Delhi Court July 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.
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. the Presiding Officer, Industrial Trib ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT420; [2002(93)FLR359]; (2002)IVLLJ871Del
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The common thread in all the present litigation is the fact that the Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as D.T.C.) had dismissed the workmen/Respondents and since industrial disputes were then pending with their workforce, they had unsuccessfully applied with the Authority for its approval for this terminator action under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1974(for short I.D. Act). On this rejection, the D.T.C. has filed Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders declining the grant of approval. In some petitions an order of stay of these impugned Orders was prayed for and granted. The workmen/Respondents have, however, filed applications under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act praying for the grant of wages,k t he maintainability of which has been vociferously challenged.2. Common law recognizes the untrammelled freedom to contact. One aspect of it is the unfettered liberty to 'hire and fire' and this...
Sh. Rama Kant Chaturvedi Vs. Sh. Mithlesh Chandra Chaturvedi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT511; 2001(60)DRJ321
ORDERA.K.Sikri, J.1. This suit filed by the plaintiff is for partition and rendition of accounts. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are the sons and defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of late Sh. Jagdish Prasad Chaturvedi (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased father'). Defendants 4 and 5 are also imp leaded who are wife and son respectively of defendant No. 1. Put simply, the deceased father had two sons, namely, plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and two daughters, namely, defendants 2 and 3. The deceased father of the parties was possessed of a House No. 11-A/16, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (for short 'Karol Bagh house') apart from certain movable properties. In the plaint filed by the plaintiff, it is stated that after the death of his father, the plaintiff is in possession of the ground floor and defendant No. 1 is in possession of the first floor of the Karol Bagh house. Entire movable properties including Fixed Deposit Receipts, cash, gold and gold ornaments, share...
Manju Sharma Vs. Indian Council for Research on International Economic ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT413; 2002(63)DRJ109
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. As the facts and the questions involved in the present case are similar in nature, I propose to dispose of both these writ petitions by this common judgment and order.2. In both these writ petitioner, the issue that was vehemently urged and that crops up for my consideration at this stage is whether the respondent is an agency or instrumentality of the Government and is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 and that whether it is not subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.3. The petitioners were appointed as Typist in the office of the respondent and their services were extended from time when finally a notice of termination was issued to them as against which the present writ petitions were filed. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the legality of the aforesaid notice of termination. This court while issuing notice of termination. This Court while issuing notice on the writ petitions stayed the operation of the impugned ...
Narula Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR49(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN230(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the assessed, the following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E ('the Tribunal' for short), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' in short), for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that as the official liquidator is appointed by the High Court and the notice under Section 148 was served on him after obtaining the permission of the High Court, it was not necessary for the Income-tax Officer to serve a notice on him, proposing to treat him as principal officer of the company ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice under Section 148 served on the official liquidator, without notice under Section 2(35)(b) from the Income-tax Officer is bad in law and invalid ?' 2. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65. Since the point in i...
Gian Chand Gupta Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(Del)665
ORDERK.C. Singhal, J.M.Since common issue is involved in all these appeals the same are being disposed of by the common order. The only issue arising out of these appeals relates to charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C.2. Both the parties are agreed that facts in all the appeals are common and the decision taken in the case of Shri Gian Gupta would be applicable in respect of all the assessed. thereforee, we would narrate the facts in the case of Shri Gian Gupta. A search and seizure action was carried out under section 132 at the premises of the assessed on 14-1-1991, in the course of which cash amounting to Rs. 25,62,500 was found and seized by the search party. In the search proceedings the assessed surrendered a sum of Rs. 53,05,000 as his income. After the search, order under section 132(5) was made on 10-5-1991, estimating the income of the assessed at Rs. 1,95,93,756. Since the tax liability on the aforesaid amount was much more than the amount of cash seized,...
Ramesh Chander Vs. Jagdish Chander and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 98(2001)DLT374
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11(5)(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of arbitrator in respect of disputes arising between the partners of the firm M/s.Emire Art Indutures. Addmittedly, partnership firm was created by way of unregistered deed of partnership dated 9.1.1964.2. There are three fold objections. Firstly, that an unregistered deed of partnership firm is not enforceable for the purpose of appointment of arbitrator even if the arbitration clause existed therein.In support of this contention, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has placed reliance upon the judgment Col.H.C.Chpora(Retd.) & Anr. Versus Shri V.C.Mhera : 81(1999)DLT937 . However, this question of law has been decided by the Supreme Court one for all in the case of Prabhu Shanker Jaiswal Versus Sri Sheo Narain Jaiswal & Ors. 1996(8) Supreme page 153 wherein previous judgments of the Supreme Court have been dealt with on which learned counsel for the respon...
Sh. Harmohan Singh Vs. Sh. Gurbax Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi507; 93(2001)DLT647
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. It is proposed to dispose of these IAs by this common order. is No. 13249/2000 is filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC whereby the plaintiff has sought ad interim injunction. By order dated 21st December, 2000 ex parte interim was granted to the plaintiff. On the other hand, is No.1436/20001 is filed by the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking vacation of order dated 21st December, 2000 passed in is No.13249/2000.2. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction, passing off, infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts etc. against the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant are real brothers who had been carrying on business of manufacturing of motor parts, tractor parts, engine parts, machinery parts for use in automobiles in partnership under the name and style of Guaranteed Parts manufacturing Co. on the terms contained in the partnership deed dated 20th September, 1984. It is mention...
Mrs. Winifred Nora theophilus Vs. Mr. Lila Deane and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi6; 2001(62)DRJ422
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. Both these applications can be disposed of by this common order inasmuch as IA.8120/98 is filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and IA. 9965/98 is filed by the defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacating ex-parte injunction order dated 17-9-98 passed in IA.8120/98. Briefly stated that the suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition and injunction. It is mentioned in the plaint that parties are Indian Christians as defined in Section 2(d) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The pedigree table of the family of the parties is shown in para-1 of the plaint.2. The dispute is about the inheritance of the property of Ms. Pricilla Violet Mukha who according to the plaintiff was a spinster and died on 26-11-1995 by intestate i.e. without executing any will. The plaint avers that as per the provision of Section 47 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the property is ...
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3710; 93(2001)DLT79; 2002(61)DRJ31
Held :At the stage of investigations when an accused applies for pardon and the prosecution also supports him, the matter remains between the Court and the accused applying for pardon and the other accused have no right whatsoever to intervene or ask for hearing. The other accused against whom evidence of the approver is likely to be used, shall have sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the approver when examined in the course of trial and show to the Court that his evidence is not reliable or he is not a trustworthy witness. Whatever material the petitioner intends to use against the approver, he would be entitled to use it against him during trial to discredit him. The law does not prohibit tender of pardon to a principal accused even. The tender of pardon remains within the domain of judicial discretion of the Court before which the request of an accused for tender of pardon is made. thereforee, a co-accused can not be permitted to raise objections against tender of pardon to ano...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Delhi (Central-i) Vs. Brig. Kapil Mohan New ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ464
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of Revenue, following question has been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. 1957 (in short 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' (in short the Tribunal):'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was justified in law in taking the view that the broiler chickens etc. cannot be treated as 'animals' for the purposes of grant of exemption under section 2(e)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act. 1957?'2. Factual position in nut shell is an follows. assessed, an individual, filed his return of wealth and claimed that the value of broiler chickens etc. cannot be included in the wealth of the assessed in view of Section 2(e)(iii) of the Act. Assessing Officer held that broiler chickens etc. are not covered by the said exemption and an addition of Rs. 1,38,114/- as movable property was made. Matter was carried in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Com...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »