Delhi Court October 2001 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.
Sri Ram Malik Vs. Sumitra Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT49; 2002(61)DRJ295
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Plaintiff Sri Ram Malik is the son of Chander Bhan Malik. Chander Bhan Malik is the common ancestral and died in 31st August, 1989. He left behind his widow, defendant, No. 1 Smt. Sumitra Devi, three other sons Narinder Kumar Malik, defendant No. 2, Rajinder Kumar Malik, defendant No. 3 and Raj Kumar Malik, defendant No. 4 besides two daughters Santosh Katyal and Saroj Madan, arrayed as defendants 5 and 6.2. The plaintiff has filled the present suit for partition, declaration, rendition of accounts, mesne profits and other reliefs, pleading, inter alia, that his father Chander Bhan Malik during his life time acquired and owned extensive properties both immovable and movable. It included the following properties:'(i) Shop No. A-1041, New Subzi Mandi Azadpur, Delhi. (ii) House No. 253, Sarai Pipal Thala, Khasra No. 738/215, bearing Khewat Khara No. 14/29, Area measuring 182 sq. yards, situated in the revenue estate of Pipal Thala, Delhi; (iii) Residential Plot No. 245...
Brij Basi Udyog Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT739
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner, Brij Basi Udyog, had entered into a contract with respondent No. 1 for supply of crash wire tenders with mounted equipment. The said contract had an arbitration clause whereby the disputes between the parties were to be settled through arbitration. Certain disputes had arisen between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 (Brig. Gur Das Verma) was appointed as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator has since submitted the award and thereforee the petition had been filed for making the award a rule of the court and for passing a decree in terms of the said award.2. In pursuance of the notice having been issued objections had been filed on behalf of respondent NO. 1 under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The objector/respondent No. 1 pleaded that according to the delivery schedule two numbers required for aviation research centre were to be supplied by 31.3.1983 and the balance quantity were to be supplied at the rate of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR430(Delhi); [2002]120TAXMAN659(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal') :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that amounts of Rs. 2,60,142 and Rs. 5,403 paid to the employees and officers of the company were admissible revenue expenditure of this year ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts of Rs. 2,60,142 and Rs. 5,404 did not constitute an ex gratia payment by the company ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1975-76.3. The factual position is as follows :The assessed had made payment of Rs. 2,60,141 to its employees at 8 per cent. of the salary drawn by the concerned employees during 1972-73, in addition to the amount at 8.33 per cent. sanctioned to them separately. The Income-tax Officer was of the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sant Bir Bros.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR673(Delhi)
1. The following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal') :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding Sarvashri Sant Bir Singh, Shiv Bir Singh and Amar Bir Singh were co-owners of the properties at 6, Jor Bagh and C-27-28, South Extension, New Delhi, since 1974-75 ?(2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the capital gains arising on account of sale of property at C-27-28, South Extension, New Delhi, is taxable equally amongst the three co-owners and not in the hands of the assessed-firm ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77.3. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal took note of the fact that on the question of grant of registration for several years the conclusions were to be dependent upon the facts and situation prev...
Rail India Technical and Economic Services Limited Vs. Bhartiya Genera ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)319; 97(2002)DLT521; [2002(94)FLR211]
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiff is a Government company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956. Its corporate office is at New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and one of its division at Arunachal Bhawan, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. It has filed this suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendant No. 1 is a trade union and defendants 2 to 7 are the members of the defendant No. 1 trade union. The suit is for decree of passing permanent injunction restraining the defendants from squatting/dharna in its corporate office. The events leading to the filing of the present suit, as disclosed in the plaint, run as under:It is stated that for providing better working conditions and facilities to its employees and in order to save time, in the year 1998, the plaintiff invited offers for running a small canteen for providing tea/coffee and snacks to its employees working in the said offices. Out of the offers received in the defendant No. 3,...
Cit Vs. Sant Bir Bros
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: [2002]120TAXMAN884(Delhi)
1. Following questions have been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench D :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that Sarvashri Sant Bir Singh, Shiv Bir Singh and Amar Bir Singh were co-owners of the properties at 6, Jor Bagh and C-27-28, South Extension, New Delhi since 1974-75 ?2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the capital gains arising on account of sale of property at C-27-28, South Extension, New Delhi, is taxable equally amongst the three co-owners and not in the hands of the assessed-firm?'The dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77.2. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal took note of the fact that on the question of grant of registration for several years the conclusions were to be dependent upon the facts and situation prevailing. For the assessment year in question, the in...
Kishan Swroop and anr. Vs. Mawasi (Now Deceased Through L.Rs.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT560; 2002(61)DRJ726
Vikramjit Sen, J.1. The Additional Rent Controller (for short 'ARC') has by the impugned order dated 4.4.1998 dismissed the Petitioner's application under Section 14(i)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the eviction of the Respondents-Tenants. In order to succeed in this Revisions the Petitioners must establish that the impugned Order is the consequence of the ARC having exercised jurisdiction incorrectly. The High Court is not expected to act as an appellate forum. It must be retained in perspective that the legislature intended the ARC to be the master of the facts, since the provisions permitting an appeal have been removed from the Act. With this preamble let us consider the facts of the case.2. The property in which the demised premises are situated had been purchased by the Petitioners on 13.11.1985 and the eviction Petition has been filed on 26.11.1990. There is no real dispute in respect of their ownership and the existence of the...
Khazan and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT939
R.C. Jain, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 15.3.2000, thereby allowing the defendants' application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and setting aside the order of ex-party proceedings subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- as cost. 2. Briefly, the relevant facts leading to the present revision petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff herein has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant viz, Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest and Government of NCT of Delhi through its Chief Secretary. The defendants were served with the summons of the suit but they absented and so were ordered to be proceed ex-parte vide an order dated 19.8.1999. Ex-parte evidence was recorded on 6.10.1999 and the case was adjourned to 8.10.1999 for arguments. On the adjourned date none was present and, thereforee, the case was adjourned to 19.11.1999 for arguments...
Punjab Riceland Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Food Corporation of India and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT93; 2002(61)DRJ665
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. These are the miscellaneous applications for interim relief in the present writ petitions in which the petitioners have averred as follows: The respondent No. 1, the Food Corporation of India(hereinafter referred to as 'the FCI') sought to sell the URS rice of 1998-99 crop. The said Scheme inter-alia required that if a party required stocks of Punjab, pertaining to 1998-99 crop from a particular depot, they were to submit their sealed bids between 20th March, 2001 to 23rd March, 2001, indicating the quantity, the dispatching depots and the tender rate. The petitioners submitted its bid qua depots in Punjab and deposited with its bid a sum of Rs. 1.45 crores as earnest money. Upon opening of tenders the petitioners' bid for 25,000 Metric Tonnes (hereinafter referred to as 'the MT') was found to be the highest in respect of each of the depots and the petitioners were, thereforee, entitled to be granted the requisite quantities of rice bid for. Thereafter out of 25,000...
Arun Kapur Vs. Vikram Kapur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi420; 95(2002)DLT42; 2002(61)DRJ495a
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the main petition as well as the application under Order 39 Rule CPC. 2. In this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act') an ex parte order was passed on 5th of April 2001 whereby status quo was to be maintained with regard to the functioning and management of the Atlas Cycle's Malanpur Unit in view of the following:- (i) Clause 1 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20th of August 2000 executed between the parties to the effect that the petitioner will continue to look after the production, Tool Room, Corporate Law, Human Resources Development, Industrial Relations and Security Department for Atlas Cycles Industries Sonepat Unit and also the entire functioning of Limrose Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. and the Atlas Cycle Malanpur Unit as before; (ii) Terms of settlement of interim arrangement reached between the parties before the learned Sole Arbitrator on 10th of Septembe...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »