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.
K.V. Kohli (Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives Vs. State and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ756
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an application behalf of respondent No. 2 under Section 114 read with Section 151 CPC for review of the order dated 4th December, 2000 whereby the petition was restored purportedly with the consent of the counsel for the respondent No. 2. Main contention of Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned counsel for the respondent is that the power of attorney executed by Mr. Vinod Nair in favor of Mini Kohli is itself invalid and not in accordance with law and thereforee the application moved by Mr. Vinod Nair for restoration of the petition is by an unauthorised person and liable to be dismissed. Relevant facts need to be capitulated in brief.2. The instant probate petition was filed on 2nd December, 1987. The petitioner applied for probate on 22nd July, 1991. The petition was dismissed in default on 13th May, 1992. The application under Order 9 Rule 9 was moved on 17th August, 1993 after a lapse of 15 months by one Shri Vinod Nair claiming to be the attorney of Mini Kohli. O...
Bhai Sardar Singh and Sons. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ767
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Shri R.J. Bakhru had been appointed as an arbitrator by the Engineer Member, Delhi Development Authority to make an award regarding the disputes falling within the purview of clause 25 of the arbitration agreement between the parties. In pursuance of the same, the arbitrator decided the claims and the counter claims and made an award against the Delhi Development Authority amounting to Rs.18,89,998/- with interest at the rate of 18% PA on Rs.14,04,386/- with effect from 13th March, 1986 till the payment is made. The award had been filed and on 26th November, 1998 the Joint Registrar (O) issued notice to the parties without process fees.2. The Delhi Development Authority filed objections to the award referred to above. It has been stated that there is error apparent on the face of the record and the award of the arbitrator is liable to be set aside. It is contrary to the conditions of the contract and in terms of clause 25 of the agreement reasons have not been ...
Shail Kumari Vs. Saraswati Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT131
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. ADMIT.2. On the request of counsel for the parties arguments were heard for final disposal of the matter.3. This revision petition raises a simple as well as a question of great importance to the subordinate courts as to whether in the trial of a civil suit during examination of a witness when a document is tendered in evidence and it is sought to be proved the question of admissibility of that document and marking of the exhibit thereon may be deferred till the stage of hearing of final arguments.4. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration that she was the sole and absolute owner of the disputed wall and also for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from raising any further construction in the suit property. On contest by the respondent the trial court framed the issues. The petitioner did not enter into the witness box herself. She examined her daughter Ms. Geeta Rohtagi as PW-3 to pr...
Anand Wollen Mills (P) Ltd Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: [2002]120TAXMAN790(Delhi)
ORDERAt the instance of the assessed, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 60,000 appearing in the books of the assessed-company and described as share application money could be considered and assessed in the hands of the assessed under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Factual aspects need not be noted in detail in view of the fact that question involved has been adjudicated by a Full Bench of this court in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. : [1994]205ITR98(Delhi) . In view of that decision, inevitable answer is in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessed....
Cit Vs. General Electronics Haryana (P) Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: [2001]120TAXMAN789(Delhi)
ORDERAt the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act):' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessed-company was entitled to depreciation under section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the building which was used for the purpose of its business and which it had acquired on dissolution of the erstwhile partnership of which the assessed was a partner though the building is not registered in assessed's name ?'The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76.2. Essence of dispute is evident from the question itself. We need not go in the factual aspect in detail in view of the fact that the issue involved has been squarely dealt with by the Apex Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT : [1999]239ITR775(SC) . We accordingly answer the ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Hari Shankar Rastogi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Del)290; [2002]254ITR80(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN699(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These eight reference applications involve identical questions and, thereforee, we dispose of the same with this common judgment.2. Accepting the prayer for reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C (in short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of the sum of Rs. 84,000 included by the Wealth-tax Officer in the net wealth of the assessed for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1974-75 ?'3. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1974-75.4. The factual position is almost undisputed and is as follows :The assessed is the son of Jogdhian, who died on May 4, 1965. Jogdhian owned a plot of land measuring 315 sq. yds. which was acquired by the Government and possession was taken on August 3, 1963. The Land Acquisiti...
Archana Publication Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT225; 2002(64)DRJ698
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner company through its director Mrs. Archana Sukhija it is, interalia, alleged that a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') was filed by respondent No.2 on the ground of a cheque for Rs.40,000/- issued by petitioner company having been dishonoured for insufficient funds. At the stage of notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. it was contended before the Trial court that complaint filed on 11th July 1997 was barred by limitation. Complaint is based on third demand notice dated 27th May 1997 served by respondent No.2 on the petitioner. Respondent No.2 had previously served demand notices dated 13th January 1997 and 12th March 1997 on the petitioner. Said objection was, however, repelled by the Trial court by the order dated 17th August 1998. Thereafter another application for dropping proceedings was filed by the petitioner which came to be dismissed on 24th ...
Sanjay Sharma and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT553; 2001(60)DRJ50
ORDERVikramajit sen. J.1. The Petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to regularise the services of the Petitioners on the posts they have been working with effect from the date of their respective appointments and grant them all the consequential benefits including T.A., D.A., HRC, CCA and regular pay scales, which the permanent employees performing the same duties are getting. A writ of certiorari has also been prayed, inter alia, for quashing of service regulations of NIEPA (Respondent No. 2).2. The Petitioners have been working with the Respondent No.2 for several years. It is alleged that the Respondent No. 2 has manipulated and managed breaks in their service so that they cannot claim regular employment for a period of 240 days in a given year. It is stated that the work performed by the Petitioners is of a perennial nature. Hence the practice adopted by the Respondents is not only mala fide but also in violation of the Petitioner...
Smt. Phool Rani Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT55; 2001(60)DRJ480
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal.3. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus to be issued to respondents for permitting the change of trade to the petitioner in respect of ship No.3, Mohan Singh Place, Connaught Place, New Delhi.4. The petitioner happens to be a licensee at the current rate of Rs.625/- per month with stipulated increase of 5% per annum. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner was carrying on the trade of handicrafts and old garments, which has become unprofitable. Hence he applied for change of use. The license permits change of trade to be allowed by the respondents. The petitioner accordingly, submitted an application on 12.6.2001 for grant of license for manufacturing, preparation and sale of articles of food and cold dirks. The said application is still pending. The respondents, in the meantime issued a final show cause notice dated 17.7.2001 whe...
Shri Rajat Mittal Vs. State and Anrs.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas55(Delhi); 94(2001)DLT162; 2001(60)DRJ123
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.294/2000 under Section 420, IPC, P.S. Greater Kailash-I New Delhi.2. On 14th October, 2000 Mr. Rajiv Modi lodged a report with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Delhi, alleging that he knew the petitioner from before; on the basis of the representations made by the petitioner that he had procured big orders for supply of fabrics from Dubai, he had supplied goods worth Rs.36,34,268/- against bills, to the petitioner's firm. For the goods supplied, the petitioner issued two cheques, in the sum of Rs.18.0 lacs and Rs.10.0 lacs. He agreed to pay the balance amount within a month and pledged the original title deeds of his residential property as security. The said cheques were dishonoured for the reason 'account closed'. It was further alleged that, right from the beginning, petitioner's intention was dishonest and he did not intend to make the payment. It is, thus, a...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »