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.
M/S. Kei Industries Ltd. Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ARBLR140(Delhi)
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to make the Award dated 23.4.1997 published by the Joint Arbitrators a Rule of the Court. The respondent No.1/Delhi Vidyut Board, previously known as Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking has filed the present Objections in IA. No. 6535/97 under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to the Award. 2. On 20.11.1992, the respondent No.1 awarded a contract for supply of 750 K.M of 'Control Cables' and the period of delivery under the Contract was from 19.5.1993 to 19.11.1993. On 10.8.1993 pursuant to the formal contract in writing, two bank guarantees were executed by the petitioner towards advance payment of 5% per cent each and the third bank guarantee towards performance for 10 per cent of the contract price, i.e., total value of Rs.1,05,99,906/ was executed by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner's case is that the several reminders were sent by the petitioner to the respondents to open the ...
Bharti Televentures Ltd. Vs. Bell South International Asia/Pacific Inc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ216
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The Plaintiff, Bharti Televentures Ltd. (BHARTI) has filed this suit for permanently injuncting Bell South International Asia/Pacific Inc. USA (BELL) from selling or entering into any arrangement/agreement for the sale of its shareholding in Sky cell Communications Limited (SKYCELL), to any third party. SKYCELL is the joint venture constituted by Crompton Greaves Ltd. (CROMPTON), which holds 40.5 per cent of its equity; BELL, which holds 24.5 per cent of its equity; Milliohm International Cellular SA (MILLICOM) (which holds 24.5 per cent of its equity); and DSS Enterprises (DSS) (which holds 10.5 per cent of its equity). 2. It is not in controversy that the joint venture SKYCELL has been sustaining substantial losses. The Plaintiff thereupon entered the fray by negotiating for the purchase of the shareholding, inter alia, of BELL for a sum of US $ 115 million. The contract between the original four constituents of SKYCELL included a covenant that none of them ...
Hira Lal JaIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1212; 2000(56)DRJ634
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Admit. 2. The petitioner by this Criminal Revision Petition No. 274 of 2000 seeks an order quashing the order dated 19.4.2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge framing charge against the petitioner under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case are that upon a DD entry lodged in the Police Station regarding the incident of suicide, the police reached the spot at the factory No. C.S. SMA where they found on the second floor in the godown of the factory body of one person, namely, Rajesh Kumar, lying with the plastic rope tied around its neck and the other end of the rope was fixed to a hook to the roof. On search of the body, a suicide note was lying which stated: 'I, Rajesh Kumar s/o Ram Chand R/o AG240, Shalimar Bagh, Ph: 7135502 and I work in R.P. Wool Co. Pvt. Ltd. at C4, SMA. I on my own will wanted to leave my job to work on my own. My employer Mr. H.L. Jain had got me involved in a false case and forcibly got a note executed for misappropriation...
Ashwani Kumar Bansal Vs. the Financial Commissioner and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ551
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. Admit. 2. By this Criminal Misc. (Main) 1163 of 1998 the petitioner seeks to challenge the Order of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, in Case No. 12/98-CA dated 16.1.1998 whereby, upon application being presented to the Financial Commissioner under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), the Financial Commissioner rejected the same as having no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the State. It is the case of the petitioner that the Financial Commissioner is a Revenue Court and, thereforee, being a Revenue Court, as defined under Section 195(3) of the Code, could initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Code. thereforee, rejection of the application by the Financial Commissioner due to lack of jurisdiction was incorrect. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a resident of District Fatehgarh in the State of Punjab. His two minor children ...
Laddan HussaIn Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ577
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Ministry of External Affairs, rejecting petitioner's request for permission under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure for instituting proceeding against the Embassy of Kuwait. 2. Petitioner was employed as a Security Guard with the Kuwait Embassy from June 1973. He continued in this position till 30th of June, 1999, when his services were terminated. Petitioner relies on letters written by the Embassy of Kuwait, acknowledging the good work of the petitioner and a certificate issued stating that he discharged his functions honestly and with a sense of responsibility. Admittedly, petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs. 2,14,625.00 towards dues payable to him on termination of his serv ice in terms of the service contract with the Embassy of Kuwait. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that initially his request was not being considered, which led him to file Civil Writ Petition No. 2397 of 2000, where...
State Vs. S/O Pritam
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ61
ORDERUsha Mehra. J.1. Criminal appeal bearing No. 518/99 has been preferred by Janesh, son of Shri Pritam thereby assailing the death sentence imposed upon him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide his judgment and order dated 10th August, 1999 and 13th August, 1999 respectively in Sessions Case No.14/98. By the impugned judgment and order Janesh has been held guilty of murdering his daughter Sonu. Whereas vide Murder Reference No. 3/99 State is seeking confirmation of the sentence of death imposed upon Janesh. Since the Murder Reference and the appeal have arisen from the same judgment and sentence. These are taken up and disposed of together by this judgment. 2. The facts in nut shell which have come on record are that appellant Janesh was married to Smt. Lajjo (PW-9). From this wedlock they were blessed with two daughters. The name of elder daughter was Sonu. Janesh had strained relation with Lajjo. There had been frequent quarrels between husband and wife. Smt. Lajjo had bee...
Praveen JaIn and anr. Vs. Lakshmi NaraIn Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ117
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Shri Praveen Jain and his mother Smt. Madhuri Jain are Plaintiffs in S. No. 1485/1997. Shri Ashok Jain brother of Shri Praveen Jain and son of Smt. Madhuri Jain is the Plaintiff in S. No. 1486/1997. The former suit relates to the first floor and the letter to the second floor of B-7, Extension/116-A, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The averments in both the Plaints, as well as the defense thereto, are identical in substance and material particular. For these reasons the interlocutory applications filed in both the suits can conveniently and appropriately be disposed of by this common order. An original of this Order shall, thereforee, be placed in S. No. 1486/1996.2. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for stated to have been paid to the Defendant under the Agreement to sell dated 25-9-1996 and only Rs. 20,00,000/- had been paid by Mr. Ashok Jain to the Defendant on the execution of the Agreement dated 5-8-1996. The Defendant has thereafter denied that the ba...
Modipon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Del)52; [2000]113TAXMAN44(Delhi)
Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the Income Tax Officer's action in rejecting the assessor's claim for initial depreciation as regards 64 out of total 336 houses constructed for the residence of employees of the assessed getting a salary of less than Rs. 7,500 per annum, in terms of section 32(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'Dispute relates to the assessment year 1969-70 corresponding to the accounting year ended on 28-2-1969.2. Factual position giving rise to the reference in a nutshell is as follows :Modipon Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the assessee, is a public limited company, which was incorporated on 19-8-1965 for manufacturing Nylon-6 yarn. However, the production started in 1968. The previous year relev...
Modipon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ710; [2001]247ITR40(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the assessed, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the Income-tax Officer's action in rejecting' the assessed's claim for initial depreciation as regards 64 out of total 336 houses constructed for the residence of employees of the assessed getting a salary of less than Rs. 7,500 per annum, in terms of Section 32(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1969-70 corresponding to the accounting year ended on February 28, 1969. 3. The factual position giving rise to the reference in a nutshell is as follows : Modipon Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the assessed, is a public limited company, which was incorporated on August 19, 1965, for manufacturing Nylon-6 yarn. However, the production started in 196...
Vijay Kumar Bhati Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Del)29; [2001]247ITR757(Delhi)
A. K. Sikri, J.This application is offshoot of judgment dated 21-5-1993, passed by this court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2292 of 1987 (reported as Vijay Kumar Bhati v. CIT & Anr. (1994) 118 CTR (Del) 65). By aforesaid judgment, a writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed with costs. What compelled the petitioner to file the aforesaid writ petition may be recapitulated first by stating those necessary facts which have bearing on the present Civil Misc.2. Petitioner is a non-resident Indian. He had left and went to Riyadh in Saudi Arabia in February, 1982, on getting employment there. On 10-3-1985, he visited India for 19 days. During his stay in India, he opened FCNR S.B. account No. 5810 for US $ 500 with Indian Overseas Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. On 17-7-1985, from Saudi Arabia; he remitted a sum of US $ 35,000 in account No. 9/85. thereforee, he remitted another sum of US $ 99,995 by opening another account No. 10/85 on 10-8-1985. On 10-9-1985, Income Tax Department wrote...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »