Delhi Court November 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.
Tele Tube Electronics Ltd. Vs. Delhi Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT337; 2003(67)DRJ68; [2003]132STC424(Delhi)
Sharda Aggarwal, J.1. The present writ petition has been directed against a common order dated 31st January, 2001 of respondent No. 1 dismissing the petitioner's applications being reference No. 13-14-15-16/SII/97 under Section 45(1) of Delhi Sales Tax Act (in short DST Act), being barred by limitation.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner, dealing in the business of picture tubes, was being assessed under the Local and Central Sales Tax Act. The assessment order pertaining to assessment year 1984-85 (L & C) had been framed on 31st March, 1989. As the petitioner had failed to produce the statutory forms during the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Authority, the Assessing Authority had created additional demand in the sum of Rs. 5,20,116/- under the Local Act and Rs. 14,817.60 paise under the Central Act for the said assessment year. Similarly, the Assessing Authority raised additional tax demand with regard to the assess...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. L.P. Naithani and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ319
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The matter in controversy dealing with the issue of the notice under Section 126 of the DMC Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) dealing with the same society in question now stands fully settled by the judgment in CR 1237/1997 MCD v. R K Jain decided on 22.7.2002 and CWP No. 5872/99 decided on on 13.8.2002. Thus the same directions are liable to be issued in the present petition.2. Learned counsel for the respondent however, disputes the aforesaid position on the basis that the judgment in CR 1237/1997 was per incuriam being in conflict with certain statutory provisions as also contrary to an earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Justice K S Gupta v. MCD : 83(2000)DLT644 . Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in A R Antulay v. R S Nayak and Anr. : 1988CriLJ1661 and Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Ors...
Ex. Rect. Lachhman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)SLJ237(Delhi)
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Under the garb of discipline, the disciplined force cannot be allowed to loose its human face. If young recruits to such a Force are dismissed or removed at the drop of hat on the whimsicality of the governing or commanding authority, it is likely to produce a negative effect and shudder the young aspirants from joining Armed Forces particularly the Army even if they have will to serve the nation. Even otherwise the unemployment scenario of this country is so deplorable and dismal that even the highly educated persons are begging for lowly jobs. Though this aspect cannot be lost sight of while dealing with disciplinary action against the delinquent particularly when action is culminated into removal from service yet discipline cannot be sacrificed at the altar of humanitarian considerations.2. Here is a young boy who was enrolled in Army at an age of 21 years as a recruit but was dismissed from service after being convicted by summary court martial after six months of...
Ex. Nb. Sub. Mahesh Anand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ94; 2003(1)SLJ105(Delhi)
Khan, J.1. Petitioner is clamouring for pension and respondents are denying it to him for shortfall of 254 days in his qualifying service under the relevant rules. He wants this shortfall to be condoned or his previous service rendered in Navy to be counted towards his qualifying service.2. Petitioner first joined Navy on 2.3.1956. He was discharged from there on 5.6.1957 after 1 year 103 days for professional unsuitability. He was later enrolled in the Army (Corps of Signals) on 25.6.1957 for 20 years combined colour and reserved service. He, however, failed to indicate the service rendered by him in the Navy in the enrollment form. Meanwhile, while he was serving in the Army, he was selected for a contract service in defense Services of Zambia. He claims that he was sponsored and selected by Government of India through Army Headquarters and to fulfill the international commitments after thorough screening and tough competition and that the whole process in this regard was carried out...
Resham Singh and Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Daewoo Motors India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]116CompCas529(Delhi); 2003(66)DRJ511; [2003]41SCL284(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This Winding-up Petition has been filed under Section 433(e) and 433(1)(a) of the Companies Act with the grievance that the Respondent is liable to pay the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 26,68,000/- (Rs. Twenty Six Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousands only) along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The Claim is premised on two Bills dated 31.12.1996 and 15.5.1997 for a sum of Rs. 9,73,500/- (Rs. Nine Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Five Hundred only) and Rs. 16,95,000/- (Rs. Sixteen Lakhs Ninety Five Thousands only) respectively. It has been vehemently argued that despite several written reminders, payments in respect of these Bills have not been released. Despite its delivery the Statutory Notice dated 22nd March, 1999, has similarly failed to elicit any response. It is further contended that upon a perusal and consideration of the defense put forward, the present Petition deserves to be allowed.2. On behalf of the Petitioner the following cases have been relied upon.1. : A...
Sumer Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ79Del; 2003(1)SLJ108(Delhi)
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Petitioner was removed from service on account of unauthorised absence of 8 months as a result of enquiry. He has filed this petition challenging the dismissal on the ground that no show cause notice was ever issued to him nor any enquiry was initiated. On the other hand the respondents stand is that he was given various opportunities but he did not participate and so ex parte enquiry was held.2. Admittedly the petitioner was granted 10 days leave with effect from 8.7.96 to 17.7.96 and he was to report to his unit on 18.7.96. Petitioner claims that because of his medical treatment of pain of L2 and L3 categories he could not report back for duty and sent telegram that he was medically sick. He also sent a registered letter informing his unit about this on 16.7.96. Another telegram was sent on 14.8.96 along with medical certificate. According to him he was taking treatment at Sonepat Govt. Hospital whereas the call-up-notice was sent at his permanent address at Village...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bansal Credits Limited,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Del)23
D.K. Jain, J. 1. These eight appeals by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) are directed against the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Benches in ITAs No. 262/Del/2001, 753/DEl/2001, 2625/Del/92, 8642/Del/92, 8641/Del/92, 2629/Del/2001, 428(Del)/98, and 3676/Del/2000. 2. In our view, the following common substantial question of law arises out of the orders of the Tribunal: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to depreciation allowance under Section 32 of the Act @ 40% in respect of the commercial vehicles, owned by it but leased out to a third party?' Since we have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, we proceed to dispose of all the appeals at this stage itself. 3. The appeals pertain to different assessment years, but there being no material difference in the language of the relevant provision...
Geeta Srivastava Vs. Bhanu Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ801; 101(2002)DLT321; 2003(66)DRJ108; [2003]42SCL172(Delhi)
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Petitioner is a Government Teacher in the school of Delhi Vidyut Board while her husband who has been arrayed as respondent No. 1 is in the business of advertisement under the name of Vikalp Advertising.2. Admittedly the petitioner is the wife of the main accused who took a loan of Rs. 50,000/- which was given by way of cheque and he gave the blank cheque as security.3. The petitioner's application for recall of the summoning order was dismissed by the learned ASJ vide order dated 7th May, 2002 on the ground that the averments being made by the petitioner cannot be looked into at this stage because it is yet to be proved by the complaint himself that the cheque was returned for insufficient funds and the cheque was given to them in discharge of the liability by the accused persons.4. I am afraid the observations and the view of the learned ASJ suffers from enormous erroneousness. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act holds those individuals liable who are dra...
Ozair HusaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi103; 101(2002)DLT229
Anil Dev Singh, J:1. By this public interest writ petitioner seeks: (i) a direction to the respondents to protect the rights of innocent conscientious consumers who object to the use of animals in whole or in part or their derivatives in food, cosmetics and drugs, etc., by making the manufacturers and packers thereof to disclose the ingredients of the aforesaid products so that they make an informed choice with regard to their consumption; (ii) a direction to the manufacturers and packers of cosmetics, drugs and articles of food for complete and full disclosure of the ingredients of their products being sold to consumers; (iii) a declaration that the consumers have a right of making an informed choice between the products made or derived from animal and non-animal ingredients; and (iv) a direction to the manufacturers and packers of food, cosmetic and drugs that the products made from animals should bear an easily identifiable symbol conveying that it has an animal ingredient. The peti...
Union of India (Uoi) Through Its Secretary, Ministry of Defense, Vs. E ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT267; 2003(1)SLJ171(Delhi)
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated January 4, 1999 in C.W.P. No. 984/1996 whereby the order of the Air Officer, Commanding in Chief, dated on August 21, 1995, dismissing the respondent from service and the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 11, 1996 maintaining the order of the Air Officer, Commanding in Chief, dated August 21, 1995 were set aside with consequential direction to reinstate the respondent. The facts leading to the appeal are as follows:2. The respondent herein was enrolled as Combatant Member in the Air Force on October 29, 1979. In course of time he was prompted to the rank of Sergeant. On July 5, 1993 he was posted as Laboratory Assistant in 810 Signal Unit Force. On the morning of April 25, 1995, a patient, Ms. Suman Kumari Verma (hereinafter called 'the complainant'), aged about 17 years, daughter of Junior Warrant Officer, Vijay Kumar Verma, came to the MI Room and was examined ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »