Delhi Court September 2001 Judgments

Jagan Nath Syal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an application dated 1-4-2001, filed under section 34(1)(e) of the Gift-lax Act, 1958. In continuation another communication dated 6-7-2001 has been filed.2. In the initial application it has been submitted that the law laid down by the Special Bench is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad v. Asstt. CIT [2001] 248 ITR 209' wherein their Lordships have held that the right of membership of a Stock Exchange is a personal privilege granted to a member and it is non-transferable and incapable of alienation by the member or his legal representative or heirs. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Stock Exchange v. Asstt. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 906', relied upon by the Tribunal.3. It is submitted that there is a mistake apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as following the law laid down by the Supreme Court it has to be held...

Smt. Promila Mathur and ors. Vs. Sh. Bhim Chand and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT443; 2001(60)DRJ419

R.C. Jain, J. 1. As the matter has been fully argued on behalf of the parties and with the consent of the parties, this appeal is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission itself.2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 14th, March, 2001 by which the first appeal filed by the appellants herein against the judgment and decree dated 5th October, 1984, passed by the learned trial Court in Suit No. 249/75 has been dismissed.3. Brief facts, leading to the present appeal are that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein had filled a suit for possession in respect of the land measuring 2 Bighas 16 bids was out of Khasra No. 22 which had been leased to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants for a fixed period of 20 years commencing from 3.11.1949 and ending on 2.11.1969 at yearly premium of Rs. 1,000/- with the stipulation that lessee would be entitled to raise the pacca/kuchcha construction on t...

Shri Surender Singh Vs. D.T.C. and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003ACJ803; 94(2001)DLT484; 2002(61)DRJ622

R.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Delhi, dated 2.6.1998, thereby disposing of the claim filed by the appellant herein for compensation amounting to Rs. 2,45,000/- for 40% disability which he incurred on account of the injuries sustained by him to his right foot. On 1.1.92 at about 8.30a.m. when he was alighting from a DTC bus AT I.S.B.T., Delhi and when the driver of the bus is stated to have driven the bus in rash and negligent manner at high speed, thereby crushing his foot. The learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as compensation to the petitioner under the following heads:Loss of earnings 13,692.00Loss of future prospectearning 21,907.00Medical expenses 2,000.00Special diet/conveyance 2,000.00General damages 20,000.00-----------Total 59,599.00-----------Rounded off to Rs. 60,000.002. The tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition til...

Rattan Lal and ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ233

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.8.90 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing their application filed under section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the suit filed by the respondents for dissolution of the partnership firm, M/s. National Refrigeration works and for rendition of accounts. 2. There is prior history of disputes between the parties relating to the said partnership firm of M/s. National Refrigeration Works. The parties are closely related as appellant no.1 and respondent no.1 are brothers while appellants 2 and 3 are the sons of appellant no.1 and respondent no.2 is the sone of respondent no.1. The partnership is stated to have been constituted vide partnership deed dated 26.6.1975 but disputes arose between the partners in the year 1978 resulting in a document dated 18.4.1978 described as Power of Attorney but in terms whereof by mutual consent the dispute were referred for adjudication to the arbitration of Shri...

Vaswa Nand Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT773

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.8.1999 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Crl.A. No. 171 of 1996 arising out of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate held the petitioner guilty under Sections 279/338/304-A, IPC and further vide separate order sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 279, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months; imprisonment of six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 338, IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for two months; imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 304-A, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the conviction on merits but submits that this is a fit case where accused can be admitted to...

Jagan Nath Syal Vs. Asstt. Cgt

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(Del)513

ORDERR.M. Mehta, V.P.This is an application dated 1-4-2001, filed under section 34(1)(e) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958. In continuation another communication dated 6-7-2001 has been filed.2. In the initial application it has been submitted that the law laid down by the Special Bench is contrary to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad v. Asstt. CIT : [2001]248ITR209(SC) wherein their Lordships have held that the right of membership of a stock exchange is a personal privilege granted to a member and it is non-transferable and incapable of alienation by the member or his legal representative or heirs. It is submitted that the Honble Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Stock Exchange Ahmedabad v. Asstt. CIT : [1998]231ITR906(Guj) , relied upon by the Tribunal.3. It is submitted that there is a mistake apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as following the law laid down by the S...

Sunil Mehdiratta Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT537; 2002(61)DRJ545; 2002(79)ECC767; 2002(146)ELT281(Del)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. All these five cases involve identical issues and are, thereforee, taken up for disposal together. Seagram Manufacturing Limited, the petitioner in Crl. Writ Petition No. 58/2001, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Sunil Mehdiratta, petitioner in Crl. Writ No. 870/2001 is the Head of the Management System of the Companies. Param Uberoi, petitioner in Crl Writ No. 57/2001 is the Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Harvinder Singh Bhatia, petitioner in Crl. Writ No. 58/2001 is the Controller-Finance of the Company. Akram Fahami, petitioner in Crl. Writ 870/2001 is the Chairman of the company.2. In each of the writ petitions, prayer is made to quash the criminal complaint instituted by Shri Kamal Kumar, Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM),Delhi on 22.12.2000. Process has been directed to be issued after cognizance was taken of several offences. ...

Monu Mehta Vs. M.C.D.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ82

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondent to allot the petitioner an alternate parking site since the respondent failed to hand over the physical possession of the parking site at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg.3. Respondent/MCD had invited tenders for the said parking site on 18.3.1999, for a period of two years. Petitioner was the successful bidder and his bid was accepted. Petitioner deposited Rs.2,85,600/- as security being 10 per cent of the tender amount. Petitioner also deposited security of Rs.5,21,400/-, equivalent to six months license fee. Petitioner also paid in addition one month's license fee, in advance, of Rs.86,900/-, making it a total of Rs.8,16,860/-.4. Respondent on account of certain protests from the adjoining occupants of the buildings decided that the area should be a free parking rather than a charged parking. In t...

Daewoo Anchor Electronics Ltd. Vs. S.L. Bhalla and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT66; 2001(60)DRJ597

Vijender Jain, J. 1. The present Suit has been filed for recovery, declaration and permanent injunction by the plaintiff, inter-alia, praying for the following relief:-(a) pass an order and decree in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants for Rs. 34,72,250/- along with 24% interest on Rs. 28,24,250/- from the date of filing of the suit till the actual payment (particulars stated in Annexure 'L'). (b) pass an order and decree of declaration declaring that the lease has been properly and validly terminated by Plaintiffs. (c) pass an order and decree of permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants, his servants, agents and anyone claiming through or under them from entering upon and/ or disturbing or interfering the possession and occupation of the said premises of the plaintiff unless the amount claimed in prayer (a) above is paid in full and without the due process of law. 2. The defendant field an application under Order 7 that same does not dis...

J.M. Ramachandra and Sons Vs. Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appell ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT217; 2002(80)ECC72; 2002(139)ELT36(Del)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') challenge is to the order dated 9th November 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') refusing to condone the delay in filing of the appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the 'Act) and consequentially directing dismissal thereof.2. Factual background highlighted by the petitioner is essentially as follows:Petitioner, a trading unit, imported a consignment of 44000 pieces of video cassettes of make of Panasonic NV, E-180, from the United Arab Emirates. A bill of entry bearing No. 238737 was filed at the Chennai Customs House of clearance. An audit of the bill of entry in respect of the declaration made by the petitioner was conducted and it was found that the concerned goods were covered by Tariff heading 8523.90. The Customs Authorities were of the view that there was discrepancy in the d...