Delhi Court January 2002 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.
Mahavir Prasad Jaipuria Vs. Wto
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN856(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.In this petition, the petitioner has questioned the valuation and final estimates made by the second respondent herein purported to be in terms of section 16A(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 24-3-1979, of the fair market value of the property of the petitioner.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a HUF owning several properties including one at 8, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi. The said property is covered under one lease deed dated 11-6-1923. One-third share of the undivided portion of the property was settled upon petitioner No. 1 by virtue of the trust deed dated 11-11-1974. The said undivided share in the said property was physically divided and partitioned on 21-12-1975 as per the memorandum dated 22-12-1975. The relevant assessment years are 1971-72 to 1977-78, the respective accounting years being ending Diwali 1970 to Diwali 1976. The Valuation Officer estimated the fair market value of the property of the petitioner situated at 8,...
J.N. Sahni Vs. Itat and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)367
S.B. Sinha, C.J.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'ITAT) is empowered to recall its order passed on merit in purported exercise of its jurisdiction under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act is the question involved in this writ petition ?2. Two appeals came up for consideration before the Tribunal at the instance of the petitioner herein in relation to two orders of assessment for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, which were allowed.The petitioner as also the department filed two miscellaneous applications. Before the learned Tribunal the parties purported to have brought to its notice the alleged mistake committed by them. It was held :'After hearing the parties we consider that there appears to be some misunderstanding of the factual position arising in the two cases, namely, of Shri Kohli, the other co-debtor, and Shri Sahni, the assessed before us. This seems to be a case of mistake of both of facts and law and this is a case in which th...
Godrej Ge Appliances Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC550
1. When the application for Stay came up for hearing, it was agreed by both the sides that the appeal itself can be disposed of.2. On going through the order passed by the appellate authority we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the different issues raised in the appeal in the manner in which the appellate authority should consider points raised in the appeal. We find that he has not even entered findings in respect of the issues. The consideration which is confined to the last paragraph of the order is not at all satisfactory. He has not even referred to the claim raised by the appellant regarding deduction of regular trade discount from depot to the dealer. Apart from observing that the turnover tax and sales tax are different, the appellate authority has not looked into the contentions raised by the assessee claiming that what has been paid was turnover tax and whatever claimed by them is also deduction of the turnover tax paid by them. The price lists submitt...
Chambal Fertilizers and Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC549
1. The main contention raised by the appellant before us is that it was not given an opportunity of being heard by the adjudicating authority before order was passed. It is seen that the personal hearing was fixed on 5.12.2000 but the appellant received a notice on 13.12.2000. Under these circumstances, the appellant could not be present for the personal hearing on 5.12.2000 before the adjudicating authority and place all the required facts and contentions in support of its stand.Even though specific contentions were raised in the grounds of appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) about the failure to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant by the adjudicating authority, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) neither referred nor entered a finding on the above contentions.2. We are convinced that there was violation of principles of natural justice at the hands of the adjudicating authority before the order in original was passed. The Commissioner (Appeals) should h...
Amritsar Rubber Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC546
1. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal vide Order Nos. 512-514/99-C, dated 6-7-99 dismissed 3 appeals filed by M/s. Amritsar Rubber Industries in the absence of any explanation for condoning the delay in filing the appeal; that the Appellants neither received any notice of hearing nor they received any notice for explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeals; that in fact, they had not received any Final Order; that they came to know about the Final Order from the letter dated 27-7-2001 received from Suptd., Central Excise only; that in fact, as the department was pressing hard the applicant to make the payment of duty they had contacted Central Registry on 6-4-99 and submitted a demand draft on being directed by the Registry; that they again wrote a letter on 11-9-2000 and made request to grant stay as the department was pressurising them to make the payment. He, therefore, requested that the appeal may be restored to its original number.2...
Union of India Vs. Deo NaraIn and ors. Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)525; 153(2002)DLT582
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This writ petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 13th April 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide OA No. 2146/98 whereby and whereunder the original application filed by the respondents herein was allowed. The application was filed praying for the following reliefs: (a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction of the like nature, quashing the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 13.4.1999 in O.A. No. 2146 of 1998; and, (b) pass such other as may be deemed fir and proper along with the costs to the writ petitioner 2. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. In the year 1992, the respondents joined the offices of the petitioners as lower division clerks on different dates in 1992 on inter-departmental transfers. admittedly, in terms of the existent rules, consequent upon their transfer, they had foregone their respective seniority in their departments and they were placed at the bottom of the seniority list....
Executive Engineer (Training), Cpwd Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)216; 96(2002)DLT721; [2002(93)FLR1230]; (2002)IILLJ360Del
Snajay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Rule. 2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.6.2000 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, an authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 4. Respondent No. 2 was appointed as Chowkidar with CPWD on 16th May, 1981. A circular was issued on 19.9.1986 in respect of provision of overtime allowance of chowkidars. The said circular is as under : 'Chowkidars engaged in the field offices of the C.P.W.D. falling under the schedule employment as listed in the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 were declared entitled for extra wages of Overtime Allowance under Rule 25 of the M.W. (Central) Rules 1950, with effect from 1.1.83 vide Ministry of Works & Housing (now Urban Development) letter No. 28015 (24)/77/EW.4 d...
Union of India Vs. J.S. Arora and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)439; 97(2002)DLT230
ORDER***In partial modification to this officer Office Order of even number dt. 8th November, 1985, Kum. K.S. Visalakshi, F-128, Mohammed Pur, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66 is appointed as Clerk/typist on daily wage basis with effect from the froe-noon of the 26th November, 1985 in place of Kum. Poonam Rani given at S. No. 2 of the Office Order referred to above. The other terms and conditions of the said Office Order remain the same. Sd/- (G. Somasekhar) Assistant Director(Admn.)'6. It is not in dispute that while the afore-mentioned appointment was made only on the basis of interview, the typing test were taken later on, where after Departmental Promotion Committee considered the cases of the respondents who were appointed in the post of lower division clerk on regular scale of pay w.e.f. 12thAugust 1993.7. It appear from the records the that concerned respondents were appointed pursuant to the requisition made on or about 22nd August 1985 which is in the following terms:'Office of the De...
Basant Lal Vs. the Management of A.F. Ferguson and Co. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)93; 96(2002)DLT770; [2002(93)FLR1220]
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The Petitioner by this writ petition assails the order dated November 4, 1999, passed in L.C.A. No. 547/1995 (Old No. 829/84), by which the Labour Court dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). The Labour Court held the application as not maintainable, finding that the claim preferred was outside the ambit and scope of Section 33-C(2)of the Act. 2. The petitioner in the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act had sought computation of his wages for the period May 1984 to September, 1984, claiming a sum of Rs.11,647.50, together with interest at 18 per cent per annum. During the course of the proceedings before the Labour Court, petitioner also furnished details claiming the difference of the salary payable to him and amount paid to him amounting to Rs.1,11,766/- for the period 1.10.1984 to 31.3.1995. 3. The relevant facts culminating in the filing of the present wri...
Amar Singh Vs. Director General (Central Reserve Police Force) and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)1026; 97(2002)DLT364; 2003(1)SLJ207(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.2. The petitioner was called for his promotional medical on 20.1.2001 and 21.1.2001. He was informed through a wireless order that the approval granted in 1999 was withdrawn and that he was required to take all 3 group tests again. The petitioner made an application through proper channel against the same on 16.2.2001 but the same was rejected on 10.4.2001. The petitioner thus approached this court thorough the present writ petition.3. The Standing Order No. 6/99 deals with the eligibility condition for promotion of such candidates. The relevant Clause 2 is as under:-'2. Failure in any group of subjects will be treated as failure in that group only and such candidates maybe re-tested in that group of subject during the final test of next course. However, failure in 2 groups of subjectswill be treated as failure in the whole course and such candidates would be required to undergo the whole courseagain. The entire syllabus has been divided into 3 groups i.e., Group ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »