Delhi Court July 2001 Judgments

JaIn Tube Co. Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN476(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, CJ.On being moved for reference, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', has referred, at the instance of the assessed, the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for 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. 7,38,634 constitutes 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. CIT : [1979]116ITR1(SC) . Following the ...

Tbwa Anthem Private Limited Vs. Mr. Madhukar Kamath and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT302; 2001(59)DRJ772

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an application moved by defendant no. 2 for deletion of its name as it is not a necessary or proper party. Admittedly, suit has been filed on the basis of agreement dated 1.12.1998 between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 for the breach of said agreement.2. The impleadment of defendant no.2 is based upon following facts:-The Defendant no. 2 is also an advertising agency engaged in activities which are in competition with plaintiff Company, and would have extremely profitable and beneficial use of the confidential and sensitive information of the confidential and sensitive information of its competitors (such as plaintiff company) wrongly received, unlawfully and in an inappropriate manner through Defendant no.1. Defendant no.2 in gross violation of all business ethics and industry practice entered into collusion with Defendant no. 1, and being aware of the position that Defendant no.1 was fully aware and privy to various confidential and highly sensitive...

Kalyan Khari Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002CriLJ176; 93(2001)DLT183; 2001(60)DRJ81

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. The externment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, North-West District by giving the petitioner a notice under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the act) dated 14th July, 1999. In response to the said notice, petitioner filed his reply and contested the action of the respondent. However, by the order of 30th October, 2000 passed under Section 47 of the said Act, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police directed the externment of the petitioner from the limits of the North-West District, Delhi for a period of one year. Relaxation was, however, given that the petitioner could attend the date of hearing during the court hours and for such reasonable time as may be necessary for coming and going out of the limits of the North-West District, Delhi except with the permission of the Court.2. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 51 of the said...

Smt. Dhanno Vs. Union of India and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ4119; 93(2001)DLT218; 2001(59)DRJ764

Anil Dev Singh, J:1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner claims compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- and allotment of a flat. The facts giving rise to the present petition lie in a narrow compass.2. The petitioner's husband Madan Lal was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Section 304 IPC. As a consequence of his conviction, Madan Lal was incarcerated in Tihar Jail. It is not disputed on either side that on completion of his sentence he was to be released from jail on 16th April, 1981. The fate, however, had something else in store for him. Between 12th April, 1981 and 15th April, 1981 while he was in custody at Tihar Jail he sustained injuries as a result of severe beating administered to him by some employees of the jail, who are said to be S/Shri Shiv Kumar, Mudrika, Prem Bahadur, Kadam Singh, Yogesh Tyagi and Virender. On 16th April, 1981, on the day he was to be released from jail, he succumbed to his injuries. A FIR was reg...

Jagdish Chander Anand Vs. M/S. Madan Babu and Co. and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT20; 2001(60)DRJ141

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. The Petitioner had filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 staking a claim for closure compensation as well as a small amount on account of the difference between the wages paid to him and the applicable minimum wages. In its Reply, the Management had not challenged the Petitioner's right to invoke Section 33-C(2) or the jurisdiction of the Court. From a reading of this Reply, the only dispute raised was that the Petitioner's entitlement was only with effect from 1.1.1996. The Petitioner had contended that he was in service with effect from 1.1.1954 and that computation should be made keeping this date in mind.2. In the proceedings before the Labour Court-VI no issue as to the maintainability of the application under Section 33-C(2) had been framed as no objection or demur had been raised by the Management. In the Award, however, the Labour Court has dismissed the claim on the grounds that this provision, namely, 33-C(2...

Karamjit Singh Gahunia Vs. Dalmia Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ768

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. This is an application under Order 1 Rule 10(1) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'). Mr. Chandhiok says, the learned counsel for the non-applicant, states that he has no objection if the name of the defendant is changed from Dalmia Industries Ltd. to Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd.2. Application is allowed. Amended memo of parties has been filed on record. Let the same be taken on record.3. Application stands disposed of.4. This is an application under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), read with Section 151 of the Code by the defendant-tenant. It has been contended by Mr. Sandeep Aggarwal that the suit filed by the plaintiff is for recovery of possession and recovery of mesne profits and damages. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant-defendant that defendant company has made a reference under Section 15(1) of SICA to the Board for Industrial and Fin...

Castrol Limited and anr. Vs. Kamal Luthra and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ46; 2002(1)RAJ637

Vijender Jain, J.1. Plaintiffs have filed this suit for perpetual injunction, infringement of trade marks, passing off and damages etc. Counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that plaintiff No. 1 M/s. Castrol Limited is a Company incorporated under the law of England and carrying on business on a large extensive scale in the manufacture processing and marketing of high grade lubricating oil products in the UK and other countries. Plaintiff No. 2 M/s Castrol India Limited is having its registered office at Bombay and regional office at New Delhi. Plaintiff No. 2 is carrying on business on a large and extensive scale in processing of and trading in high grade automotive and industrial lubricants, greases, brake fluids, wood preservatives and various other speciality of products in India. Plaintiff No. 2 set up its business in 1979. In view of the statutory requirement, plaintiff No. 1 reduced its equity shares capital and plaintiff No. 2 also reduced its equity pursuant to the scheme o...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Co-operative Stores Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue, Both relating to asst. yr. 1985-86. In ITA No. 496D/Del/1994 the Revenue has contested the cancellation by the learned CIT(A) of the penalty levied under Section 273(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 73,77,347. Assessment was however completed on total income of Rs. 96,93,478. It had filed estimate of advance tax in form No. 28A on 15th June, .1984, showing income of Rs. 20 lakhs. Its accounting year ended on 30th June, 1984. Penalty prbceeding under Section 273(1)(b) of the Act was initiated. However, finally the penalty was levied under Section 273(1)(a) of the Act.2. In reply to the show cause the assessee submitted before the AO that penalty under Section 273 was not attracted in the case as there was reasonable cause for furnishing lower estimate. The following reasons were furnished for the tower estimate : "The reason for substantial difference in the returned estimated income ...

Shivalik Agro Poly Products Limited Vs. Disco Electronics Limited (In ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi10; [2003]114CompCas398(Delhi); 2001(59)DRJ698

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The appellant company is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13th September, 1996 of the learned Company Judge setting aside the sale of property no.A-83., Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi (referred to as Property) made. In favor of the appellant company by the Delhi Financial Corporation (referred to as DFC).2. The learned Company Judge has given a finding in the impugned order that the sale effected by DFC was for inadequate consideration and contrary to the subsisting injunction order of the court and the order appointing provisional liquidator in respect of M/s.Disco). M/s.Disco created a mortgage in favor of DFC on 20th January, 1986 for availing of certain loan facilities. There were defaults by Disco in complying with its financial obligations as a result whereof DFC recalled the loan in December,1990 and advertised for sale of the property in October, 1991. The appellant company responded t o the said notice for sale. DFC issued another...

M/S. Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad Vs. the Lt Governor, Nct of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT91; 2001(60)DRJ127

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 (in short, the Societies Act) calls in question legality of the notification dated 5th August, 1998 issued by the Lt Governor of NCT of Delhi in exercise of powers conferred under Section 71 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (in short, the Act) by which Clause XXVI under Rule 11 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (in short, the Rules) was omitted.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :-By notification of the Finance Department of Delhi Administration, as published in the Extraordinary Gazette dated 12.4.1978, a new clause (xxvi) was inserted under Rule 11, which reads as follows:'(XXVI) Sale of papads by Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad for so long as it is holding a certificate of recognition for 'papad' as Village Industries product issued by the Commission constituted under the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956 (61 of 1956)Subsequently by the impugned...