Delhi Court September 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Teletube Electronics Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: (2002)80ITD251(Delhi)
1. The following issues have arisen in this appeal for our consideration : "1. Whether the transaction between the assesses and M/s Samcor Glass Ltd. (in short "SQL") tantamounts to transaction of lease of land, building thereon and plant and machinery or sale of plant and machinery only. 2. Whether the transaction of lease falls within the ambit of the word 'transfer' as defined in Section 2(47) of the IT Act, 1961 (In short' 1961 Act'). 3. If yes, whether the object of transfer falls within the definition of 'capital asset' under Section 2(14) of 1961 Act. 4. Whether consideration arising from such transaction is chargeable to tax under Section 45, r/w Section 50 of 1961 Act." 2. The brief facts as gathered from the orders of lower authorities and the material placed before us may be narrated thus. During the financial year 1983-84, the assessee had set up a new industrial undertaking at SPA 496/497, RIICO Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Distt.Alwar, Rajasthan, for the manufacture of glas...
Jagdish Ambedkar Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT508; 2001(60)DRJ810
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Crl. Writ Petition No. 188/2000 under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner with the prayers as under:-(A) A writ in the nature of Certiorari, directing the respondent to place before this Hon'ble court the entire proceedings in the matter mentioned in the petition, including the impugned orders annexed as Annexure (D) and (E) to the petition, for quashing the same. (B) A writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent to observe strictly the statutory provisions and judicial rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble court relating to the criminal trial proceedings during the trial of matter mentioned in the petition. (C) An interim order restraining the respondent to proceed further with the matter involved in the present petition, pending decision to this Hon'ble court. (D) Any such other or further order as their Lordships may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances as stated above.' 2. In...
Sh. Vijender Kumar JaIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT392
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 10th April 2001 of an Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 27/2000 filed by the petitioner-accused against the judgment and order dated 22nd April 1995 of a Metropolitan Magistrate convicting and sentencing him as under:-Section 419 IPC - RI for six months andfine of Rs. 1,000/-. Indefault of payment offine to undergo SI forone month.Section 468 IPC - RI for six months andfine of Rs. 2,000/-. Indefault of payment offine to undergo SI for3 months.Section 12(b) - RI for 2 months and finePassport Act, 1967 of Rs. 1,000/-. Indefault of payment offine to undergo SI forone month.2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during search of residential premises of petitioner at 2294, Gali Pahar Wali, Dharampura by the officials of Directorate of Enforcement, one passport in the name of R.K. Gupta with photograph of petitioner on it was recovered together with foreign currency and gold. On ...
Shri Prem Sagar Khanna Vs. Shri Ravi Khanna and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi98
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction. Para-19 of the plaint contains the prayer clause which reads as under 'a. a decree for declaration be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants holding that the oral family arrangement dated 2nd August, 1986 is final and binding on the parties in all respects. In the alternative it is prayed that a preliminary decree for partition be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants 1 to 5 in relation to property bearing No. 64, Golf Link,New Delhi , A-140, Niti Bagh, New Delhi and 27 acres of agricultural land in Village Mohd Amin Khan, Tehsil Najibabad, District Bijnor, UP and declare the share of each of the parties to the said properties. b. Thereafter this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint a Local Commissioner to suggest the mode of partition. c. pass a final decree for partition in relation to the above properties and put the pl...
The Management of M/S K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. Vs. Nirmal Chawla a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT491
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. Every litigant, especially one appearing in person believes (and I think rightly) that the hearing of his or her case is the most important event of the day. It is sometimes difficult to limit the submissions of such a litigant. The adverse effect of this, which has happened in the present case, is the undue prolongation of the hearing. Arguments in this case would have normally concluded in a couple of days; but, since Respondent No. 1 was represented by her husband, who was so full of the case that the arguments stretched interminably.2. In fact, on 24th November, 2000 I was compelled to pass the following order:-'Further arguments heard. The husband of the workman has been continuously addressing the Court on the last three dates. He has been repeatedly told that if the case does not finish on this side of the vacations, it will have to be released from 'part heard'. The oral observations have had no effect and that is why it has been put down in the form o...
Maxwell Securities Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. National Stock Exchange of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ685
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads:- '10. Stay of suit - No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in (India) having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of (India) established or continued by (the Central Government (***) and having like jurisdiction, or before (the Supreme Court).' 2. The ingredients of the same have been elucidated by this court in the case of C L Tandon v. Prem Pal Singh : AIR1978Delhi221 to be:- '(a) The matter/matters in issue should be substantially the same in the two suits; (b) The previously instituted suit should be pending in the same Court in which the subsequent suit is brought or in another court i...
Amar Singh and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT869
Manmohan Sarin, J Rule.1. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to perform their statutory duties. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondent No. 1 to immediately remove the unauthorised constructions allegedly raised by respondents 2 to 4 on premises bearing No. 11671, Gali No. 1 Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.(3). I have heard Mr. S.S. Gautam, counsel for the petitioners, at length, Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted before me that respondents 2 to 4 have been in collusion with the staff of MCD and have carried out unauthorised construction int he said premises which is adjoining to petitioners remises No. 11672. According to him there has been flagrant violation of the bye laws. Respondents 2 to 4 have constructed the basement immediately next to the petitioner's property and have gone below the plinth level ind...
Cimmco Birla Limited Vs. the State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT163
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner has challenged the legality of the Terms of Reference dated 3.1.2001 and the Order dated 5.1.2001 passed under Sub-section 3 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Briefly stated it is the Petitioner's contention firstly that the entire dispute between the parties ought to have been referred for industrial adjudication and secondly that the Government was not competent to pass an Order prohibiting the 'lock-out' unless the question of the existence and/or legality of the Lock-out had also been referred for adjudication. The principle that jural scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution is permissible is now firmly entrenched in industrial jurisprudence. A Full Bench of this Court had expressed this opinion in M/s. India Tourism Development Corporation New Delhi v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Others, 1982 LAB I.C. 1309 when it quashed a Reference which did not encompass the real dispute between the parties, viz. whether there was...
B.K. Vashisht Vs. East International Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 95(2001)DLT716
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking filing of the award and for making it a rule of the court. In pursuance of the same notices had been issued and objections have been filed by the respondent under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act). It has been asserted that the arbitrator had committed an error in not awarding the claim of the objectors towards load port claims and acted contrary to the terms of the charter party relating to load port laytime calculations. By not accepting the load port laytime calculations of the objectors the arbitrators travelled beyond the scope of the charter party and acted against the terms of the contract between the parties. Similarly it is asserted that they committed an error apparent in not awarding the claim of the charterers towards discharge port claims relating to discharge port laytime calculations. They committed grave error in awarding the claim ...
Ramesh Gupta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT167; 2001(60)DRJ366
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This revision petition seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Crl. A. No. 33/99 whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the judgment and order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 16.8.89 in Complaint Case No. 19/88 holding the petitioner guilty under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the basis of a finding that the sample of mustard oil purchased from him on 3.11.1988 by Food Inspector OPS Ahalawat was fond on analysis to be adulteries, in violation of the provisions of Section 2(ia)(a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and vide order dated 18.8.1989, sentenced the petitioner to RI for on year with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months. 2. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the sample sent to the Public Analyst was OSA/52-87, which sample tested was not in accordance with the prescribed limits under the Act. The petitioner exe...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »