Delhi Court November 2001 Judgments

P. Sharma Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)355; 96(2002)DLT429; 2002(62)DRJ42

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application for interim relief in a petition in which the petitioner has challenged the Notice Inviting offers (hereinafter referred to as NIT) dated 17th July 2000 which invited tenders for the supply of Cable Records Purification System (CRPS). The technical bids were opened on 25th August 2000 and the financial bids were opened on 4th January 2001. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the tender document pursuant to the NIT dated 17th July 2000 on the ground that there are glaring infirmities in the system of respondent No. 4 as it was not in conformity with the Tender Document. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the award to respondent No. 4 is clearly in violation of the NIT particularly when the configuration was different from what was tendered and on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be admitted and the purchase order in favor of the respondent No. 4 liable to be cancelled.2. Learned counsel for the respo...

Janata Party Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)76TTJ(Del)116

ORDERC.L. Bokolia, A.M.This appeal by a political party is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)XVII, New Delhi, dated 16-2-2000. Several grounds of appeal mainly impinging on the exemption under section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are being pressed. Grounds on interest also exist. Since the grounds were too numerous in number and were repetitive in content, the appellant was directed to file concise grounds of appeal, which has been complied with. On that basis, this appeal is being decided.2. The appellant is an Association of Person comprising of individual citizens of India associated for political activities and is registered with the Election Commission of India. The assessing officer put the appellant on notice to submit audited accounts including the P&L; a/c and balance sheet for the subject year and also for the preceding two years, details of bank accounts, immovable properties, donations received, investments and other aspects of the appellant's case...

Asmita Agarwal Vs. the Enforcement Directorate and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002CriLJ819; 95(2002)DLT468; 2002(61)DRJ339

Usha Mehra, J. 1. A very interesting point has been raised in this petition as to whether the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code would apply to an investigation carried out under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (called the FERA). Mr. K.K. Sud, Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2 contended that FERa is a complete Code in itself, thereforee, for the purposes of investigation the aid of the provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure cannot be put in service. To support his contention be placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajorja : 1998CriLJ841 . In that case High Court had directed the investigation Agency not to arrest the accused and that the interrogations be conducted on the appointed dates, times and also fixed the duration thereof. The Apex Court while setting aside those directions observed that such kind of supervision on the enquiry or investigation under a statute is un...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Mohd. Ishaq and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT398

1. Rule. 2. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal. 3. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of judgment dated 13.1.1998, passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in House Tax No. 556/97. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that petitioner/MCD is entitled to charge at commercial rates, since the premises were being used by the assessed for commercial purpose. She relied on a so called admission in an Inspection Report. Respondent No. 1 happens to be an illiterate person, who signs only in vernacular. Learned Additional District Judge while dealing in his order held that, 'Even in the Inspection Report, it has been mentioned that the property is self-occupied and Phatta and Ballies are alleged to have been found in the premises. Keeping of the Phatta and Ballies, itself does not make the property commercial. It is admitted that the property is situated in the residential colony. The Assessing Authority should have been ...

Smt. Renu Kapoor Vs. the Executive Engineer (D), Shalimar Bagh and Oth ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 3.10.2001, passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 3370/2001 entitled Smt. Renu Kapoor v. XEN (D), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi Vidyut Board and Ors. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant, Smt. Renu Kapoor, had filed a complaint, before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Act averring that the appellant was the registered consumer of electricity connection bearing K. No. 146603/DX, installed at premises bearing No. AE-6, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. It was stated that in the above said premises there were three other connections. It was further stated, in the complaint, filed by the appellant, that the officials of the respondent Delhi Vidyut Board carried out an inspection of the above said...

Rajiv Aggarwal Vs. Union Bank of India

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2003)BC4

1. This appeal has been filed by one Shri Rajiv Aggarwal, who is defendant No. 7, in O. A. No. 517/96, Union Bank of India v. Maxo Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. pending in DRT-I, Delhi against order dated 1.5.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the concerned DRT on two applications moved by the appellant--one under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure and the other under Section 10, CPC.3. By application under Order VII Rule 11, the appellant prayed before the concerned Tribunal that the suit be dismissed against him, as the same was time-barred as he had already revoked the guarantee on 26.4.1991 whereas the suit was filed on 10.5.1996 i.e. beyond a period of three years. Learned Presiding Officer has, in the impugned order, come to an opinion that the contended point required evidence and could not be decided at a stage prior to giving of the evidence by the parties. He, accordingly, directed that the point of limitation would be decided at a stage after the fu...

Weston Electronics Ltd. and ors. Vs. State Bank of India

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This appeal is against order dated 28.2.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Delhi in O.A. No. 23/95.2. By the impugned order, Learned Presiding Officer has dismissed an application of the appellants which was moved also by others, viz., Sunder T. Vacahni, Smt. Kavita Vachani and Shri Narendra Vachani. By that application, a prayer was made that the consent decree dated 30.8.1995 passed in the aforesaid O.A. be set aside; it be declared that the compromise deed entered into between the parties was void ab initio and that the respondent Bank (State Bank of India) be directed to refund the entire amount which they had fraudulently obtained from the applicants in the guise of recovery as per the orders of the Tribunal. The grounds taken for setting aside the consent decree, were, inter alia, that the borrowings made by the applicants were ultra vires the company as the same were made on the basis of a resolution passed by circulation and after the date of the alleged...

Babcock Power (Overseas Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)81ITD29(Delhi)

1. Since common issue is involved in all these appeals, the same are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. The issue involved in these appeals is whether levy of interest under Section 201(1A) was justified.2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are these. The assessee is a nonresident company incorporated in U.K. having a project office in India. It entered into a contract with GEC Turbines for setting up a coal-based thermal power plant at Korba. For execution of the contract, the assessee engaged foreign technicians, who were deputed to the Indian project office. They were on the payroll of the U.K. office of the assessee and were paid salaries in foreign currency by U.K. office which were credited directly to their bank accounts. These contracts of employment were approved by the Ministry of Mines for the purposes of Section 10(6). However, the assessee did not deduct the tax at source while paying the salaries to these persons on the ground t...

Sanjeev Agrawal and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT87

Manmohan Sarin. J. 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Garg learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel for MCD in support of their respective submissions. I have perused the original record of MCD.2. Petitioners, the residents of DDA flats at Lado Sari, have filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respondent MCD not to construct the Dhalao Kuradan (Dustbin) in front of DDA flats, Lado Sarai. It is further prayed that the same should be constructed either in the village or the Dhalao be permitted to continue at the existing site.3. Pleadings are complete. The selection of Dhalao site is a perennial problem. Wherever a Dhalao is located, either the residents or the commercial establishments, which are proximate to the Dhalao, stand up in protest against the said location. MCD, in such matters, has a difficult choice of reconciling the conflicting interests. It is al...

Hospital Employees Union Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)448; 2002CriLJ918; 95(2002)DLT883; [2002(92)FLR975]; (2002)ILLJ918Del

B.A. Khan, J.1. Petitioner, a registered trade union, claiming to be engaged in promoting welfare of labour class has filed this petition in public interest for striking down of Section 1(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 which prescribed wageceiling of Rs. 1,600/- per month. 2. Petitioner's case is that the prescribed wage ceiling had become arbitrary, unreasonable and unreal with the passage of time and due to inflation and manifold rise in salary/wages of the employees and for various other reasons. Now, even the lowest paid employee was getting over Rs. 1,600/- wages per month due to revision in Pay Scales in the light of 4th Pay Commission and 5th Pay Commission Reports. More even the Minimum Wages Act prescribed more than Rs. 1,600/- wages per month to the lowest paid employees in Delhi and other parts in the country. 3. Petitioner has submitted various charts containing wage rates to show that wage ceiling prescribed under the Act had become obsolete and redundant and so had ...