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.
Cit Vs. Parmod Kumar Dang
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: [2002]121TAXMAN40(Delhi)
ORDERAdmit.2. The following question of law shall be adjudicated upon :'Whether the Tribunal was correct in its view that requirements of section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were complied with ?' 3. 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 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. ...
Directorate of Income Tax (Reasearch Statistics Publication and Public ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: [2001]118TAXMAN469(Delhi)
Khan, J. The respondents are clamouring for regularisation on the post of LDC but the petitioner wants them to appear in a selection examination to be conducted by SSC in accordance with the Directorate of Income Tax (Research Statistics Publication & Public Relations) Group C & D Recruitment Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Recruitment Rules') vide orders dated 15-9-1993 and 21-9-1993. CAT has quashed these orders by impugned order dated 15-11-1999 and directed the 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, the Tribunal has relied upon its earlier orders passed in OA Nos. 668, 1010, 914 of 1988, 985 of 1989 and 1153 of 1991 dated 12-4-1991 by placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court.2. Petitioners feel aggrieved with this and have filed this petition for setting aside CAT order and for requiring responde...
JaIn Tube Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Del)28; [2002]254ITR570(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. On being moved for reference, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C (the 'Tribunal' in short), has referred, at the instance of the assessed, the following questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the difference in exchange amounting to Rs. 2,75,533 resulted in capital expenditure under Section 43A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and/or is not an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 28 read with Section 37 of the Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt in respect of the sale of import entitlements amounting to Rs. 7,38,634constitutes the business income of the assessed assessable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The factual aspects need not be gone into as the issue involved in the first question stands settled by a decision of the apex court in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. ...
Mrs. Sushila Ahluwalia and ors. Vs. Mr. Arvind Mehta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT706; 2002(62)DRJ414
Held:It is established that terrace formed part of tenancy and as such defendants, who claimed to have acquired ownership rights, cannot be allowed to raise construction on the terrace. The plaintiffs in the present case are, there fore, entitled to the interlocutory injunction as prayed for against the defendants.Sharda Aggarwal, J.1. This order shall dispose of plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for temporary injunction.2. Smt. Sushila Ahluwalia, wife of Shri Shyam Ahluwalia filed the present suit for permanent injunction against Shri Arvind Mehta and Shri Bhagu Chand, defendants 1 and 2. Shri Shyam Ahluwalia was inducted as a tenant with respect to the House No A-II/75, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi in 1979 by one Shri Gerimal M. Jethra. At the time of filing of the suit, the tenant Shri Shyam Ahluwalia was lodged in Meerut Jail and his wife apprehending dispossession at the hands of defendants 1 and 2, had imp leaded him as defendant No.3. Lat...
M/S. Shivnath Rai Har NaraIn Vs. M/S. Italgrani Spa
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT222; 2002(63)DRJ174
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor J.1. This is an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 assailing the maintainability of the suit.2. Indisputably, provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC bar the maintainability of the suit; firstly where it does not disclose a cause of action; secondly where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; thirdly where the relief claimed is properly valued but eh plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped and fourthly where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.3. Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'Act') is of mandatory nature and casts/obligation upon the judicial authority when seized of an action in a matter in respect of which an arbitration agreement subsists to refer parties to arbitration. It provides as under:-'45....
Rajesh Mehta Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT428; II(2001)DMC440; 2001(60)DRJ678
ORDERR.C. Chopra, J.1. The petitioner, who is being prosecuted under Sections 498-A and 304B IPC, has filed this Revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) for setting aside an order dated 6.9.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. New Delhi ordering that charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC be framed against him.2. The facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner got married to deceased Neelam on 11.12.1996 at Delhi. According to the prosecution, soon after the marriage the petitioner started misbehaving with his wife and used to give her beatings even. The brothers of the deceased once went to the house of the petitioner and tried to make him see reason, but did not succeed. On that very night again there was some episode in the house of the petitioner on account of which police control room van came and took the petitioner along. In July, 1997, t...
Jagmal Sharma and Others Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT487
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J. 1. Claimants property situate in village Kondli, Delhi was notified under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for being acquired for public purpose, namely, Planned Development of Delhi. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 8.2.1973. It was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 20.5.1974. Collector Land Acquisition made his award No.2/78-79 dated 8.5.1978 offering compensation at the rate of Rs.2100.00 per bigha. Feeling dissatisfied a reference was sought. The Reference Court by the impugned award dated 14.2.2001 held the claimants entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per bigha. Still feeling dis-satisfied the claimants have sought further enhancement in this appeal filed under Section 54 of the Act.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and been taken though the record.3. A Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of regular first appeals filed under Secti...
indira Sonti Vs. Suryanarayana Murty Sonti and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT572; 1(2002)DMC56
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The suit No.2075/2000 has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act(for short 'Act') for decree for personal maintenance as well as for damages against her husband(defendant No.1) and father-in-law(defendant No.2) for allegedly ruining her life. It has been filed as indigent person. The plaintiff claims herself to be a helpless, poor, educated girl of middle class family who had dreamt of a happy married life. However, her dreams stand shattered and in the process she lost everything i.e. status, service, dignity and peace. It is also stated that her father was an Assistant Editor in Directorate of Extension under the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India who retired on 31st May, 1994 and spend all his life savings on the marriage of his daughter i.e. plaintiff with the defendant No.1 in USA in the hope that she would lead a happy married life. The plaintiff is a post graduate diploma holder in management, a citizen ...
Mamta Rani and ors. Vs. Vikram Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC652; I(2002)ACC713; 2002ACJ713; 94(2001)DLT75
S.N. Kapoor, J. 1. Heard. 2. In this case the only short point, which is required to be considered, is :'Whether the Insurance Company, namely, respondent No. 3, is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short 'the MACT'), though beyond the liability of the Insurance Company?' 3. Leaned Counsel of the appellants relies upon the judgment in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Cheruvakkara Nafeessu Others, : 2000(8)SCALE412 . In that case after considering the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, I (1998) ACC 327 (SC)=1998 (2) SCR 910, the Supreme Court in paras 9 and 10 observed as under: '9. The reliance of the learned Counsel for the appellant on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai, : [1995]1SCR871 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, I (1998) ACC 327 (SC) = 1998 ACJ 270 , is of no help to him inasmuch as in those cases the effect of judgments in Amrit Lal Sood's case : [1998]2SCR284 , ha...
Neeraj Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ498
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr. P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No. 220/2001 under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC. P.S. Kirti Nagar.2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is unmarried brother of the husband of the deceased. It is argued that deceased was married on 2.10.2000 and she died on 26.4.2001 while she was staying at the house of her grand father. These facts are not contested by learned counsel for State.3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, petition is allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.dusty.Petition stands disposed of....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »