Delhi Court August 2000 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.
Sher Singh Walia Vs. State Nct Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ428; 2001(77)ECC684
Dalveer Bhundhari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Delhi passed in Sessions Case No. 128/94. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:2. On 9.3.1991 while, the Sub Inspector Pran Nath was on patrolling duty Along with ASI Prithvi Singh, Constable Vijender, Constable Ajay Singh at Andha Mughal Chowk he received an information that a person namely Sher Singh would go to Haryana through Bagichi Peerji Railway Station, Subzi Mandi in order to supply charas and if a raid is conducted, illegal charas can be recovered. The information was reduced into writing and a raiding party was formed. Public witnesses Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Sachchidanand were also joined in the raiding party. The raiding party informed the accused that as per their information he was carrying illegal charas for which he has to be searched.3. According to the prosecution version, the accused was given notice under Section 50 of the NDPS ...
Dlf Industries Ltd. Vs. Abn Amro Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ470
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. One of the questions for consideration in these four appeals is about the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi to entertain the three petitions filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by M/s. DLF Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'DIL').2. The facts in brief are that on 14.1.1998 three separate petitions i.e. O.M.P. Nos. 20/98, 21/98 and 22/98 were filed by DIL seeking injunction against the respondent Bank from encashing the bank guarantees. Inter alia, it was alleged that the petition was being filed against the fraudulent and illegal act of M/s. Atul Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'ATUL') in seeking encashment of bank guarantees issued by the Banks. The contracts between DIL and ATUL were novated in favor of State Bank of India, who has not sought invocation of bank guarantee in view of novation of contracts. In terms of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, the original contract need not be performed. A...
Smt. Baljeet Jolly Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Del)37; [2001]250ITR113(Delhi); [2001]113TAXMAN38(Delhi)
ORDERPasayat, C.J. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In relation to a miscellaneous application filed under section 254(2) of the Act in IT Appeal No. 1439 (Del) of 1989 relating to the assessment year 1985-86, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', held that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record in relation to the -addition of unexplained investments to the extent of Rs. 6 lakhs.2. In the application filed under section 254(2), the assessed had taken the stand that the Tribunal's conclusions were not in accordance with the facts on record. It was stated that the total amount spent by the assessed on the construction of house was Rs. 6.92 lakhs of which she spent Rs. 2,85,600 in the assessment year 1984-85, and the balance Rs. 4,06,400 were spent in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1985-86. In explaining the sources, the assessed had stated that Rs. 6 lakhs were received by her from...
Asian Foundation Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC246
1. Arguing for the appellant Shri L.P. Dhir, Id. advocate submitted that apart from the merits of the case the demand is barred by time under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. In the Show Cause Notice though there was allegation of suppression but in the absence of specific mention of proviso to Section 11A the demand is not sustainable in the eye of law. Further, the party has taken a specific plea with reference to the Show Cause Notice that demand was barred by time in the absence of suppression and there was no justification to raise the demand by invoking lager period. This important plea has not been dealt with in the order.2. On the other hand, Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR referred to the findings of the Collector in the impugned order particularly para 18 and 23 of the order and relevant portion is as under: In the instant case M/s Afcons have not challenged the excisability of the goods in question under the various headings/sub-headings of the Schedule to the Central Excise Ta...
Santosh Kumari and Others Vs. Ram Swaroop and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1084; 88(2000)DLT42; 2000(56)DRJ550; 2001RLR241
ORDERKhan, J.1. One Mangat Ram, a vegetable seller died in a road accident on 15th April, 1989. Appellants filed Suit No. 148/89 for grant of compensation on 22.5.1989. MACT assessed the annual income of deceased at Rs. 1500/- P.M, deducted Rs. 500/- for his personal expenses and determined the depending at Rs. 1000/- P.M and applied a multiplier of 13 to it to award compensa-tion of Rs. 1.56 lacs with 12% interest. 2. Appellants feel dissatisfied and have filed the Appeal for enhancement of compensation. The only plea taken by their counsel was that MACT had applied a low multiplier of 13 when it ought to be 17 as per Amendment Act 54 of 1954 which came in force from 14.11.1994. 3. A perusal of impugned award shows that MACT had applied the multiplier of 13 in the light of Apex Court judgment in Sushma Thomas case. It could not have applied the multiplier as per the schedule brought in force by 54 amendment because that was applicable prospectively from 14.11.1994. But all the same Tr...
Desh Bandhu Vs. Harish Bindal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1206
ORDERKhan, J.1. Petitioner is the defendant in Suit No. 208/99 filed by respondent for possession of agricultural land measuring 3 Bighas or so covered by Khasra No. 65/1 in illaqa Mundka. He filed written statement to the suit taking the stand that respondent plaintiff had no cause of action as he had perfected the title on the land by adverse possession. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit. 2. Trial court framed five issues in the suit. The first issue was framed on petitioner's plea and its onus to prove was put on him. The issue read thus:- 'Whether title of defendant had perfected over the land before its purchase by plaintiff.' OPD3. No preliminary issue on jurisdictional plea or otherwise was framed in the suit and Trial court called upon petitioner to lead evidence. 4. Petitioner feels aggrieved of this and entertains a two fold grievance. According to him Trial court was bound to frame the preliminary issue on jurisdictional plea under Order 14, R...
A.K. JaIn and Others Vs. Harmeet Singh Bakshi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi191
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of I.As.6616/96 & 7503/96 both filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC by the plaintiffs.2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, inter alia, alleging that under a lease agreement dated 31st May 1980 three bed rooms with attached bath, one side room, kitchen and one side servant quarter on the garage of house No. D-1059, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, were let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 2300/- exclusive of electricity and water charges with effect from 1st June 1980 for a period of three years by Bakshi Samsher Singh to Akesh Kumar Jain, plaintiff No.1 and K.C. Jain. K.C. Jain passed away in December 1984 and upon his death his cy rights devolved on plaintiffs No.1. to 4. Sometime in 1985-86 Bakshi Samsher Singh who was residing with his family on the ground floor of said house, got a room constructed in the open courtyard situated on ground floor along the eastern boundary of t...
Tahir and ors Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ566
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These four appeals have been filed by four accused persons, (hereinafter referred to as the accused appellants by their respective names), questioning their conviction for offences punishable under Sections 302/186 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) read with Sec. 34 IPC for allegedly having caused homicidal death of Billoo, (hereinafter referred to as the deceased.) They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay Rs.10,000/- as fine each with default stipulation of six months RI. 2. Sans unnecessary details, accusations which led to trial of four appellants is as follows : On 16.3.1988, at 11.15 p.m. Kalawati (PW-7) lodged a missing report in police station wherein it was stated that on 14.3.1988, deceased had gone to his factory at 8.30 p.m. but had not come back to the house and his whereabouts could not be known inspire of search. The information was recorded and SI Ranbir Singh was directed to investigate into the matter. SI Ranbir...
Ved Mehta and ors. Vs. Commander Ashok Mehta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ233
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The plaintiffs filed this suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and prohibitory injunction on the allegations that the plaintiffs and the defendant are the successors in interest of late Dr. Amolak Ram Mehta; Dr. Amolak Ram Mehta owned a double storied house with a barsati floor and out house on plot No. C-1, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi: he executed a Will dated 23rd December, 1981 appointing plaintiff No. 1 as the executor of the Will; in terms of the Will, the property was to devolve on Smt. Shanti Mehta, the wife of the deceased, for her life and after her death to her children i.e. plaintiffs 2 to 6 and defendant in equal shares; plaintiff No. 1 was excluded from the Will as per the wishes of the said plaintiff. On 21st November, 1985 Dr. Amolak Ram Mehta executed a Codicil partially modifying the terms of the Will declaring that the defendant shall have a right to stay with his family on the first floor of the house for a period of 15 years from the date of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Alps Wine Shop (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: [2000]246ITR672(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. On being moved by the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following question, pertaining to the assessment year 1974-75, has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 20,000 representing liability for bonus for the period April 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972, which arose when Prithvi Pal Singh was carrying' on proprietary business was an allowable deduction for the assessment year 1974-75 ?'2. The factual position, which is almost undisputed, is as under :For the assessment year 1974-75, a claim of Rs. 20,700 as bonus payable to staff was disallowed. It is the stand of the Assessing Officer that the said expenses related to an earlier period and were not relatable to the year in question. It is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »