Delhi Court December 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.
General Engineering Works Vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT477
B.N. Chaturvedi, J. 1. Faced with invocation of two bank guarantees dated 29.5.1999 and 16.7.1999 for Rs. 14,31,636/- and Rs. 13,93,876/- respectively by M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, respondent No. 1, the petitioner, M/s. General Engineering Works, seeks an injunction against respondent No. 1 restraining it from invoking the same and against Dena Bank, respondent No. 2, from making payment to the respondent No. 1, there under.2. On 13th of May, 1999, the petitioner was awarded a contract by respondent No. 1 for supply of 8.69 kms. galvanised steel earth wife. The supply was to be made between September, 1999 to November, 2000. In terms of Letter of Award, the general conditions of contract were to apply. In terms of Clause 12.1 of the Letter of Award, the petitioner furnished a bank guarantee No. 4718 dated 29.5.1999 for Rs. 14,31,636/- in favor of respondent No. 1 issued by respondent No. 2, Dena Bank, towards performance security. The petitioner also gave another ban...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-ii, New Delhi Vs. Motor General ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR449(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The substantial question of law, which has been raised in this appealunder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the'Act') rotates around the question as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 10lacs made on account of interest-free loan/advance of Rs. 47,67,740/- given by theassessed to a sister concern.2. The relevant fact of the matter, in a nutshell, is as follows:-The assessed, namely, M/s. Motor General Finance Ltd. filed itsreturn of income on 26.12.1990 declaring income under Section 115J of the Act atRs. 1,74,88,930/-. The assessing officer noticed that the assessed had advancedinterest-free loan/advance of Rs. 47,67,740/- during the relevant assessment yeari.e., 1990-91 to its sister concern, namely, M/s. National Air Products Ltd. The saidtransaction increased the total interest-free loan/advance given to its sister concernfrom Rs. 154...
R.S. Company Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)412; (2002)173CTR(Del)547; 96(2002)DLT509; [2002]256ITR220(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 22nd March 1995passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, being the appropriate authority, in terms of Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act.2. The said authority had directed purchase of land said to be agriculturalproperty by the Central Government bearing Khewat No.11, Khata No. 13, Rect. No.14,Kila Nol. 4/2 (2-16) Kila No. 5(8-0), measuring 26 kanal 16 marlas (3.35 acres) situatedin the revenue state of village Fatehpur, Tehsil and district Gurgaon with electricconnection, tubewell and one room and trees etc. According to the petitioner, the respondents No. 3 and 4 herein, are owners of the said land. It is contended that the saidproperty was the ancestral property of the afore-mentioned respondents. By agreementdated 28th November 1984, the said respondents entered into an agreement to sell thesaid property, consideration whereof was fixed at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre,amounting to a total considera...
Raju Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT223; 2002(62)DRJ98
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 226 of theConstitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. forquashing of the proceeding pending in the Court ofMs. Poonam Choudhary, M.M., New Delhi in the case FIRNo. 605/94, under Section 363/376/34 IPC, P.S. AmbedkarNagar.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on 7.2.97, Sh. Sunil Gaur, ASJ, New Delhi, sent back the file of sessions trial to the court of Metropolitan Magistrate and passed the following order: '7.2.97 Accused on bail with counsel. S.I. Rajesh Kumar (I.O.) is present.I.O. States that Raju accused is evading arrest and thereforee, challan against him not been filed. Sh. Dhiraj Yadav, counsel for accused said accused undertakes to produce his brother Rajubefore the committal court to produce in accordance with Law. The file be sent back to Ld. committal court. sd/-ASJ, N. Delhi'3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and have beentaken through the record. At the out...
Chander Prakash Vs. Ministry of Health, Nirman Bhawan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi188; 96(2002)DLT609; 2002(62)DRJ123
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. Dr. Chander Prakash, MBBS, MS(Surgery)(hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') appearsto be a public spirited person belonging to medicalfraternity. Being a Surgeon himself, he has experiencedthe difficulties, obstacles and hurdles including inefficient and inadequate medical service, beingfaced by the victim of road accidents in the country.Due to non-availability of timely medical first aid andfurther treatment millions of such victims die on roadsor face permanent disability leading to loss ofvocation and hardships to family. This unhappyexperience has disturbed the petitioner who addressed letter dated 29th June, 2001 to Hon'ble the ChiefJustice pointing out the various defects in the systemand the measure which should be taken to minimise suchfatalities.2. This letter was treated as writ petition inthe category of Public Interest Litigation and noticewas issued to the respondents. Mr. V.K. Shali appearedfor the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.3. In this petition, the ...
Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Jiwan Dass Through Legal Representatives and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)360; 96(2002)DLT766
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. This suit filed by the plaintiff is for specific performance of Agreement dated 3.7.1996 as well as permanent injunction and declaration. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that vide Agreement to Sell dated 3.7.1996 he purchased entire ground floor of property bearing Shop No. 5, New Market, Malviya Nagar, measuring 84 sq.yards with rear portion measuring 12 ft 9 inch x 39 ft of the property bearing Shop No. 6, New Market, Malviya Nagar (hereinafter to be called as 'suit property) with structure standing thereon as well as fittings and fixtures installed thereon along with proportionate share to leasehold rights in the land. The Agreement to Sell was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 8, namely, M/s. Shiv Ram Builders Pvt. Ltd. with late Shri Jiwan Dass, father of defendants 2 to 7 and husband of defendant No. 1 as confirming party. The case set up is that late Shri Jiwan Dass was the owner of the property in question who entered into a Construc...
indo Rama Synthetics (India) Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002IAD(Delhi)796; 96(2002)DLT340; 2002(62)DRJ382; 2002(143)ELT299(Del)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Whether a mistake committed by importer in payment of higher duty owing toa computer mistake, can be subject matter of an order of refund thereof, is the questioninvolved in this petition.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner herein is a publiclimited company engaged in the business of manufacturing synthetic yarn and fibre. It hadbeen importing machinery and spare parts for using in their manufacturing plants from timeto time. A Bill of Entry No. 905803 was issued for import of spare parts namely Module andCircuit Board along with the copy of the Invoice on 7th July 1995, the value whereof wasdeclared as DM 709.83 of the Module and DM 291.81 for the Circuit Board.3. An error, however, was committed in payment of the Excise Duty by ignoringthe declared value for the purpose of assessment under the Excise Act which was taken to beDM 70982 and DM 29181 instead in place of DM 709.82 and DM 291.81 as a resultwhereof, 100 times more customs dut...
Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramaniam Swamy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT284; 2002(62)DRJ188
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. In the course of proceedings before a Commissionof Inquiry where the plaintiff was appearing in hisprofessional capacity as a Senior Advocate, in hiswritten submissions in the nature of argumentsaddressed to the Commission, the defendant allegedlymade certain libellous statements, giving rise to anaction for damages. Consequently, a suit for damagesagainst the defendant was brought before this Court.Alleged defamatory statements constituting basis ofthe suit, as reproduced in the plaint read as under:'Hence his (Plaintiffs)obsession with my sources is at theLTTE's behest. According to myinformation, Mr. Jethmalani has beenreceiving money from the LTTE beingdeposited in his son's account inCITIBANK in New York. That suchdeposits take place has been admitted byMr. Jethmalani.'2. The defendant has by making present applicationsought to effect certain amendments in his writtenstatement. A new paragraph 5A, to the followingeffect is sought to be added;5A: 'The alleged ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-vi, New Delhi Vs. R.L. Bhargava
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT322; [2002]256ITR42(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The following questions have been referred to this court for its opinion by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holdingthat the sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs is not taxable in theassessed's hands being a capital receipt? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, a part of the sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs is in anycase taxable as revenue receipt?' 2. The facts of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. FACTS 3. The assessed is a well-known paper technologist. During this year, he enteredinto an agreement with Regal Papers Ltd., for transfer of complete technology whichincluded technical know-how process and secret formulate for manufacture of high gloss cast-coatedpapers and boards. For this, he received a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from M/s. RegalPapers ltd. The assessed contended that the amount was not taxable as being Capi...
Bishan Lal Kanodia Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)957; [2002]257ITR449(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Reference to this Court has been mae by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') for itsopinion in relation to the following questions:-'1. Whether on a proper construction of the deeddissolution could it be held that it was a case of retirement ofthe partner and not of the dissolution of the firm?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law the excess of Rs. 3,62,631/- received by thepartner on the dissolution of the firm could be subject toasstt. as income under the head 'Capital Gain'?'2. The brief relevant facts are as under:The assessed was one of the partners in M/s. Jyoti Prasad Jagan Nath.The other two partners were Mr. Mukut Behari and Mrs. Mathri Devi. The said firm wasclaimed to have been dissolved by a deed dated 19.05.1975 when the assessed went outof the partnership business while the other two partners took over the continuingbusiness. The assessed got Rs. 6,47,176/- ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »