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.
Raj Kumar Khanna Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT147; I(2002)DMC200; 2002(61)DRJ365
Usha Mehra, J.1. Mr. Raj Kumar Khanna, a practicing lawyer of this Court has sought for the quashing of the FIR No. 146/99 registered at Police Station Naraina, under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code (In short IPC) against him and his family members at the instance of his daughter-in-law Ms. Inderjit Kaur Sidhu, respondent No. 5 another practicing lawyer of this Court.2. Son of the petitioner Manoj Kumar is also a practicing lawyer of this Court. He got married to Inderjit Kaur Sidhu on 22nd September, 1996 according to Hindu rites at Gurudwara in Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. After the marriage the newly married couple started living with the petitioner in his apartment. Relations between newly married couple became strained. According to petitioner, respondent No. 5 did not subscribe to the view points and values of petitioner and his family. She was adamant and not interested to live with her husband in the family of her husband. She left the matrimonial home on 5th September, 199...
S.C. Gupta Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Del)657
In the Delhi High Court K.S. Gupta, J.Judgment K.S. Gupta, J.In this petition filed under section 482, Cr. PC the prayers made are as under :'(a) Pass ad interim ex parte orders staying the operation of the orders passed by Sh. J.P.S. Malik, ACMM, Tis Hazari in Complaint No. 429 of 1990 bearing title Amit Jain, Assistant Commissioner v. Ocean Electronics (P) Ltd. issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner as well as proceedings under sections 82 and 83 of Cr. PC vide orders dated 17-1-2001, 1-5-2001 and 11-7-2001 and stay the arrest of the petitioner till the final disposal of this petition.(b) Recall the orders dated 22-8-2000 (issuing non-bailable warrants and orders dated 17-1-2001, 1-5-2001 and 11-7-2001, issuing process under sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.PC.(c) Quash the complaint and proceedings against the petitioner of Complaint No. 429 of 1990 bearing title-Amit Jain, Asstt CIT v. Ocean Electronics (P) Ltd. pending before Sh. J.P.S. Malik, ACMM, Delhi'In the course o...
M.S. Kold Hold Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Del)68; [2002]255ITR96(Delhi); [2002]120TAXMAN664(Delhi)
1. Heard. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1985-86. The basic issue was whether there was any manufacturing or processing involved in the conversion of carcass into commercially marketable meat. The Assessing Officer was of the view that there was no commercially different commodity and, thereforee, the claim that manufacturing/processing was involved was not tenable. A great emphasis was laid on the report of the Valuation Officer who had inspected the business premises pursuant to the direction given by the appellate authority. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short, the CIT(A)) reversed the findings. It was observed that there was no doubt that the assessed was engaged in processing the goods and was thereforee entitled to claim investment allowance.2. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. After noticing the stands of the parties and the order of the Commiss...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR300(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These references involve an identical issue, thereforee, are disposed of by this judgment. The following questions have been referred under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' New Delhi, (in short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the conversion of equity shares into preference shares by Hari Bros. (P.) Ltd. and the consequent allotment of preference shares to the assessed in place of equity shares held by them, would not amount to a transaction entered into within the meaning of Section 2(xxiv)(d) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no gift arose as a result of the conversion of equity shares into preference shares, at par ?3. Whether, on the facts and ...
S.C. Gupta Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas121(Delhi); [2002]257ITR272(Delhi)
K.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the prayers made are as under :'(a) Pass ad interim ex parte orders staying the operation of the orders passed by Sh. J.P.S. Malik, ACMM, Tis Hazari, in Complaint No. 429 of 1990 bearing title--Amit Jain, Asstt. CIT v. Ocean Electronics Pvt. Ltd--issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner as well as proceedings under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vide orders dated January 17, 2001, May 1, 2001 and July 11, 2001, and stay the arrest of the petitioner till the final disposal of this petition. (b) Recall the orders dated August 22, 2000, issuing non-bailable warrants and orders dated January 17, 2001, May 1, 2001 and July 11, 2001, issuing process under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (c) Quash the complaint and proceedings against the petitioner of Complaint No. 429 of 1990 bearing title--Amit Jain, Asstt. CIT v. Ocean Electronics Pvt....
Cgt Vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: [2002]120TAXMAN550(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. These references involve identical issue, thereforee, are disposed of by this judgment. Following questions have been referred under section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench A, for opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the conversion of equity shares into preference shares by Hari Bros. (P) Ltd. and the consequent allotment of preference shares to the assesses in place of equity shares held by them, would not amount to a transaction entered into within the meaning of section 2(xxiv)(d) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no gift arose as a result of the conversion of equity shares into preference shares, at par 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, as per...
Rampur Engineering Co. Limited Vs. United Construction Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi170; 95(2002)DLT250
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,50,000/- filed by the plaintiff, a public limited company registered under the Companies Act through its managing director Shri Rajender Kumar Gupta. 2. Case of the plaintiff is brief is as under: That sometime in the year 1978-79, the plaintiff was awarded a contract for construction and erection of the Coal Handling Plant at Kota Thermal Power Station under the auspices of Rajasthan States Electricity Board, Kota; that in furtherence of the said contract the plaintiff invited offers from the various civil contractors including defendant 1 for completion of civil work for said plant and defendant 1 sent its offer dated 28.12.1979 and that the said offer of defendant 1 was accepted by the plaintiff vide its letter dated 27.2.1980. 3. It was agreed that defendant No. 1 would execute the work in accordance with the terms and conditions and technical specifications given in Annexures 1 and 2 of the said letter and would take the whol...
Capital Meters Ltd. Vs. B.P. Electric
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT846
Sharda Aggarwal, J.1. The plaintiff company has filed the present suit for permanent injunction, rendition of account etc. The plaintiff company claims to manufacture and market electric goods like electrical meters, transformers, switches, relays, alarms, industrial and domestic electric appliances etc. under the trade mark CAPITAL since 1986. The plaintiff's trade mark CAPITAL is registered in relation to measuring apparatus and instruments including energy meters falling in Clause-9 of Fourth Schedule of the Trade & Merchandise Act, 1958. In order to acquire statutory rights for the above said trade mark for wider specification of goods, plaintiff filed three applications in Class-7, Class-9 and Class-11 with the office of Trade Mark Registry, New Delhi. The applications have already been advertised in Trade Mark Journal and the registration certificates are likely to be issued. The plaintiff's case is that there trade mark on account of its continuous, extensive and exclusive user ...
Hans Raj and anr. Vs. Jeet Kaur (Deceased)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT459; 2002(61)DRJ314
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. In the present case a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) had been instituted by Late Smt. Jeet Kaur. It is not in issue that during her lifetime she had executed a power of attorney in favor of her son Shri Bhupinder Singh, who undoubtedly has acted as her Parokar in the proceedings before the Rent Controller. On her death an application has been filed by Shri Bhupinder Singh on behalf of himself as well as his son Shri Ramandeep Singh. In the application it has been contended that a Will had been executed in their favor by Late Smt. Jeet Kaur. It was in these circumstances that the Additional Rent Controller had allowed the application, without considering it necessary for issuing any notice to the natural heirs, whose details had been given by Shri Bhupinder Singh, in his affidavit annexed with the application. 2. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the order is incorrect since there has been no compliance with the provisions of O...
The National Institute of Immunology Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi192; 96(2002)DLT41
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 49/89 and 13/97. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows.2. The appellant, National Institute of Immunology, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act (No. XXI) of 1860, with the Registrar of Societies, Delhi Administration, Delhi. It is claimed by the appellant that it was promoted and established by Government of India for undertaking charitable activity in the field of basic and applied immunology. At present, the appellant is engaged in important research projects relating to immunological approaches to contraception and the development of vaccines for the cure of leprosy. The funding of the appellant comes from the Government of India in the shape of grants-in-aid and from various institutions like the International Development Research Centre of Canada, The United Nation Development Programme (UNDP), The Rockefeller Foundation of U.S.A, The United States Agency for Intern...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »