Delhi Court December 2001 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2001 Page 12 of about 141 results (0.020 seconds)Raghu Nath Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)539; 96(2002)DLT673; 2002(62)DRJ495
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The award of the Umpire has been challenged on the point of non-jurisdiction and having traversed beyond the terms of the agreement. The relevant term of the agreement is Clause 6 which reads as under:- '6. The Railway does neither guarantee the quality nor take any responsibility for the increase or decrease in the approximate quantity of ashes dropped.' 2. Put briefly relevant facts are as under:-3. The tenders were floated by the respondents for purchase and removal of residual coal ashes at Delhi Railway Station (loco and traffic shed) for the period 1.1.74 to 31.12.74. On 25.3.75 the petitioner raised his claims before the respondents which were rejected by the respondents. The Arbitrators were appointed by this Court on the presentation of an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Vide letter dated 8.5.84 GM Northern Railway had appointed two Arbitrators namely Shri J.L. Jain and Shri K.L. Sikka. Since there were difference between the Arbitrators...
Tag this Judgment!Pt. Munshi Ram and Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT597; 2002(62)DRJ93; 2002(3)RAJ195
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The award dated 31.3.1995 is sought to be maderule of the court. It has been assailed and challenged bythe respondent-DDA on multifarious grounds.2. Until and unless, award suffers from the vicesof perversity or unsound legal or factual finding or isbeyond the terms of the agreement, it should ordinarily benot disturbed as the court does not sit in appeal nor isit required to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence ormaterial on record. Even if erroneous view has been takenby the Arbitrator, the award is not liable to be setaside.3. Proceeding on the aforesaid premise, I set todiscuss the objections filed by the respondent.4. Claim No. 1 is towards balance payment of finalbill. According to the claimant, although the work wascompleted on 5.4.1989, the final bill was not prepared.Ultimately, claimant prepared their own final bill on3.1.1992 claiming sum of Rs. 6,67,254.43. The final billincluded the substituted and extra items.5. The main objection raised by Ms. Anusy...
Tag this Judgment!Balraj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Del)452; 2002(61)DRJ519; [2002]254ITR22(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The question which arises for consideration in this reference is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assesses had not purchased the property within one year from the date of sale of his residential house so as to be entitled to exemption under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The assessed sold a property, 15/16, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, belonging to him on December 3, 1974, for Rs. 98,000. By reason of the agreement of sale coupled with possession the assessed purported to have purchased a property No. 12, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, for Rs. 2,03,000 on February 6, 1975. It is not in dispute that if the aforementioned transaction amounts to purchase of property, the same would be within a period of one year. The only question, which thereforee arises for consideration is whether the aforementioned agreement dated February 6, ...
Tag this Judgment!Star Residents Society (Registered) and ors. Vs. M.N. Bhardwaj and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002CriLJ870; 95(2002)DLT911
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for violating against the respondents for violating the orders dated 23.4.1999 and 19.1.2000, by which status quo was directed.3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide order dated 23.4.1999 this court had directed status quo. Unfortunately the petition was dismissed in default on 14.7.1999. The petitioner moved an application for restoration of the same, of which notice was issued on 30.7.1999. Respondents sought time to file reply again on 8.10.1999. It is the petitioner's case that the respondents despite the pendency of the application for restoration and knowledge of the earlier order of status quo, carried out the construction in November 1999. Eventually the writ petition was restored on 19.1.2000. Learned counsel also produced on record photographs showing the various stages of constructi...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Johal Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT547; 2003(1)SLJ4(Delhi)
M.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the proceedingsof the Departmental Promotion Committee dated10/11-8-1998 wherein the case of the petitioner forpromotion was rejected by the said DepartmentalPromotion Committee as unfit on account of hisconfidential records with a further prayer fordirecting the respondents to promote the petitionerto the post of Deputy Commandant with effect from7.10.1998 and to grant him all the consequentalbenefits.2. The petitioner joined Boarder SecurityForce on 15.2.1993 as direct entry AssistantCommandant. After successfully qualifying basictraining course the petitioner was posted asAssistant Commandant to the 12th Bn Border SecurityForce and thereafter to 72 Bn from 1st April, 1994to 13th December, 1995 of the Border SecurityForce. He also served on 73 (I S duty in Kashmirand 54 Bn (I S duty Handwara). The petitionerwhile serving with 54 Bn Border Security Force metwith a scooter accident on 14.12.1995 ou...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Dayawati Modi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2003]259ITR375(Delhi)
1. The question relating to the assessment year 1971-72 involved in this matter is as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing that the value of perquisite for residential accommodation be limited to Rs. 12,691 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing that the value of the perquisite in the shape of rent-free accommodation be limited to the value fixed by the prescribed authority under Section 9 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for the assessment year 1971-72 ?' 2. From the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal it appears that the standard rent fixed under the provisions of the Rent Control Act had been considered to be the perquisite given to the assessed herein by way of rent-free house accommodation. The matter appears to be covered by a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. M. K...
Tag this Judgment!Sham Lal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)6; 96(2002)DLT602; 2002(62)DRJ361; 2003(1)SLJ48(Delhi)
M.K. Sharma, J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitionerpraying for quashing and setting aside of the orderdated 3.2.1995 whereby the petitioner was dismissedfrom service effective from the same date with afurther prayer to reinstate the petitioner inservice with full back wages and allowances. 2. The petitioner was appointed in BSF on14.12.1987 against a post of Sub-Inspector. the petitioner after successful training joined hisduty as Sub-Inspector. He was posted at BSF SectorHeadquarters (DIG Headquarters) Patgaon, GuwahatiAssam. After one year of service the petitionerwas transferred to 153 Bn. BSF, Panwari, Dist-DhubriAssam where he served for four years. Thereafterhe was transferred to 79 Bn. BSF at Tura Meghalayaon 28.8.1992 from 153 Btn. BSF. The petitioner,however, reported for duty in 79 Bn. BSF only on3.10.1992 after absenting for duties for 19 days.Thereafter, he proceeded on 14 days casual leavew.e.f. 9.12.1992 till 25.12.1992 for the treatmentof his wife. He was to resu...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bihari Shukla Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)317
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. The present petition has been filed bythe petitioner praying for selling aside the orderdated November 8, 1997 passed by the respondentswhereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. 2. While working in the Central ReservePolice Force, a departmental enquiry was institutedagainst the petitioner with two specific charges.After the petitioner submitted his reply to thecharge-sheet and the same was found to beunsatisfactory by the disciplinary authority, anenquiry officer was appointed to enquire into thecharges leveled against the petitioner. InArticle I of the charges, it was alleged that the petitioner on return from patrolling duty on May22, 1996 at 2330 hours demanded issue of liquorfrom Ct. Harish Chandra Tripathy and when hisrequest was not entertained by Ct. Harish ChandraTripathy, he entered into an alteration with thesaid Ct. Harish Chandra Tripathy, Store man andalso kicked his box to express his anguish. InArticle II of the charges, it was alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagan Nath Syal Vs. Itat
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN314(Delhi)
ORDERHaving heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the opinion that a subsequent decision rendered by the Supreme Court cannot be a ground for review of the earlier judgments. After this order was passed, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn....
Tag this Judgment!Siemens India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002(140)ELT62(Del)
Usha Mehra, J.1. Mandamus has been sought by the Siemens India Limited thereby directing the respondent Union of India to allow full 'cash assistance' and 'replenishment benefits' in respect of contract placed on them by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay for supply and installation of electrical equipment under the IDA loan. The benefits have been claimed with effect from the date of the submission of tender till date of final execution of contract. Directions have also been sought to quash or nullify the effect of notifications dated 6th December, 1975 and 5th November, 1979 whereby government notified that the benefits would be applicable prospectively and not retrospectively.2. In order to appreciate the challenge raised, we may have a glance to the facts of this case. Government of India announced benefits under the Replenishment Scheme including cash assistance for encouraging supply of indigenously manufactured goods to Indian buyers to enable them to obtain indigenousl...
Tag this Judgment!