Delhi Court October 2001 Judgments

Ravindra Kumar Vs. Uco Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. The parties have filed a joint application for disposal of this appeal. The application is supported by affidavits by both the parties.2. Learned Counsel for the parties say that the matter has been compromised between the parties for a sum of Rs. 10,76,000/- out of which Rs. 2,34,000/- have already been paid by the appellant and the balance is to be paid on monthly instalments of Rs. 1,20,000/- with simple interest @ 12% per annum. The entire amount as settled between the parties is to be paid by 28th February, 2002. They also say that there is a default clause -- in case there is default in payment of any instalment, the entire decretal amount as per the impugned order shall become payable forthwith by adjusting the amount already paid.3. Learned Counsel for the parties say that in terms of the aforesaid compromise this appeal may be disposed of and this order be formed part of this Appellate Tribunal's order.4. As per the request, this appeal is disposed of in terms of the afore...

Kanta Vohra and ors. Vs. Surat Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003ACJ676; 95(2002)DLT359; 2002(61)DRJ516

R.C. Chopra, J.1. This appeal challenges an order dated 3.4.1989 passed (SIC)FAO No. 178/1979 by which an award passed on 13.4.1979 by Motor Accident (SIC)Claims Tribunal was modified but the findings in regard to the income of the (SIC)deceased and grant of interest @ 6 per cent per annum were not disturbed. C.M. 565 (SIC)2001 was filed to consider additional evidence regarding income of deceased.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants. None has entered (SIC)appearance on behalf of the respondents including respondent No. 3, United India Insurance Company Ltd.3. Learned Counsel for the appellants has confined his submissions to two questions only. First is that the deceased Captain Satpal Vohra, at the time of hisdeath, was drawing emoluments in the sum of Rs. 1,214.60 per month but theevidence on record established that his income would have increased substantially with the passage of time. However, neither the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal nor learned Single Judge took ...

National Institute of Public Finance and Policy and anr. Vs. the Asses ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT737; 2002(61)DRJ121

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule. 2. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal. 3. The petitioner by this writ petition impugns the order the order dated 4.3.1994, by which the rateable value of the property was fixed at Rs. 8,97,986/-. The petitioner's case is that prior to the impugned order dated 2.8.1991, the rateable value was fixed as Rs. 4,40,600/-. Besides 60% of the accommodation was held to be entitled for exemption under Section 115(4) of the DMC Act. The remaining 40% of the accommodation was not entitled to exemption. The property was held to be exigible for levy of tax at rates as applicable to residential premises. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made representations to the Assessor and Collector for recalling of the impugned order dated 4.3.1994. The matter had been pending consideration before the Assessor and Collector. The respondents however had at an intermediate stage, pursuant to the impugned order soug...

Union of India Vs. Vanilal Bansilal and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT872

V.S. Aggarwal. J. 1. Shri R.N. Poddar had been appointed as the sole arbitrator and had submitted his award dated 29.11.1995. 2. In pursuance of the award having been filed notices had been issued to the parties. Objections have been filed on behalf of Vani Lal Bansi Lal asserting that it is an ex parte award without recording any reasons. The decision of the arbitrator is stated alleged being not a decision on merits because it is claimed that no evidence was adduced by Union of India. Reasonable notice had not been given to the objector and non-appearance of the objector was only accidental. Since there was no evidence there is error apparent on the face of the record and thereforee the award is liable to be set aside. 3. In the reply filed the assertions of the objector have been controverter. It has been pleaded that many notices were sent to the objector but no reply was received. Otherwise also it is pleaded that the arbitrator all relevant documents were placed before the arbitr...

Dr. B.L. Wadehra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]259ITR108a(Delhi)

1. The petitioner in this petition filed as PIL prayed for direction against the respondents to file current status report about the post Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, situation with regard to deductors and their foreign origin employees indicating whether after availing themselves of the provisions of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, deductors have been deducting the requisite amount of tax from their employees salaries/ perks and in case all or some of them have not done so what action has been taken or is proposed to be taken against them.2. Mr. Jolly, appearing for the Revenue, has handed over for our perusal a statement with respect to 16 parties from which it appears that against some of them, as a result of survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, additional tax and interest under Sections 201 and 201(1A) has been collected and penalty under Section 271(c) of the Act has been levied.3. From the status report we are satisfied that the ...

Dr. B.L. Wadehra Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]121TAXMAN481(Delhi)

ORDERThe petitioner in this petition filed as PIL prayed for direction against respondents to file current status report about the post Voluntary Disclosure Income Scheme 1997, situation with regard to deductors and their foreign origin employees indicating whether after availing of the provisions of the VDIS 97, deductors have been deducting the requisite amount of tax from their employees salaries/perks and in case all or some of them have not done so what action has been taken or is proposed to be taken against them.2. Mr. Jolly, appearing for the revenue, has handed over for our perusal a statement with respect to 16 parties from which it appears that from some of them, as a result of survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, additional tax and interest under sections 201 and 201(1A) have been collected and penalty under section 271C of the Act has been levied.3. From the status report we are satisfied that genuine efforts were made by the respondents to take care of t...

Romesh Sharma Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT267; 2002(61)DRJ553

S.K.Agarwal, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 30th January, 1999 framing charge against the petitioner in the case FIR No. 803/98 under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 P.S.Hauz Khas and rejecting his application for discharge.2. Briefly the allegations are: that on 20th October, 1998 police officials searched the premises C-30, Mayfair Gardens, New Delhi and found fourteen live cartridges of 32 bore revolver in unlawful possession of the petitioner. Case was registered and after investigations charge-sheet was filed on 18th December, 1998, without any sanction or ballistic expert report. Accused/petitioner was produced in custody before the duty magistrate and was supplied documents. Thereafter, supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 7th January, 1999 after ballistic expert report and sanction for prosecution was obtained under Section 39 of the Arms Act. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the supplementary ch...

G. Sagar Suri Vs. Tikka Jagjit Singh Bedi (Deceased) Through L.Rs.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT108; 2002(62)DRJ793

S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This order will dispose of application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') for review of order dated 23rd January, 2001 by which earlier application (I.A.No. 6464/2000) under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC of the applicant seeking review of order dated 19th January, 2000, restoring the suit was dismissed. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this application are that the plaintiff filed a suit for rendition of accounts of dissolved partnership regarding premises on plot No. 97, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi in July, 1977. The defendant died in July, 1997 leaving behind his wife, son, four daughters and two children of the deceased daughter as his legal heirs/legal representatives (hereinafter referred to as 'L.Rs. 1 to 7'). The plaintiff moved an application (I.A.No. 9333/97) under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for bringing on record L.Rs. of the defendant, as the right to sue survived. Notice of the application was issued to the propo...

K. Vijayan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT831

S.K. Agarwal, J. 1.This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 21.11.1998 passed by the court of Sh. Dinesh Dayal, Special Judge Delhi, holding that form the transcript of the conversation between the petitioner and respondent recorded at spot and other material collected during investigations, prima-facie case for framing charge under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'POC Act'), is made out in the case RC No. 60(A)/1991/CBI/ADC dt. 4.10.1991, and dismissing petitioner's application for discharge.2.The complainant -A.K. Krishna Rao lodged a report with the CBI alleging: that his father is facing a CBI probe in the case RC 23(A)/91-DLI; petitioner (Ex-Superintendent of Police, CBI), contacted the complainant, informing him that he had worked with CBI at Senior levels and had maintained close contacts with its officers; on 2.10.1991 petitioner called the complainant to his house and demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- for helpin...

Anurag Modi, Vs. Mstc Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT203; 2002(61)DRJ220

K.S. Gupta, J. 1. This order will govern the disposal of batch of above named petitions filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 2. The petitions arise out of six complaints filed by MSTC Ltd. against Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. and its five directors. One of the complaints being case No. 709/1/97 which is treated as a lead case, was filed alleging that complainant is a Government company within the definition of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd., accused No. 1 is a company also registered under the Companies Act. Bharat Kumar Modi, accused No. 2 is the Chairman-cum-managing director while Ashish Modi, accused No. 3, Anurag Modi, accused No. 4, Mrs. Kusum Modi, accused No. 6 are the directors of accused No. 1-company. In the month of September/October 1995, the complainant had imported from USA Iron and Steel melting scrap for being sold in domestic market. It made an offer to the accused for sale of 2000 MTs of scrap @ Rs. 7230/- per MT which was calculated p...