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.
Patrick Bruno Wafula Vs. Department of Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT221; 2001(60)DRJ439; 2001(78)ECC698
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal 120/97 seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No.170/94, whereby the learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 9.12.1996 has found the appellant guilty under Section 21/28 and 23 of the NDPS Act and further by order dated 11.12.1996 has imposed a sentence of ten years and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three years.2. The brief facts of the case as have been noticed by the Additional Sessions Judge are as follows:-'When the accused was apprehended, he was asked whether he was carrying any narcotic drug to which he replied in negative and thereafter, the Custom Officer asked him to identify his checked-in baggage which was identified by the accused i.e. a black colour Zipper bag (Hazard make) Ex. P.10 bearing Tag No. LH-402387 Ex.P4 which tallied with baggage stub no LTL 402387 Ex.P5 and which the accused opene...
M/S. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT492; 2001(60)DRJ776
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) following question has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (in short, the `Tribunal'):-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was not entitled to the deduction of Rs.21,110/ paid by it as commission for renting office premises on the ground that the said payment was in the nature of capital expenditure?The dispute relates to assessment year 1070-71.2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows:assessed a public limited company claimed deduction of Rs. 23735/- as commission for renting office premises. Rs. 2625/- was paid for renting office premises at 12-13/F, Connaught Place New Delhi. These premises were coveted on 14.9.1969 and new office premises were taken on the first floor of Allahabad bank Bldg, 17 Parliament St...
Shri K.R. Malhotra and Others Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR1198]
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Respondents/DVB. He is presently in Class-I service as a Private Secretary. His contention is that in conformity with the Report of the DESU Wage Revision Committee (Also known as Justice J.D. Jain Committee), once a promotee officer (such as the Petitioner) enters into Class-I service in his own right or in the time bound promotional scale, he should be dealt at par with the direct recruits in that grade for the purposes of all benefits of next promotional scale. It is his grievance that this recommendation is not being implemented by the Respondents.2. Mr. V.K. Shali, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted that a perusal of the Office Order dated 23.7.1997 would make it evident that the recommendations of the Jain Committee were not accepted in toto. The relevant Office Order is reads as follows:'4. The benefit of time-bound promotional scale shall be given to all the emplo...
Delhi Cantonment Board Vs. M/S. Daulat Rai and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ167
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. It is contended by counsel for the applicant/petitioner that under sub-section 3 of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the period prescribed to file an application for setting aside the award, is three months, the proviso gives power to the Court that in cases where the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause where the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making such application within the said period of three months, the court may entertain the application within a period of 30 days. It was contended that after the said period of one month has expired, Section 43 of the said Act provides that the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to arbitration as it applies to proceedings in Court and on that basis the delay in filing objections may be condoned. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the legislature by inserting Section 43 in the Act has applied the Limitation Act to the proceedings which are filed in this Court and, ...
Union of India Vs. M/S Goyal Enterprises and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ45
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Pursuant to the notice for making the award dated 15th December, 1992 a rule of the Court the respondent has challenged its validity by filing the objections through is 2698/96. These, in brief, are as under:- i) That no notice under Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act by the Arbitrator was served on the respondent before making and publishing the award. ii) That the respondent vide letter dated 21st September, 1992 wrote to the Arbitrator for supply of copies of the documents from the petitioner. Thereby acting upon the said request of the respondent the Arbitrator asked the petitioner to supply copies of all the documents addressed to the respondent in connection with the case. iii) That the respondent vide letter dated 9th October, 1992 wrote to the Arbitrator that the copies of the documents from the petitioner have still not been received with the result the respondent was not in a position to file his counter statement of facts and claim and requested t...
Katherine Vs. Mr. Samuel Denial @ Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT371; II(2001)DMC697
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (for short 'Act') or in the alternative for judicial separation under Sections 22 and 23 of the Act. The petitioner is the wife of respondent who are Christians by religion. It is stated in the petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 20th October, 1993 at Sacred Heart Cathedral, Delhi in accordance with the Christian Marriage Laws, customs and ceremonies. They do not have any children out of their wedlock. The status, age and place of residence of the petitioner and the respondent before marriage and at the time of presentation of petition are as under:PETITIONER/WIFE RESPONDENT/HUSBAND----------------------------------------------------Status Age Place of Status Age Place ofresidence residence----------------------------------------------------Before Marriage Christian 20 yrs. Type-II Christian 27 yrs. D-4/391Bachelor Qtr.11 SultanpuriJalvihar Delh...
Shakuntla Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)651; [2002]253ITR450(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN467(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. In these two references, one each at the instance of the assessed and another at the instance of the Revenue, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), the following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest on the two amounts of Rs. 95,000 and Rs. 96,001 lying in the accounts of the two minors, Shri Roop Kishore and Shri Satish Chand Rastogi, respectively, in the partnership firm of Satish Chand Trilok Chand was not includible in the hands of the assessed under Section 64(1)(iii) of the Act of 1961 for the assessment year 1976-77 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the inclusion of the interest in the hands of the assessed on the...
Bips Systems Limited Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT10; 2001(59)DRJ686
ORDER1. This case is directed against the orders dated 15.2.2000 and 24th April, 2000 of the Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the Metropolitan Magistrate has given a date for further proceedings which is beyond 9 months. On the basis of this petition, a report was called for from the Metropolitan Magistrate who submitted the status report according to which certain difficulties were pointed out besides work-load. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate also pointed out that considerable time was lost at the pre-summoning stage due to requirement of Section 200, Cr.P.C. whereby the complainant and his witnesses are required to be examined on (sic) by the Metropolitan Magistrate. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also for the State and have gone through the procedure that is causing this delay. Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 may be referred to as under: Section 142: 'Cognizance of offences--Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal ...
Cit Vs. Megaska International (India) (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN466(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to(i) investment allowance under section 32A(2)(b)(iii); and(ii) relief under section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'The dispute relates to the assessment year 1978-79.2. Factual position in a nutshell, as is indicated in the statement of the case, is as follows:assessed is a private limited company and was, at the relevant point of time, engaged in the business as a building contractor. Its accounting period ended on 30-9-1977. It undertook a sub-contract from Engineering Projects (India) Ltd., New Delhi, a Government of India undertaking, for the construction of 350 dwelling units at Ardiya (Helder) Housing Project, Kuwait. It claimed investment allowance on bui...
Cit Vs. Bhandari Homoeopathic Laboratories
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN478(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Heard the learned counsel for the revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed in spite of notice. The present dispute relates to assessment year 1972-73. In the assessed's own case, for the earlier year, matter was under consideration of this court. By order dated 11-8-1981 in IT Reference Nos. 230-231 of 1975 and 249 and 285 of 1975, the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The said decision shall operate in respect of this reference also.2. Reference stands disposed of....
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »