Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 17 of about 277 results (0.020 seconds)Akbar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi374a; 2000(54)DRJ861
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.Crl. M. (M) 2140/20001. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that by an order dated 14th August, 1954, the power to examine persons whether they are foreigners is vested with the civil authorities who may examine any person and that power also includes the power to deport those who have in any manner infringed the Foreigners Act, 1946. He further submits that the police in this case have been making indiscriminate arrests and have singled out members of the family rather than dealing with the family as a unit. To elaborate this he submits that in many cases either the wife is picked up and the husband and the children are left or the husband is picked up and the wife and children are left or the children are picked up and the wife and husband are left out. This he craves besides being arbitrary compounds the misery of those who are left behind. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent State who has drawn my attention to Section 3 of the Act which e...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash and Company Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2000Delhi423; 2000(56)DRJ521
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. In the Award dated 29.7.1993, in respect of Claim No.5 which dealt with escalation, the Sole Arbitrator Shri V.D. Tiwari had granted a sum of Rs.66197/-; and in respect of interest, covered by Claim No. 7 he had awarded Rs.36,904/-. Pursuant to the Judgment of A.D. Singh, J. dated 18.2.1997, only these portions of the Award were remanded back for fresh adjudication. The Judgment dated 18.2.1997 was appealed against but the Appeal was dismissed in limine. In compliance with the Judgment dated 18.2.1997, after hearing the parties again, the Arbitrator, by his Award dated 14.1.1998, reduced the claim of escalation under Claim No. 5 from Rs. 66197/- to Rs.44602/-. In respect of Claim No. 7 for grant of interest, the Arbitrator also scaled down the amount awarded from Rs. 36904/- to Rs. 32045/-. He further ordered that the principal sum on which interest would be payable would be modified from Rs. 2,64,019/- to Rs. 2,42,424/-. As recorded in the impugned Award, the...
Tag this Judgment!Subhadrabai Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT678; 2000(54)DRJ900
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension to the petitioner. The etitioner, applied for grant of pension vide her application dated 21.1.1999. The case of the petitioner is that her late husband participated in the freedom movement and went through underground sufferings for a period exceeding six months and as such she is eligible for grant of the pension under the above scheme. 2. The Petitioner has produced documents recording his arrest under Rule 153 (h) and (j) of the Hyderabad Security Act. A communication from the Tehsildar to the police Sub-Inspector of Patoda records, petitioner and several other persons were arrested. The petitioner and others are stated to have escaped in the commotion which followed the firing by the Hind Union Police on the Nizam Government Police. The communication records that warrants for the off...
Tag this Judgment!Capital Const. Co. Vs. National Agri. Coop. Marketing Federation of In ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ471
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed in July, 1998. The facts leading to its filing are that on 19.11.1983 the parties entered into an Agreement for the construction of multistoreyed office building (Civil & Sanitary Works) for NAFED at 1, Siddhartha Enclave, New Delhi. On 23.7.1990, even before the final bill was prepared, the Petitioner invoked the Arbitration Agreement as contained in Clause 57 of the General Conditions of Contract and requested Respondent No. 2 to appoint an Arbitrator. Eventually, on 4.10.1990, after some reminders, Respondent No. 2 appointed Dr. S. P. Seth, Additional Managing Director of Respondent No. 1 as the Sole Arbitrator. Since the Award was not made and published within the statutory period, OMP 35 of 1992 under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act was filed on 11.3.1992 praying for the enlargement of the time for making and publishing the Award. This Petition was disposed of by Orders dated 12....
Tag this Judgment!Memtec Limited and Another Vs. Lunarmech and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2002]46CLA20(Delhi); [2001]103CompCas1078(Delhi)
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.I.A. 2238/99. 8511/98 and 8315/1999. 1. These applications have been filed by the Plaintiff for change of the name of the Plaintiff No. 1 from the present Memtec Limited to USF Filteration Ltd. and of Plaintiff No. 2 from the present Manteec America Corporation to USF Fitteration and Separation Group Inc. The application is support by an affidavit of Mr. Kevin F.O. Neill which has been duly notarised and authenticated by the Indian Embassy in Washington D.C. A Certificate from the Australian Securities Commission and Secretary of State, State of Delaware has also been filed in support of the change of names. 2. The relief has been strenuously opposed by Shri S.K. Mehra, Learned Counsel for the Defendant. He has contended that the application has been filed only after the Defendants had moved I.A. No. 8511/1998 for dismissal of the suit 'as the Plaintiff Company had ceased and having been acquired by USF Fitteration to be the owner and manufacturer of the machine;...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Aggarwal and Another Vs. Subhash Chand Aggarwal and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)889; 2000(3)ARBLR142(Delhi)
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 which seeks the appointment of a receiver for the firm M/s. Sultan Chand & Sons & M/s. Premier Book o., which were formed pursuant to a Partnership Deed dated 2.4.1976 between Shri Prakash Chand and his brother and sisters who are respondents 1, 2 & 3. The petitioners' deceased father Prakash Chand had 40 per cent share and each of the respondents had 20 per cent share, and the partnership deed contained an arbitration clause. 2. On 10.9.1997 Shri Prakash Chand, died leaving his will dated 25.1.1997 bequeathing his share in the partnership to his two sons who are the present petitioners. The defendants' 4-8 are daughters of the deceased Prakash Chand. The defendant No. 1 is the brother and respondent Nos. 2-3 are the sisters of Prakash Chand and each had 20% share in the firm. The petitioner's case is that on the death of Shri Prakash Chand, the partnership stood dissolved by operatio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.K. Nawlakha
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Del)582; [2000]246ITR557(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the directions given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C (in short, 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on March 14, 1978, holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose the said penalty under Section 271(1)(c) after the deletion of Section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act with effect from April 1, 1976 ?'2. The factual position is almost undisputed. So far as relevant for adjudication it is as follows :For the assessment year 1973-74 before completion of the assessment, the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated March 30, 1976, initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ajanta Offset and Packing Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]246ITR548(Delhi)
1. Heard.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The prayer is for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), to refer the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that additional tax charged under Section 143(1A) was not chargeable as there was no final positive income determined after adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a) despite the fact that additional tax is chargeable under Section 143(1A)(ii) even if the final result of his reducing the loss only and even if no positive income is finally determined under Section 143(1)(a) since Section 143(1A) now, stands amended with effect from April 1, 1989, after amendment by the Finance Act, 1993 ?'3. We find substance in the submission made by learned counsel that the question needs to be reconsidered by the Tribunal in the light of the amendm...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Steels Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2001)71TTJ(Del)761
ORDERPhool Singh, J.M.This appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against order dated 6-3-1995, recorded by the Commissioner, Meerut, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by which assessment order of the assessed for assessment year 1992-93 was set aside to the limited extent with direction to the assessing officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessing officer') to reexamine the claim of the assessed about manufacturing and other expenses amounting to Rs. 98,65,051 debited by the assessed under sub-head 'foreign exchange loss' and to pass suitable order.2. Assessment of the assessed for assessment year 1992-93 was completed on 26-3-1993, at an income of Rs. 27,11,668. From perusal of assessment records, the Commissioner, Meerut, noted that assessed had debited an amount of Rs. 98,65,091 under sub-head 'foreign exchange loss' in the profit and loss account for the year ending 31-3-1992. In the annual report and accounts for that period the assessed had mentioned t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ajanta Offset and Packing Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]246ITR548(Delhi)
HeardThis is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The prayer is for a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), to refer the following question. for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that additional tax charged under section 143(1A) was not chargeable as there was no final positive income determined after adjustment made under section 143(1)(a) despite the fact that additional tax is chargeable under section 143(1A)(ii) even if the final result of his reducing the loss only and even if no positive income is finally determined under section 143(1)(a) since section 143(1A) now stands amended with effect from April 1, 1989, after amendment by the Finance Act, 1993 ?'2. We find substance in the submission made by learned counsel that the question needs to be reconsidered by the Tribunal in the light of t...
Tag this Judgment!