Delhi Court July 2001 Judgments

Delhi Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]79ITD511(Delhi)

ORDERPhool Singh, J.M.This appeal, preferred by the assessed, is directed against Commissioner (Appeals)s order dated 25-8-1992 relating to the assessment year 1989-90.2. So far as ground No. 1 is concerned the same relates to the validity of assessment framed in pursuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). At the time of hearing the learned counsel did not press this ground. Accordingly ground No. 1 stands rejected as not pressed.3. Ground No. 2 raised in this appeal reads as under :2. Action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding following disallowances is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case.a. Disallowance out of traveling expenses at Rs. 19,467 (Rs. 77,733-58,266).b. Disallowance out of entertainment expenses not wholly allowed as claimed.c. Disallowance out of advertisement expenses at Rs. 20,500.d. Disallowance of Rs. 94,558-Under section 40A(2)(b).e. Addition of Rs. 1,71,...

Shri Shiv Dayal and anr. Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This appeal is against orderdated 16.7.1998 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. No. 375/1997--Union Bank of India v.Rathambhor Wines and Beer Wholesale & Ors..2. By the impugned order a decree has been passed for Rs. 17,81,655/- along with cost of the proceedings and future interest @ 10.5% per annum with quarterly rests from 12.5.1997 till realization against defendants 1 to 4 in the Original Application. It is further directed that the applicant Bank would be entitled to recover the aforesaid amount by the sale of mortgaged property of defendants 5 to 9 also.3. This appeal has been filed only by defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Rest of the judgment debtors do not appear to have challenged the impugned order. The undisputed facts are that defendants 2, 3 and 4 in the name of defendant No. 1 in the O.A. had sought an overdraft facility with an upper limit of Rs. 3.75 lakhs from Union Bank of India branch office at Baran (Rajasthan) and in lieu of that facility, deposited on...

Akhilesh Kumar Tyagi Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ811

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Order of detention passed on 11.08.2000 by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities act, 1974 (in short, 'the Act') pursuant to which the petitioner Akhilesh Kumar Tyagi (hereinafter referred to as 'detenu') is detained in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, is assailed in this habeas corpus petition.2. Detention of the detenu was considered necessary by the Detaining Authority with a view to prevent hi from smuggling goods in future. The grounds of detention dated 11.08.2000 were supplied to the detenu in both English and Hindi language. the detenu was made aware of his right to make representation against the detention to the Detaining Authority, Central government as well as the Advisory Board. it was indicated that the representation meant for the Detaining Authority was to be addressed to the Joint Secretary, (COFEPOSA), Ministry of Finance, Department ...

M/S. Karan and Co. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT77; 2002(63)DRJ170

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in Short the Constitution), the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the assessed, calls in question legality of order dated 31.1.2001 passed by the Bench on Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short the Tribunal) in purported exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).2. Factual position which is almost undisputed is an follows:The assessed had filed an appeal before the Tribunal primarily challenging the reopening of assessment under Section 147(a) for assessment year 1985-86. By order dated 24.11.1993, a Bench of the Tribunal consisting of the President Shri Ch.G. Krishnamurthy and Shri Vimal Gandhi, Member allowed the appeal We are not very much concerned with various issues which were examined by the Tribunal for allowing the appeal in view of certain factual aspects with which we shall deal infra. Subsequently, the Reven...

Surya Prakash Sharma @ S.P. Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT189

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Order of detention passed on 11.08.2000 by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short, 'the Act') pursuant to which the petitioner Surya Prakash Sharma (hereinafter referred to as 'detenu') is detained in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, is assailed in this habeas corpus petition.2. Detention of the detenu was considered necessary by the Detaining Authority with a view to present him from smuggling goods in future. The grounds of detention dated 11.08.2000 were supplied to the detenu in both English and Hindi language. The detenu was made aware of his right to make representation against the detention to the Detaining Authority, Central Government as well as the Advisory Board. It was indicated that the representation meant for the Detaining Authority was to be addressed to the Joint Secretary, (COFEPOSA), Ministry of Finance, Department...

Ashwani Kumar@verma Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ4592; 94(2001)DLT782; 2002(79)ECC438

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Order of detention passed on 11.08.2000 by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities act, 1974 (in short, 'the Act') pursuant to which the petitioner Ashwani Kumar @ Verma (hereinafter referred to as 'detenu') is detained in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, is assailed in this habeas corpus petition.2. Detention of the detenu was considered necessary by the Detaining Authority with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods in future. The grounds of detention dated 11.08.2000 were supplied to the detenu in both English and Hindi language. The detenu was made aware of his right to make representation against the detention to the Detaining Authority, Central Government as well as the Advisory Board. It was indicated that the representation meant for the Detaining Authority was to be addressed to the Joint Secretary, (COFEPOSA), Ministry of Finance, Departmen...

M/S. P.C. Sharma and Co. Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT89; 2001(59)DRJ633

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Admittedly the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 challenging the award has been filed by respondent Union of India after a prescribed statutory period of three months. The award was made and published on 27th November, 2000. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condensation of delay disclosing the grounds of inordinate delay in filing the objections to the award. There is delay of more than 120 days.2. As usual and in a cavalier and casual manner the UOI has taken the peal of official delay which normally occurs in such matters. It is unfortunate that inspire of having several such cases, respondent Union of India refuses to wake up.3. In the instant case it is pleaded that the award was received in the office of UOI on 5th December, 2000 and application seeking modification or rectification of the same was filed which was finally disposed of vide order dated 19.1.2001. The copy of the order dated 19.1....

Union of India and ors. Vs. Sambhu Saran Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT236

ORDERKhan, J. 1. Petitioners are resisting to issue a letter of appointment to Respondent for the post of Jr. Telecom Officer (JTO) because he allegedly did not possess requisite prescribed qualification. But Respondent insists that he possessed the requisite qualification and was eligible for being appointed to the post.2. Respondent was a candidate for the post of JTO pursuant to petitioners advertisement notice dated 19th November, 1995 which prescribed the following qualification for the post.'A candidate must have obtained degree in Engineering in Mechanical, Electrical, Telecommunication, Electronics or Radio Engineering, Computer Sciences from recognised University or equivalent. OR B.Sc./B.Sc (Hons) with physics and Mathematics as main/elective/subsidiary/additional/optional Subjects with 60% marks in the aggregate obtained in each examination of a recognised University.' 3. Respondent applied for the post Along with his certificates/testimonial. He took the written examinatio...

Motor and General Finance Ltd. Vs. M/S. Milap Bus Service (Regd.)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT171; 2002(63)DRJ148

ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J.1. It is a petition under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration act, 1940 for filing of the arbitration agreement in Court and referring the disputes having arisen between the parties to the Arbitrator named in the arbitration agreement.2. The petitioner's case is that the motor vehicle bearing Engine No. ALT-97840, Chasis No. ALC-116066 and Registration No. UT-7686 was given on hire to respondent No.1 by Hire Purchase agreement dated 30th June, 1982. Respondent No.2 had guaranteed the due performance of the said Agreement by respondent No. 1, as mentioned in Clause C said Agreement. Clause VI of the said Agreement provides for reference of disputes to the sole arbitration of one Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate and in the event of his refusal or inability to act as an arbitrator to the sole arbitration of Shri Bal Krishan Jain, Advocate. According to the terms of the said agreement, the respondent No.1 agreed to pay Rs.1,19,680/- in 24 hire Installments. In the ev...

R.K. Gogna Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ505

Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. Trial by General Court Martial was ordered against the petitioner by the respondents. In the said General Court Martial the petitioner was tried on a total of eight charges, six of which were under Section 63 of the Army Act for acts prejudicial to good under and military discipline whereas one of the charges was under Section 45 of the Army Act for behaving in a manner unbecoming of his position and the character expected of his and one under Section 69 of the Army Act for committing civil offence i.e. of abetting an offence specified in Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court returned a verdict of 'not guilty' on all the eight charges. Thereupon the General Officer Commanding 21 Corps, who had ordered the General Court Martial, ordered a Revision General Court Martial, ordered a Revision General Court Martial, after which the court again returned a verdict of 'not guilty' on all the charges. The findings of the General Court Martial were confirmed in ...