Delhi Court December 2001 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2001 Page 11 of about 141 results (0.021 seconds)Farida and anr. Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT229; 2002(63)DRJ524
ORDER1. This petition was instituted on 2nd August, 1999 by the parents of deceasedMehnaz seeking directions against respondents alleging that the death of Mehnazwas as a result of the shoot out incident on 5.2.1999 within the premises ofGovernment Girls Senior Secondary School, Brahm Puri, Delhi. It was alleged thatthe incident was due to the negligence on the part of respondent No. 1 to provideadequate security to the school children. Consequently directions were soughtagainst respondents to take adequate security measures in all schools run byrespondent Nos. 1 and 3 in the National Capital Territory of Delhi and particularlyfor the students when they are in the school premises during school hours. Anotherdirection was sought against respondent No. 4 to take steps to provide more policeassistance wherever necessary, particularly near the schools areas.2. After notice to the respondents and considering the reply the Court primafacie concluded that respondent No. 1 had failed to discha...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vasavi Pratap Chand
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT595
1. Interpretation of certain provisions of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is involved in these set of references.The question which has been referred for the opinion of this Court is as under:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in coming to the conclusion that the loan of Rs. 113,258/- obtained by the assessed on the security of the Life Insurance Policies is deductible in computing her net wealth u/s 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957?'2. For the purpose of disposal of these matters, fact of the matter would be noticed from WTR 25 of 1980.The respondent is an assessed under the Wealth-tax Act. Partap Chand, husband of the assessed had obtained a loan against certain policies from LIC. The assessed was trustee as well as beneficiary of these policies. A sum of Rs. 1,13,258/ was obtained by way of loan and assignment of the said policy. A part of the loan was invested in purchase of shares and another ...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Vasavi Pratap Chand
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2001)172CTR(Del)190
S.B. Sinha, C.J.Interpretation of certain provisions of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is involved in these set of references.The question which has been referred for the opinion of this court is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in coming to the conclusion that the loan of Rs. 1,13,258 obtained by the assessed on the security of the life insurance policies is deductible in computing her net wealth under section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ?'2. For the purpose of disposal of these matters, fact of the matter would be noticed from Wealth Tax Ref. 25 of 1980.The respondent is an assessed under the Wealth Tax Act. Partap Chand, husband of the assessed, had obtained a loan against certain policies from LIC. The assessed was trustee as well as beneficiary of these policies. A sum of Rs. 1, 13,258 was obtained by way of loan and assignment of the said policy. A part of the loan was inves...
Tag this Judgment!Golden ProteIn and ors. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: DRAT Delhi
Reported in: II(2003)BC19
1. This is application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for waiver of the pre-deposit of 75% required under that section. The applicants have filed an Appeal No. 164/2000 against the final order dated 31.5.1999 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi in OA No. 339/97. As per the impugned order there is a decree against all the appellants. A sum of Rs. 8,13,47,820.32 is to be recovered from the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and a sum of Rs. 1,03,86,677.76 is to be recovered from all the appellants along with one Mr. Umesh Luthra, who was defendant No. 7 in the said OA. Said Mr. Umesh Luthra has filed a separate appeal bearing No. 129/2000.2. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that all the appellants, who were defendants in the said OA, failed to show cause before the Tribunal below. It appears that notices were sent to the appellants and when the same could not be served normally through registered post they were ...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Luthra Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Reported in: II(2003)BC8
1. This is application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for waiver of pre-deposit of 75% required under that section. The applicant has filed an Appeal No.192/2000 against the final order dated 31.5.1999 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi in O.A. No. 339/97. In that O.A. there were seven defendants and the applicant was defendant No. 7. Rest defendants 1 to 6 have also filed an appeal against the same final order, which is Appeal No. 164/2000.2. As per the impugned order there is a decree against all the defendants. Against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 the decree is of Rs. 8,13,47,820.32 and against all the defendants there is a further decree of Rs. 1,03,86,677.76. Since the applicant here is defendant No. 7 in the said O.A., the decree against him is to the tune of Rs. 1,03,86,677.76.3. On perusal of the order, it transpires that notices were sent to the applicant/appellant and when the same could not be served normally t...
Tag this Judgment!Sprint Rpg India Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT455; 2002(82)ECC66; 2002(140)ELT73(Del)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Whether the Customs Authorities or the International Airport Authority of India would be liable to pay the price of imported goods which had been sold on auction by the later, is the question involved in this writ petition. Facts 2. The petitioner imported GS software in India. The assessed value of the said software was Rs. 67 lakhs . A sum of Rs. 711,388/- was paid by the petitioner by way of Customs Duty. The first respondent however held that the goods were hard disk drives and not software loaded on hard disk drivers whereupon a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner demanding additional duty of Rs. 24,00,933/-. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice. The goods were specified as software in terms of Chapter 8471.93 read with notification No. 59/95 dated 16th March, 1995 attracting customs duty @ 25%. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the CEGAT which was marked as Appeal No. 161/96/92. The appeal was dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT689; 2002(61)DRJ521
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 28.05.2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CM No. 14481/99 in CWP No. 817/99 whereby and whereunder an application filed by the respondent No. 3 herein under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ) was allowed directing the appellant herein to pay full wages last drawn inclusive of maintenance allowance admissible under the rules.It was further directed as follows:-'These payments shall be made w.e.f. 12th February, 1999, as per the submission made by ld. Counsel for the respondent/workman. It is arguable that they should be w.e.f. the date of the Award, as otherwise a delayed challenge to it would result in a pecuniary advantage to the Management that has lost before the Labour Court. The wages last drawn shall not be below the minimum wages payable from time to time. In ordering so, I am fully mindful of the opinion of the Hon'ble S.C. that the Court is no e...
Tag this Judgment!Malibu Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2002]122TAXMAN658(Delhi)
ORDERIllegality, irrationality and impropriety are the only factors which warrant exercise of the power of judicial review by this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner herein questions an order passed on 26-3-2001 by the Commissioner, whereby and whereunder he refused to condone the delay in preferring an application under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within the stipulated period. No case of interference, far less a case of irrationality in the impugned order has been made out. We may also notice that the writ petition has been filed after a period of eight months.2. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Vohra Vs. Sudesh Kumari and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT423; I(2002)DMC290; 2002(61)DRJ536; 2002(2)JCC1378
ORDER1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 303/93 under Section 498-A, IPC, P.S. Shalimar Bagh.2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner V.K. Vohra was married to respondent No. Smt. Sudesh Kumar. The dispute arose between the parties due to some private and personal reasons, as a result of which the above noted FIR was lodged. By judgment and order dated 3rd March, 1996 petitioner was held guilty and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in dealt S.I. for three months. The fine has already been deposited and appeal titled (V.K. Vohra v. State) pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The dispute between the parties was resolved by intervention of common friends. Marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 17.8.1999 passed by the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, U.P. There is no other dispute pending betwee...
Tag this Judgment!Marut Nandan Overseas Ltd. Vs. S.K. Shingal, Commissioner of Customs
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT843; 2002(61)DRJ441; 2002(80)ECC61; 2002(141)ELT14(Del)
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Admittedly by way of ex-parte injunction order dated 31.8.2000, respondent/defendant No. 2 who happens to be Commissioner or Customs was directed to release the goods covered by B/E No.224675 dated 25.4.2000 after deposit of the customs duty as assessed and without demurrage/detention charges. Defendants 2 and 6 were further directed to pay the demurrage and detention charges severally and jointly to defendant Nos. 3 & 4. Defendant Nos. 3 & 4 were restrained from auctioning the consignment covered by the aforesaid bill.2. However, in order to ascertain whether goods in question were of hazardous nature, separate laboratory tests by three separate agencies namely Central Revenue Control Laboratory, AES Testing & Research Laboratory & Indian Institute of Technology were ordered.3. Vide report dated 16.11.2000, following observations were made by ACES Testing & Research Laboratories :-'The oil sample has also been tested for other contaminates as specified in report to ...
Tag this Judgment!