Delhi Court August 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.
Bimla Devi Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT692
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. In this petition the prayer is for the employment of the Petitioner on compassionate grounds, consequent upon the death of her husband on 17.12.1991, after he had put in sixteen years of service. This request was not acceded to by the respondent thus necessitating the filing of the present writ petition. Similar questions had also arisen in C.W.P. 7694/99 and C.W.P. 422 of 2000 which had been disposed off by a common judgment dated 19.7.2001. In order to avoid prolixity and repetition, that judgment is appended hereto, so that the reasoning and precedents on this issue can be appreciated. On a reading thereof it will be evident that the present case is almost on all fours with that of Shri Vir Mohammad.2. Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned counsel for the Petitioner has stressed upon the fact that the Respondent had not adhered to their Policy Regarding Compassionate Appointment, and in particular the following Clause:'(k) Not to wait for applications to be received fr...
Narender Kumar and Another Vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT534; 2001(60)DRJ286
ORDERK.S.Gupta, J.1. This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed alleging that on the complaint made by Narender Kumar, petitioner No.1, FIR No. 25 of 1996 was registered under sections 147/148/149/452/323/34 IPC at PS Dabri Against Dr. Janak Raj Dhami, petitioner No.2 and others.Based on this FIR, chargesheet under sections 147,148,149,452,323,325 and 34 IPC had been filed against the accused. In the occurrence dated 9th January 1996 both the parties had assaulted each other thereby causing injuries to Ved Prakash,Bhuvnesh kumar, Smt. Durga Devi and petitioner No.2. With a view to maintain cordial relations the petitioner No.1 has compromised the matter with petitioner No.2 and he is no more desirous in continuing with the criminal case. It was prayed that said FIR No, 25/96 and criminal proceedings emanating there from pending before Ms Swaranjit Kaur Mehra, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi may be quashed.2. Along with petition, the affidavits of both the petitioners, Ved...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. the Workmen C/O Water and Sewage La ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ178
ORDERDr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present petition is directed against the award dated 31.1.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Delhi in I.D. Case No.85/1987. By the aforesaid award the Tribunal issued a direction to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to fix the pay scale of Laboratory Technicians in the pay scale of Rs.380-560 from the date the report of the Third Pay Commission was implemented by the petitioner.2. The Laboratory Technicians working with the Water Supplies and Sewage Disposal Undertaking were getting the pay scale of Rs.130-300 prior to the year 1973. The said Undertaking is a legal entity by itself and has its own Service Rules. In the meantime the Third Pay Commission was constituted and it gave the recommendations regarding pay structures. In the meeting of Delhi Water Supplies and Sewage Disposal Undertaking held on 17.2.1975 it was resolved that the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission for various posts including the posts of...
Shri Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ43
ORDERKhan, J.1. Petitioner was regularly promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Group-B) by order dated 10.7.96 subject to the condition that 'he was not undergoing any punishment in D&AR;/Vig'. His promotion was later converted into 'adhoc' on noticing the he was facing a prosecution case at the time of his empanelment in Group-B service. It was accordingly made clear to him by letter dated 23.8.1999 that his promotion was purely on adhoc basis and until further orders. He was subsequently reverted by order dated 6.9.1999 to the post of Chief Bridge Inspector (Group-C).2. He challenged this is OA 1989/99 before CAT, New Delhi on the plea that his substantive promotion had vested certain rights in him which could not be taken away without enquiry and hearing to him. His petition was opposed by respondents on the plea that he was erroneously promoted due to wrong clearance by vigilance and that once this mistake was discovered, it was rectified by reverting him. Reliance in support...
Shri Het Ram and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ754
ORDERKhan, (J) 1. Petitioner no.2 is the father of petitioner no.1. He lost his leg while in service and subsequently retired on 31.3.1995. Petitioner no.1 (son) applied for compassionate appointment on 31.3.1995 itself. He case was not allegedly considered by respondents and he filed O.A. 1261/1995 for this which was rejected by impugned order dated 29.6.1998 on the ground that his father had retired on superannuation and not medical incapacitation as contemplated by Railways Master Circular dated 12.12.1990. Hence this petition.2. Petitioner's short case is that the aforesaid circular did not provide for compassionate appointment on Railway servant retiring on medical incapacitation. L/C for petitioner, Ms. Ramakrishnan has taken us through various provisions of this Circular to show that the retirement of medical incapacitation was not there.3. Mr. Krishna representing respondents on the other hand took pains to bring out the real intent of the Circular to show that no compassion co...
Rajesh Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR213(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the directions given by this court, the following questions have been referred at the instance of the assessed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no goodwill attached to the assessed's cinema theatre known as Apsara 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessed's method of evaluation of goodwill was not the correct method, according to the recognised principles of evaluation of goodwill ?' 2. The assessment year involved is 1972-73. 3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows : The assessed, a registered firm, started film exhibition business with effect from October 9, 1969. The land was acquired in the year 1967 and late...
National Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR489(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN721(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat C. J. 1. Since the points at issue in all the three references are similar, we dispose of the same by this common judgment.2. At the instance of the assessed, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (the 'Tribunal' in short) :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessed-company had business connections with Nittetsu Mining Consultants Co. Ltd. of Japan and, thereforee, liable to be treated as their agents under Section 163 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment proceedings could be validly started by treating the assessed-company as an agent of the non-resident party even after it had deducted income-tax at source according to the orders made by the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. JaIn Brothers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR655(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. These three reference applications involve identical questions and are, thereforee, disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Pursuant to the direction given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), by order dated October 21, 1981, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D ('the Tribunal' in short), has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 46,135, Rs. 52,210 and Rs. 58,065 for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, respectively, levied under Section 271(1)(c) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did not the Income-tax Officer have jurisdiction to initiate the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) again, after he had decided the case afresh ?' 3. The factual position is almost undisputed and is as follows : For the three...
Cit Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR218(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) by the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case on the interpretation of clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9 and clause (vi) of sub-section (9) of section 10 of the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that 1897 paid by BHEL to NEL represented remuneration for services rendered by two of NEL's experts and was exempt under section 10(6)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and did not constitute technical fee taxable under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act ?'The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :2. The assessed, Bharat Heavy Electricals is a Government of India undertaking, manufacturing heavy electrical equipment. It needed two experts of Nati...
Cit Vs. Pipeline Technologists Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN477(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. Heard. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C, for opinion of this court 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 correct in law in directing the Income Tax Officer to limit the additions to the income of the assessed to the actual tax paid by the ONGC on behalf of the assessed-company ?'2. Factual aspects need not be noted in detail in view of the decision of this court in Frank Beaton v. CIT : [1985]156ITR16(Delhi) . In view of the said decision, answer to the question referred is in the affirmative, in favor of assessed and against the revenue. 3. The reference stands disposed of....
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »