Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 17 of about 265 results (0.020 seconds)M/S. Pandit Munshi Ram and Associates (Private) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Develop ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi82; 95(2002)DLT482
ORDERO.P. Dwivedi. J1. Through this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11th August, 2000, passed by the learned single Judge whereby petitioner's application under section 11(6) of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short called 'the Act), AA No. 278/99, was dismissed as time barred.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts set out in the application under section 11(6) of the Act were that the petitioner was awarded the work of construction of 288 Janta Flats for Harijans at Vasant Gaon, New Delhi vide formal agreement being No. 88/EE/S.W.D-7/D.D.A./A/ 89-90 dated 22nd january, 1990. The date of starting of the work was 26th January, 1990 and the stipulated date completion of the work was 25th april, 1991. The actual date of completion of the work was 29th may, 1992. It was pleaded in the application that the delay in completion of work was solely attributable to the respondent DDA so the time for...
Tag this Judgment!State (C.B.i.) Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1905
R.S. Sodhi, J:1. This is a petition under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI') for quashing the order dated 29.1.2000 of the Special Judge, Delhi, In Case No. RC S18199 E 0001 (pending investigation). The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioners in their petition, are as follows : 2. A criminal case bearing FIR no. RC S18 1999 E 0001 was registered on 29.1.99, in SIUVIII branch of Central Bureau of Investigation, S.P.E. under sections 120-B read with Sections 193, 467 & 471 IPC against unknown officials of Delhi Zone of Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, on the basis of a written complaint of Sh. Abhijit Chakarvertty, Addl. Director, En- forcement Directorate, New Delhi. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that the Delhi Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate had conducted a search on 01.01.98 at the office and residential premises of one Sh. Subhash...
Tag this Judgment!Connoisseur Catering Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Sports Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi148
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of IAs. No. 3226-27/99 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff and is No. 3640/99 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant for vacation of the ex parte ad interim injunction order dated 23rd March, 1999.2. Suit was filed by the plaintiff, inter-alia, alleging that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. Defendant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. In the month of June-July 1996, the defendant came out with a Notice Inviting Tenders for running a cafeteria in the covered space with kitchen and storage facility and having open space of 13 x 15 mts. in Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, Lodi Road, New Delhi initially for the periods ending on 31st March, 1999, it was widely represented and also assured that though in the notice inviting tenders the period mentioned was up to 31st March, 1999 but the plaintiff would be entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!Association of Self-employed Entrepreneurs and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor o ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001(58)DRJ371
D.K. Jain, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, numbering 22, assail price of sheds demanded from them by the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIDC in short). The first petitioner is the association of self-employed entrepreneurs and the remaining petitioners claim to be allottees of industrial sheds in New Jhilmil Industrial Complex, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi.2. At the outset, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the DSIDC that though initially there were 22 petitioners but during the pendency of the petition, some of the petitioners have made full payment in terms of the decision of this Court, dated 16th January, (996 in the case of Pushp Lata v. DSIDC, 1996 (1) AD 390, without any demur, some of the petitioners had also filed separate petitions, which have since been dismissed, three of the petitioners namely, Petitioners No. 11, 16 and 22 have already sold off their sheds and name of petitioner No. 5 has a...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Singh and Bhup Singh Vs. Air India Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ99Del
ORDERMadan Lokur, J.1. Rule. The petitioner was engaged as a contract labourer to perform the work of Security Guard Sometime in July, 1996 and he has been working with the Respondents ever since then. Pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union and Ors., : (1997)ILLJ1113SC the respondents decided to screen the contract labour for the purposes of regularising them.The case of the petitioner was also screened and it was found that he did not meet the medical standards inasmuch as he was short by 3 cm. Accordingly, it was decided to terminate his services. This led to the petitioner filing the present writ petition.It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the respondents are under an obligation to regularise the services of thepetitioner irrespective of whether the Petitioner meets the medical standards or not. I am afraid it is not possible for me to ag...
Tag this Judgment!Balvinder Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4759; 2000(55)DRJ133; 2000(72)ECC48
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These two habeas corpus petitions are interlinked and, the grounds of challenge and rebuttal being same, thereforee, are disposed of by this common judgment. Learned counsel for the parties made similar submissions in respect of the two petitions and requested that they may be heard and disposed of together. Petitioner in each case in interned in Central Jail Tihar, New Delhi, pursuant to detention order passed by the Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Detaining Authority) under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short the Act).2. The basis of detention was as follows:-Acting on the basis of specific intelligence that a consignment of contraband gold was being transported to Delhi concealed in a Mahindra Jeep bearing No. DL.8C B 5044, the officers of DRI intercepted the said jeep after it entered Delhi near Del...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. Vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Associati ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Del)534; [2001]248ITR258(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') has referred the following questionunder Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the assessed-company's claims for exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the whole of the assessment year 1974-75, or it should have been granted with effect from December 1, 1973, in view of the amendment of Clause (xiv) of article 103 of the articles of association of the company effected on December 1, 1973, prohibiting distribution of dividends to the members ?' 2. The respondent-assessed is a public limited company formed with the object of promoting and regulating the business of shares, stocks and securities. Since its incorporation, it is engaged in the business of stock exchange. The assessment year involved ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax and ors. Vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Associati ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Del)207
D.K. Jain, . J.At the instance of the revenue , the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the assessee-company's claim for exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the whole of the assessment year 1974-75, or it should have been granted with effect from 1-12-1973, in view of the amendment of clause (xiv) of article. 103 of the articles of association of the company effected on I-12-1973, prohibiting distribution of dividends to the members ?'2. The respondent-assessee is a public limited company formed with the object of promoting and regulating business of shares, stocks and securities. Since its incorporation, it is engaged in the business of stock exchange. The assessment year...
Tag this Judgment!Prism Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT155TriDel
2. Whether the above items are eligible input or not to avail Modvat credit is an issue to be considered in this case.3. We find that issue in respect of the first two items has already been considered by the Tribunal holding that they are not eligible inputs to avail Modvat credit in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cement v. CCE, Raipur as per Order Nos. A/466-67/2000-NB(DB)/ dated 07.06.2000, [2000 (119) E.L.T. 552 (Tri.-LB) and Chemo Pulp Tissues and Ors. v. CCE, Meerut and Ors., 2000 (38) R.L.T. 988 (CEGAT-LB).4. In view of this position following the ruling given by the Tribunal in the aforesaid cases, we hold that the above items are not an eligible inputs. As regards third item there is some force in the arguments, on behalf of the appellant. We find that modvat credit has been denied in respect of Bridge Rectifier on the ground that description does not tally with the item. The Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that procedural lapse if any, should not come in the way of d...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT148TriDel
1. Shri A.K. Jain, Id. Counsel arguing the application for restoration of the appeal submits that the Counsel of the Managing Partner of the applicant was unwell; that the applicant had number of points to argue; that there are a number of decisions of the Apex Court and Tribunal wherein giving a personal hearing is vested right of the appellant. He submits that filing of a declaration under Rule 96ZP(3) was not only the issue, there were a number of issues. He submits that in view of the fact that there were number of issues to be discussed and in view of the fact that the applicant was really unwell and having regard to the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 472 and in the case of M.R. Narayanan reported 1990 (Supplementary) SCC 76 and further in case of Savithri Amma Seethamma reported in 1983 (1) SCC 401. Ld. Counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned order may be recalled and the appeal may be restored to its original number.2....
Tag this Judgment!