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.
Smt. Anjali Sawhney Vs. Anjali Trust and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT132
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Both the suits are filed by Smt. Anjali Sawhney as plaintiff. Suit No. 1797/92 is for rendition of accounts, mandatory and permanent injunction. Defendant No. 1 is Anjali Trust and defendants 2 and 3 are its trustees. Shri Madhav Prasad Birla as a Settler had created a Trust Fund vide Deed of Settlement dated 8-3-1978 in the name of Anjali Trust i.e. Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff was made beneficiary of this Trust. Shri Madhav prasad Birla was the Uncle of the plaintiff. He appointed himself as one of the Trustees along with other co-trustees viz. his wife, Defendant No. 1, his brother's wife Smt. Sumitra Devi Birla, Shri puran Chand Sawhney and Shri Babu Lal Niwar. Thereafter vide Deed of Settlement dated 2.9.1986 he created another Trust Fund is the name of Anjali Trust (1986) for the benefit of the plaintiff in which he appointed himself and his wife as well as Defendant No. 3 as co-trustees. Shri Puran Chand Sawhney, Smt. Sumitra Devi Birla and Shri Babu Lal ...
Ashok Goel Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT201
ORDER1. Rule D.B. By this petition, the petitioner has ought quashing of FIR No. 320/99 registered at P.S. Mangol Puri for offenses under Section 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with 379, IPC. 2. We have heard leaned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The FIR was registered on 18th March, 1999 alleging therein that a join t=raid was conducted on 18th March, 1999 in MIA Ph. II by Zonal Staff of Delhi Vidyut Board (in short DVB) along with police personnel from Dost Chowki. The petitioner was round indulging in stealing electricity directly form D.V.B. main. Necessary photographs were taken in the presence of police and welding machine/compressor and electricity wire were impounded and deposited in police station as material evidence. Accordingly demand was raised against the petitioner on the basis of theft committed by him. At the same time criminal case was also registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 320/99. The petitioner has paid the amount of the bill ...
Directorate of Income-tax (Research Statics Publication and Public Rel ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT774
B.A. Khan, J.1. The respondents are clamouring for regularisation on the post of LDC but petitioner wants them to appear in a selection examination to be conducted by S.S.C. in accordance with the Directorate of Income-Tax (Research Statics Publication & Public Relations) Group C & D Recruitment Rules, 1999 (hereinafter called 'Recruitment Rules') vide orders dated 15.9.93 and 21.9.93 CAT has quashed these orders by impugned order dated 15.11.99 and directed petitioner to consider these respondents for regularisation of their service on the post of LDC in consultation with Staff Selection Commission after giving them necessary age relaxation. While doing so, Tribunal has relied upon its earlier orders passed in O.A. Nos. 668, 1010, 914/88, 985/89 and 1153/91 dated 12.4.91 by placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court.2. Petitioners feel aggrieved of this and have filed this petition for setting aside CAT order and for requiring Respondents 1-10 to go through the prescribed mod...
Cit Vs. Thomson Press India Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2001
Reported in: [2002]121TAXMAN39(Delhi)
ORDERBy the CourtHeard.2. Admit.3. The following question shall be adjudicated upon :'Whether the Tribunal was correct in computation of book profit in the background of section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'The appellant shall file within three months ten copies of the cyclostyled paper books, containing all documents on which reliance was placed before the Tribunal, including any order/orders, either in the case of the assessed itself or in case of any other assessed, which has been followed by the Tribunal.4. The appeal be listed for hearing in the regular course. ...
Cit Vs. Mehta Harnam Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)574
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Pursuant to directions given by this court, following question has been referred under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench C (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), for opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 1,000 per month paid by the tenants to the son can be taken into account for determining the annual value of the property ?'Dispute relates to the assessment year 1971-72.2. The controversy lies in a very narrow compass. A sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid to the assesses son for ensuring that the property from which rent was received was kept in good repairs. The assessed claimed the amount of Rs. 1,000 per month paid as an expenditure. The Income Tax Officer included the amount in the annual let out value, treating it as a part of the rent. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the AA...
Cit Vs. H.S. Singhal and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Del)217
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of revenue, following question has been referred for opinion of this court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench B (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that no income from the portion of the house property used by the firm is assessable in the hands of the partner to whom the property belonged ?'Dispute relates to assessment year 1974-75.2. Factual position which is almost undisputed is as follows :assessed is a Hindu undivided family (hereinafter referred to as the HUF) which owned a house property which was partly used by a firm in which the assessed-family itself was a partner. It was claimed by the assessed that income from the property should not be assessed in its hands as it was used by the firm, and the business was carried on by the firm...
Shri Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT743
ORDERKhan, J. 1. Petitioner, LDC in COC is resisting his compulsory retirement. He challenged respondents last action in this regard in O.A.771/1992 before CAT which was dismissed by impugned order. He then filed this petition in which notice was issued on the limited question whether Director Ordnance Services (DOS) or OIC-AOC (Records) was competent authority to compulsorily retire him from service. He was asked to produce the letter of appointment to resolve the dispute by court order dated 18.8.2001, but he failed. He has filed an additional affidavit, though, reiterating his stand that he was appointed LDC by DOS, who alone was competent to compulsorily retire him and not his sub-ordinate Authority, OIC-AOC (R). thereforee all that remained to be seen was whether OIC-AOC (R) was competent to pass his order of compulsory retirement.2. Petitioner's case has a chequered history and has gone through many ups and down. It speaks volumes of his tenacity and perseverance as he was fighti...
Smt. Uma Devi and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT720; 2001(59)DRJ732
ORDERS.K.Agarwal, J.1. By is petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.), petitioners are seeking quashing of the order taking cognizance on the supplementary challan in case FIR No.172/2000, under Sections 323/325/34 IPC, P.S. Trilokpuri, East District, Delhi. Notice. Mr. Sharma accepts notice. Since the point involved is short, I purpose to dispose of the petition at this stage itself.2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that on 21.5.2000, Smt. Bimlish Kumari, lodged report on the basis of which above noted case was registered. After investigation, challan was against Bishan Swaroop Sharma. Police investigated the matter further under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and filed the supplementary challan, on the basis of which trial court took cognizance and summoned the petitioners. They appeared before the trial court and raised the objection that cognizance on the supplementary charge-sheet could not be taken as the permission of the trial court was not tak...
Shri S.K. Chadha Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT133
ORDERKhan, (J)1. Petitioner was the member of Indian Economic Service and a claimant for promotion to Senior Administrative Grade (SAG). He filed on OA before CAT complaining of denial of promotion to him through he became eligible in 1991 and vacancies were available. His further case was DPC had found him fit for promotion on 9.5.1995 which was approved by ACC also but no final orders were passed in terms of OM dated 25.1.1990 which provided that no officer shall be promoted unless he had three months minimum service before his retirement.2. Tribunal dismissed his OA on noticing that petitioner had retired on 31.7.1995 when his juniors were promoted later on 4.8.1995.3. Petitioner has filed this petition to highlight the alleged discriminatory treatment meted out to him. His grievance now is that though Respondents had applied terms of OM dated 25.1.1990 to him, they had promoted his two colleagues Kewal Kishan and Devi Dayal on the eve of retirement and in disregard of the OM. All t...
Lt. Col. Gurmit Singh Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ84
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. In the Petition, after a number of hearings, the narrowed down question which remains for determination is whether the Respondent have considered only the Annual Confidential Reports (hereinafter referred to as ACRs) onwards from the 11th year of service of the petitioner. Initially, the considered of these ACRs was challenged on the ground that the Petitioner ought to have been governed by the Rules applicable to officers in the Army Medical Corps. On the Respondence' categorical statement that the Remount and Veterinary Corps of the Army (RVC) was not governed by the Rules applied in the Army Medical Corps, this ground was very fairly and correctly not pressed. The scope of interference by the High Court under Article 226 in limited. It is not to adopt the approach of a Court of Appeal, to re-assess the gradings obtained by the ratee officer, or judicially review the policy of the Respondents in regard to the promotion Policy of its personnel. Courts may in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »