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.
Director of Income Tax Vs. Wardha Charitable Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]120TAXMAN665(Delhi)
ORDERHeard.2. Neither the assessing officer nor the Commissioner (Appeals) had recorded any finding as regards the unauthorised manner of utilisation of the funds realised. It has not been indicated as to how there was infraction of any statutory requirement. On the contrary, the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that there was due compliance with the statutory requirements. In view of such findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, holding that the case of the assessed fell beyond the ken of section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. We find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed....
Sh. Mukesh Aggarwal Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT374; 2001(60)DRJ779
K.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition filed under section 482 and 483 Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of order dated 9th August 1999 passed in Crl.Revision No. 41/98 by an Additional Sessions Judge, the facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner filed a complaint on 27th March 1997 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the 'Act') against M/s. Vogue Apparels also impleading its partners M.P. Singh, Ms. Roop Kataria @ Sonia, Jaimal Singh and Amarpreet Singh as accused 2 to 5 alleging that pursuant to the order dated 16th October 1996, the petitioner supplied cloth worth Rs. 4,68,389/- on 19th October 1996 vide invoice No. 206, Rs. 2,29,252/- on 19th October 1997 vide invoice No. 207, Rs. 4821/- on 15th October 1996 vide invoice No. 205 to accused persons. Amounts of Rs. 625/- had been added in invoice Nos. 206 and 207 towards cartage charges. It is further alleged that to liquidate the balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of the supplies made, accused N...
Lifetree Convergence Limited Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigvam Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT364; 2002(61)DRJ23
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. The main dispute in the petition which is required to be considered for the purposes of this interim application is the interpretation of Clause 3 and the eligibility of Zip Infotech who are the competing supplier of Software to respondent No. 2 who is the prime bidder of a Notice Inviting Tender issued by Respondent No. 1 M.T.N.L. 2. The relevant portion of Clause 3 of Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as 'the NIT') reads as follows: 'i. The bidder should have authorization from the manufacturer for supply of all items related to Recharge Card Management System (RCMS) & Customer Care Management Systems (CCMS) as well as future maintenance support. ii The bidder should have experience of setting up one such system for handling minimum 1,00,000 customers along with on line support. The relevant documents in support shall be furnished as per clause 13, Section 11 of tender document. iii Bidder should have turn over of Rs.100 crore for the last two year...
Bharat K. Oil Depot Vs. Commissioner and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT389
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing.3. The petitioner had been granted a license No. 4008/95 for Kerosene Oil Depot in Circle 19 in the year 1995. The normal parameters for a license is that one license should have 800 food cards for one kerosene oil depot. The petitioner sought a transfer of license from Circle 19 which was allotted to it where it had only 96 food cards to any other circle and eventually sought a transfer to Circle No. 22. The request of the petitioner was based on the Memorandum dated 17th of November, 1988 which inter alias provides for a transfer in cases extreme genuineness and hardship which include inadequate number of food cards. It is not in dispute that existing food cards i.e., are wholly inadequate as compared to the optimum requirement of 800 food cards and this would cause extreme hardship to the petitioner, as required by he said Memorandum. The relevant portion of the said Memorandum...
Housing and Urban Development Corporation Vs. Dsa Engineers (Bombay) a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT656
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing of the award dated 30.6.2001 has been thrown up interesting question of law - whether the provisions of Act of 1940 or Act of 1996 are applicable in respect of the award in question which is dated 30.6.2001 though arbitral proceedings were commenced in 1993 and conducted under the procedure of Act of 1940.2. In order to appreciate proposition of law in proper perspective, following facts are relevant and germane:-i) Clause 91.4 of the agreement dated 10.7.1992 between the parties provided as under :- 'subject as aforesaid, the provision of the Arbitration Act 1940 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof and rule made there under shall apply to the Arbitration proceedings under this clause.' (ii) Admittedly Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 came into operation during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings and before making of the award. iii) Admittedly arbitral tribunal compro...
Mangal Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. I, Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT159; [2001(91)FLR582]
M.K. Sharma, J. 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the award passed by the Industries Tribunal No. I, Delhi, in I.D.No. 277/1989 on 29th September, 1977. By the aforesaid award, the Tribunal held that the workman had failed to prove that his services were terminated illegally and unjustifiably and consequently he was not entitled to any relief. 2. On the basis of a dispute between the workman and the Management, a reference was made to the Tribunal on the following terms of reference: 'Whether the termination of the services of Sh. Mangal Singh is illegal and/ or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?' 3. The workman filed his statement of claim whereas, the Management filed its written statement. It was stated by the workman in the statement of claim that his services were terminated with effect from 15th October, 1983 without assigning any valid reason and, thereforee, the same is ille...
Pokhar Mal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT352
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioner, who is a retired Subedar Major has approached this Court with the prayer that he may be granted honorary rank of Lieutenant w.e.f. 15.8.1994 and the honorary rank of Captain w.e.f. 26.1.1995 with all consequential benefits and payment of backwages for the aforesaid ranks which have been given to other Subedar Majors who were awarded these ranks from these dates.2. The case of the petitioner is that he has served the India Army with distinction for 31 years. At the time of retirement the petitioner was Subedar Major and he was imminently eligible for the grant of honorary rank of Lieutenant on 15.8.1994 and the honorary rank of Captain on 26.1.1995.3. As per sub-paras (b) & (c) of para 3 of defense Head Quarters letter N. A/62204/AG/CW 2 dated 20th August, 1982 following are the eligibility conditions for the grant of honorary commissioners:-'(b) Should have atleast three outstanding 'Above Average' and two 'High Average' in the last five years at ...
Santosh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ552
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 175/2001, under Sections 406/498A IPC, P.S. Kalkaji.2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has already participated In the Investigation ; he Is n Government servant having clean antecedents; all articles of jewellery have been returned and nothing is due and payable ; he is ready and willing to pay Rs. 50,000/- by way of bank draft in the name of complainant towards her claim of unrecovered Istridhan articles, without prejudice to his rights and contentions. Learned APP for State, on instructions, submits that petitioner has already participated in the investigations and the dispute is only with regard to the Istridhan articles. Complainant who is present in person, also submits that without prejudice to her rights and contentions, she is ready and willing to accept Rs. 50,000/- towards her claim of unrecovered Istridhan articles.3. In the facts and circums...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR627(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act')- The only plea raised is that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), was not justified in holding that extra-shift allowance is allowable on underground cables treating the same as part of the plant of the assessed.2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1987-88.3. The factual background is as follows :4. For the assessment year in question the assessed filed its return declaring a total loss of Rs. 47,65,82,959. Subsequently, by a revised return, the loss was indicated to be Rs. 40,64,12,360. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessed had claimed extra-shift allowance in respect of lines, wires and cables while computing the depreciation allowable. The assessed had claimed extra-shift allowance under the heading 'Triple shift allowance' on two heads 'On lines and wires' and 'On cables'. The assessed was required to show cause why the claims sha...
Dwarka Sector 5 and Sector 12 Resident Welfare Association, Through It ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT72
Manmohan Sarin, J.Rule.(1) By this common order, I would be disposing of Civil Writ Nos. 5939/2001 and 6013/2001. The first petition i.e. CWP No. 5939/2001 has been filed by Resident Welfare Association of Dwarka Sectors 5 and 12, while CWP No. 6013/2001 has been filed by the Resident Welfare Association of Dwarka Sector No.4.(2) The writ petitioners in both the writ petitions are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in auctioning commercial plots at Dwarka. The auctions were scheduled on 3.10.2001 and 10.10.2001. The grievance of the petitioners' Association on behalf of its residents is that respondents had taken out a public notice of the proposed auction of commercial plots in the Hindustan Times' issue dated 3.9.2001. The said notice/advertisement appears at page 30 of the paper book. The petitioners seek quashing of t he said advertisement. Further, quashing of the decision taken by the respondent DDA to have mixed land use of the vacant land along the wall of residential c...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »