the petitioner visited the site he came to know that the flat allotted to him had already been allotted to one Kartar Singh and physical possession of the flat had already been taken. The petitioner visited the office of the respondents and made a representation on 5th April, 1995 requesting them to allot a flat in lieu of the flat allotted to him vide letter dated 1/6.3.1995. Thereafter, he met Deputy Director (Housing), Director (Housing) and made a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Textiles and General Trading Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR876(Delhi)
1. By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question, in respect of the assessment year 1987-88, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VII, New Delhi, cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act levied at Rs. 1,29,446 by the Assessing Officer for filing of inaccurate particulars of income/loss by the assessed inasmuch as claiming the liability of interest payable to bank which the assessee-firm itself denied before the High Court ?' 2. Bereft of elaborate details, the material facts are that for the relevant assessment year, the assessed filed its return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 3,00,392, which represented the interest payable by the assessed on loan taken from New Bank of India. During...
Gowersons Publishers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Del)409
ORDERARUN KUMAR, J:This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made at the instance of the assessed pertaining to assessment year 1975-76 seeking opinion of the High Court on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee-company was entitled to claim depreciation under the provisions of s. 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of factory building belonging to it and used by it for its business.2. M/s Goverdhan Kapoor & Sons, a partnership firm owned certain assets including immovable property. The firm entered into an agreement of sale with the assessee- company on 1st Oct., 1972, whereby the running business of the vendors was sold to the assessee- company. The assets of the company included the building. During the assessment proceedings the assessed claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Act on the building which was disallowed by the Income Tax Officer o...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Textile and General Trading Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Del)350
ORDERBY THE COURT:By this petition under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the IT Appellate Authority to refer the following question, in respect of the assessment year 1987-88, for the opinion of this Court ..'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of Commissioner (Appeals) VIII-New Delhi cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act levied at Rs. 1,29,446 by the assessing officer for filing of inaccurate particulars of income loss by the assessed inasmuch as claiming the liability of interest payable to bank which the assessee-firm itself denied before Hon'ble High Court. '2. Bereft of elaborate details, the material facts are that for the relevant assessment year, the assessed filed its return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 3,00,392, which represented the interest payable by the assessed on loan taken from New Bank of India. During the cou...
Straw Board Mfg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC280Tri(Delhi)
1. In the impugned order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) examined this case and observed the view of the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Haryana Plywood v. CCE, 1994 (74) E.L.T. 224 about the theory of undue enrichment is not to be applied to pending claims as the same is in a Customs case and moreover the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jain Spinners, 1992 (61) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) is different from that. Even though refund was applied in Sept. '91, this will attract the undue enrichment principle in view of the Supreme Court judgment and the amount of Rs. 64,450/- will not be admissible to the appellants. Similarly endorsement of duty paid under protest on PLA will not be of any help and the amount of Rs. 51,025.00 also does not be entitled to be refunded. The appellant is not entitled to any interest as there was no provision at that time for grant of interest in CESA, 1944 other claims remain mis-substantiated by the appellants.Appeal rejected accordingly.2. Being a...
Rajasthan Foam Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC568Tri(Delhi)
1. These are three appeals along - with Miscellaneous Applications. As the appeals arise out of the same order and Miscellaneous Applications pertain to admission of certain documents connected with these appeals.They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. By these Miscellaneous Applications, the appellants have sought permission to bring on record a copy of summons dated 31-1-1994 and a copy of the Panchnama dated 31-1-1994.3. It was contended before us that these documents are material and became available to the appellants only a few days back; that these are documents of the Department and that they were available with the Department though they were not brought on record. It was contended for the appellants that the purpose of bringing these documents on record is to show that the Department did verify the contents of File No. 2 on which the Department's entire case is built upon. It was contended, therefore, that these documents are very material p...
Essma Woollen Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC274Tri(Delhi)
1. By the captioned appeals, the appellants have assailed the order of the Collector confirming the demand of Rs. 22,80,579.69, confiscating the goods and imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the company and Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri M.L. Suri, Director of the company.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the process of woollen clothes on job work basis. Adjacent to this unit, there is another unit in the name of M/s. Vipan & Co. M/s. Vipan & Co.is owned by Shri M.L. Suri. Shri M.L. Suri is the Director of M/s.Essma Woollen Mills. Central Excise Officers noticed that M/s. Essma Woollen Mills were claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification Nos. 295/79-CE., dated 24-11-1979 and 344/86-CE., dated 19-6-1986 on the ground that the woollen shawls and fabrics were being subjected to the process of calendering with plain rollers in the premises of M/s.Vipan & Co. where the goods are claimed to be hand washed, whereas M/s.Essma Woollen Mills were carry...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »