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.
Cit Vs. Sir Shankar Lal Foundation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN723(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Heard.2. At the instance of the revenue, the following questions have 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':'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessed was not covered by section 13(2)(h) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or any other provisions of section 13 and thereby allowing the claim for exemption from tax of its dividend income under section 11 of the Income Tax Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Orissa Textile Mills Ltd. was not a prohibited concern as the persons specified in section 13(3) did not have a substantial interest within the meaning of clause (i) of Explanationn 3 to section 13 of the Act and, accordingly, treating the assessed's income as exempt under section 11 of the Income...
Cit Vs. V.S. Bhagat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN726(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Heard.These three reference applications have been referred on the motion of the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench A and following questions have been referred for opinion of this court pertaining to the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 :For the assessment year 1970-71'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that commission only at the rate of 1/2 per cent for assessment year 1970-71 on the company's business receipts was assessable in the assessment of the assessed ?'For the assessment year 1971-72'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that commission only at the rate of 1/4 per cent for assessment year 1971-72 on the company's business receipts was assessable in the assessment of the assessed ?'For the assessment year 1972-73'Whether, on th...
In Re, Pro-quip Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)531
RulingSuhas C. Sen, J.The following two questions have been raised by the applicant Pro-Quip Corporation USA for advance ruling :'1. Whether the applicant is liable to tax on the amount received from Linde Process Technologies India Ltd. towards consideration for the sale of engineering, drawings and designs received under Purchase Order No. 19004, dt. 11-12-1998, of Linde Process Technologies India Ltd.?2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the refund of the tax, deducted by Linde Process Technologies India Ltd. calculated at the rate of 15 per cent on the part of the total remittance of US 8 2,59,875 together with interest on delayed payment of tax deducted at source already deposited with bank by the said company aggregating to Rs. 17,10,525 ?2. The case of the applicant is that it is resident in the United States of America. It was incorporated in the State of Oklahoma, United States of America, on 25-6-1969, under the name of Pro-Quip. Inc. The said corporation filed the Amended...
Shyam Sunder Sharma and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ517; 94(2001)DLT56; 2001(60)DRJ774
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. Admit. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the orders dated 27.2.2001 and 9.4.2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the learned Judge has framed charge against the petitioners herein.3. It is contended before me on behalf of the petitioners that on the facts and circumstances of this case, no charge can be sustained as the NOC issued by the 1st petitioner was for the period from 1st April, 1995 to 31st March, 1996 vide letter dated 28th September, 1995 while the second petitioner issued NOC for the period from 1st April, 1996 to 31st March, 1997 vide letter dated 25th September, 1996 and that the occurrence, which resulted in the death of 59 persons, took place on 13th June, 1997. He submits that none of the acts of the petitioners are proximate enough to bring them within the mischief of Section 304-A IPC.4. It is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the CBI, that the petitioners are liable for th...
Shri Ved Bhushan Sharma Vs. University of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT181
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. The controversy in the present case revolves around the question as to whether the Petitioner had been appointed to an ex cadre post of Senior Technical Assistant (for handling GLC Counters). If this is so, the Petitioner's contention that he cannot be assigned any other duties may be correct. In terms of the Respondents' Notice dated 4th October, 1999 the Petitioner was directed to join a team which was invested with the task 'to expedite the long-pending and urgent Stock Verification (both consumables and non-consumables) in the department.' The Petitioner remonstrated against this Notice the very next day, inter alia, stating that his 'appointment was for the instruments i.e. HPLC, Scintillation Counters etc.' in which he had developed expertise. It appears that the Petitioner, despite his objections, joined the stock verification duty. Respondent No. 3, Head of Department, Department of Zoology, University of Delhi appears to have failed to address the fu...
Jasbir Singh Malik Vs. State (Cbi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)535; 95(2001)DLT747; 2002(62)DRJ116
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 1995 seeks to challenge thejudgment and order dated 26.9.1990 of the Special Judge in Session Case No. 40/1994 whereby the learned Judge held appellants, Jasbir Singh Malik and Chhabi LalBhardwaj, guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 342 and 304 Part-II, IPCread with Section 34, IPC while R.S. Yadav was held guilty under Section 218, IPC.Further by order dated 30.9.1995 the learned Judge sentenced Jasbir Singh Malik topay a fine of Rs. 3,50,000/- under Section 304 Part-II and Section 342, Part-II and Section 342, IPC and indefault of payment of fine to undergo RI for two years; Chhabi Lal Bhardwaj wassentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergoRI for one year while R.S. Yadav was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and indefault of payment of fine to undergo RI for six months. 2. The facts of the case are that CBI registered a case pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in W.P. No...
Smt. Promila and Another Vs. Dcm Financial Services Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas358(Delhi); 93(2001)DLT394; 2001(60)DRJ229
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The applicants Smt. Promila and Shri Ram Prakash Gupta are sister and brother. They jointly deposited with the DCM Financial Services Limited (hereinafter refereed to as the Company) six fixed deposits on 'either or survivor basis'. The said fixed deposits matured on 29.09.1998 and the total maturity amount of Rs. 1,31,796/- became payable to the applicants. When the company defaulted repayment of the deposits to depositors like the applicants, the depositors started sending applications to the Company Law Board praying for suitable directions to the Company under Section 45QA of the Reserved Bank of India Act. Before the Company Law Board the Company submitted that it was not only capable of repaying the deposits but also interested in discharging its liability that towards the fixed deposits. However, it was also submitted that such repayment would be possible only within a period of time and not immediately when the deposits matured for repayment. 'The Compa...
Shri Ram Lal and Another Vs. Shri Dharam Vir
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4507; 93(2001)DLT702; 2001(60)DRJ152
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 13th October, 1997 passed by the court of Ms.I.K.Kochhar, ASJ, New Delhi dismissing the revision petition, against the conditional order dated 15th July, 1997, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (for short 'SDM'), directing petitioners to remove the obstruction/blockage on the public passage (path) within seven days. The matter was kept pending for final decision on merits, after the detailed enquiry.2. Briefly stated the facts are: that Dharambir (respondent No.1) lodged the complaint under Section 133 Cr.P.C. alleging that petitioner Ram Lal and his son Braham Singh, were erecting pillars, on 32 feet wide public passage, situated in Khasra Nos. 41 & 42 of Village Bhatti which leads to their farm house in Khasra No.890/900/901/902/909/913/916 of Village Fatehpur Beri, and that they were trying to encroach upon the public passage by putting an iron grill gate and by puce wall.3. Report ...
Shanti Sports Club and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ16
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J. 1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4777/93 and 3277/2000. Civil Writ Petition No. 4777/93, which is prior in time, was filed by the petitioner, Shanti Sports Club, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 through its President, Sh.Satish Khosla and petitioner Sh.Sunil Nagar, Member and Secretary thereof inter alias for quashing the acquisition proceedings in respect of land bearing khasra nos. 35, 369/36, 37, 38, 367/21 and 365/33 located in village Masudpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi and for restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and the functioning of the petitioner society in respect of the sports club created on the aforesaid land. The writ petition also seeks direction to the respondents requiring them to consider the release of the land in question from acquisition. The prayer clause of the writ petition reads as follows:-(a) require the respondent authorities to consider on an urgent basis any...
Allahanoor @ Kallu Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT321; II(2001)DMC426; 2001(59)DRJ837
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 25.9.2000, passed by the Court of Smt. Sunita Gupta, ASJ, Delhi, framing of charge under Section 366 and 376(2)(g) of the IPC, against the petitioner in case FIR No. 82/98, P.S. Hari Nagar.2. Prosecution's allegations are that on 12.2.1998, Smt. Laxmi Devi lodged a report at Police Station Hari Nagar, alleging that her daughter Kusum was married to Rajesh S/o Shiv Nadan, on 9.10.1997. After the marriage her father-in-law, started harassing her daughter for dowry (gold kangan) and she was sent back. On 16.1.1998, she was taken back but her in-laws continued to harass her. After 28th January, 1998, she went to the matrimonial home of her daughter. Her daughter was not found there. Her son-in-law, Rajesh informed her that his father Shiv Nandan had gone with Kusum on the previous night without informing him. Complainant searched for her daughter but she could not be found. Ultimat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »