Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Shri Sher Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)766; 90(2001)DLT783; 2001(57)DRJ846

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner's case is that the Government of NCT of Delhi recommended his case for allotment of alternate plot way back in April, 1991. A plot of 207 Sq.mtr. was offered for allotment to the petitioner on 13.1.1993, being plot No.29, Pocket 11/A, Sector 22, Rohini. The allotment was at the provisional rate of Rs.1650.65 Sq.mtrs. This was not acceptable to the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the same vide writ petition No.1255/93. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 28.10.1998, along with about a bunch of 129 other writ petitions. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner nor the counsel were aware of the said order. The writ petition was disposed of along with other bunch of writ petitions. In terms of the order passed, four weeks' time was granted to the petitioners to make a request for allotment. DDA was to consider the same within eight weeks and give a schedule for payment, which included interest @ 18% p...

Nucon India (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board (Desu)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)676; AIR2001Delhi227; 2001(58)DRJ199; 2001(2)RAJ176

ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J. 1. This is an application for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for adjudicating the dispute having arisen between the Petitioners and the Respondents relating to the execution of the contract awarded by the Respondents for the work of construction of control room building for 400 KV Sub-Station of the Respondent (DESU) at Bawana, Delhi. The letter of intent was issued by the Respondents on 6th August, 1991. The contract was for Rs.1,10,02,860/-. Time was the essence of the contract and it was to be completed within a time period of six months, that is, by 8th June, 1992. According to the Petitioners, the contract could not be completed for various reasons attributable to the Respondents. 2. This Court at present need not go into the detailed facts of the case as the short prayer in the petition is the appointment of an arbitrator and referring to him all the disputes...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/S. Usha Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)498; 91(2001)DLT116

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C. J.1. At the instance of Revenue, following questions have been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (in short 'Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'C' Delhi (in short 'Tribunal'):-'(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessed company was a small scale industrial undertaking?(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the cost of installation was not to be taken into consideration for working out the cost of plant and machinery for the purposes of section 32(1)(vi)?'The dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77.2. Factual position, in a nutshell, is as follows:assessed is a p...

State Bank of India Vs. M/S Dividya R.K. Paper Board Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)615; 91(2001)DLT173; 2001(58)DRJ362

ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J.1. The plaintiff State Bank of India a body corporate constituted by the State Bank of India Act,1955 having its central office at Bombay and one of its branch situated a Azadpur. Delhi has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.7,88,515.21 paise against the defendants in October, 1984. Defendant No.1 M/S Dividya R.K.Paper Board Industries is a partnership firm. Shri Kirshan Kumar Mehta, defendant No.2 and Mr. Ram Partap Mehta defendant No.3 are the partners of defendant No.1 firm. The defendant No.1 firm is carrying on its business of manufacturing of Card Board at Khera Khurd, Delhi. Defendants 2 and 3, as partners of defendant No. 1, had approached the plaintiff bank on or about 9th January, 1976 for the grant of loan facilities in connection with their business. The plaintiff bank granted loan facilities to the defendants in the account of Medium Term Loan against pledge/hypothecation of moveable machinery and goods of the defendants for sum of Rs.2,11,00...

Smt. Pushpa Sachdeva Vs. Shri D.K. Roy and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)740; 90(2001)DLT376; [2001(90)FLR426]

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. There is no appearance for any of the parties.2. There was no appearance on 8.1.2001 also. Accordingly the matter is taken up for hearing.3. The facts of the case have been stated succinctly and felicitously in the interim order of this Court dated 25th November, 1982 passed by Mr. Justice Avadh Behari (as he then was) which reads as follows:'The petitioner Mrs. Pushpa Sachdeva is a Nurse in the W.U.S. Health centre of the University of Delhi. She was appointed in 1964. The Centre was working in the morning hours between 8.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m., to begin with. In 1968 the hours of work were extended. The Centre worked between 1.30 to 6.30 p.m. as well. Due to exigencies of work the Centre has now started working in the night also. This was begun from 18.2.1981. The night hours of work are from 8.30 p.m. to 6.30 a.m. The petitioner's case is that she was working during the day shift previously. Now she is being assigned duty at night from 8.30 p.m. to 6.30 a.m. so...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Capital Bus Services P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)543; [2001]250ITR615(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN691(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the sum of Rs. 2,62,658 as a short term capital loss in the assessment year 1975-76 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76.3. The dispute related to the question as to in which year the amount of Rs. 2,62,658 was to be allowed as a short term capital loss. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short, the 'CIT(A)'), held that it was relateable to the assessment year 1974-75. The assessed's stand was that it is allowable as deduction in 1975-76. The Tribunal noticed that the last payment was made in January, 1974, and the assessed was justified in waiting for some more time before the am...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amar Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)372; [2001]250ITR842(Delhi); [2002]120TAXMAN535(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These two references involve the following question, which at the instance of the Revenue, has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the income from the DDA flat purchased under the hire purchase agreement could not be assessed in the hands of the assessed as income from house property ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79.3. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed in spite of service of notice.4. As the question itself reveals, the dispute was whether there was any income under the hire purchase tenancy agreement to the assessed, which could be assessed to tax. The Tribunal referred to the hire purchase tenancy agr...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Narula Finance P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Del)397; [2001]249ITR673(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1965-66 ?'2. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed in spite of notice. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1965-66. Originally, the assessment was completed on February 22, 1968. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated for reassessment under Section 147 of the Act. The assessment under Section 148 of the Act was completed on March 17, 1975. Penalty was imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (in short the 'IAC') by order datedMarch 24, 1977. Learned counsel for the Rev...

Zamshed Alam Khan Vs. Regency Industries Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The complainant, named above, has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as as the Act), averring that allured by the representations, made by the opposite parties, the complainant booked an apartment in the complex, known as Regency Arch at Vaishali, District Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh), on 25th June, 1989 and deposited a sum of Rs. 48,000/- with the opposite parties for which a receipt, bearing No. 99, dated 8th July, 1989, was issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. It is further stated that in response to the application of the complainant, dated 25th June, 1989, the opposite parties provisionally allotted an apartment, bearing No. C-905, with an approximate built up area of 1015 sq. ft., on the 9th floor, of their above mentioned proposed residential complex. It is stated that the sale price of that apartment was agreed to be Rs. 4,85,125/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 475/- per s...

M/S. Hitech Steel (P) Limited Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Today the matter is listed for reporting compliance of the Stay Order No. S/850/2000-NB(S) dated 9.11.2000 in which the Appellants M/s.Hitech Steel (P) Ltd. were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- on or before 9.1.2001 and report compliance on 22nd January, 2001. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Appellants nor there was any request for adjournment not there is any intimation about complying with the direction contained in the Stay Order. It was made clear specifically in the said Stay Order that failure to comply with the direction shall lead to vacation of stay and dismissal of appeal without any further notice. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act....