Delhi Court December 2002 Judgments

Survi Projects Vs. Veda Research Lab Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR347(Delhi); 102(2003)DLT690

S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act'), petitioners have prayed for appointment of an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties. 2. It is pleaded that applicant-M/s. Survi Projects entered into a contract with the respondent-M/s. Veda Research Lab Pvt. Ltd. on 31.1.1998 at Delhi for the construction of a factory building at Plot No. D-97-98, 105-106, Greater Noida for the respondent; the stipulated period for completion of the contract was seven months; however, due to various alleged breaches committed by the respondent in the contract, the work could not be completed within the original stipulated time of completion of the contract. The respondent took possession of the building in October, 1999 and using the same since then. It is pleaded that even though the possession of the building was taken by the respondent as early on October, 1999, but the final payment as well as va...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R. Frohnholzer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Del)560

D.K. Jain, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D, has referred under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, the following question for the opinion of this Court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the living allowance was exempt under Section 10(14) of the IT Act, 1961?' 2. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed. Accordingly we have heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue. 3. As is apparent from the format of the question, the issue arising for consideration is as to whether the living allowance received by a foreign technician is exempt under Section 10(14) of the Act. Since the issue is purely legal, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. 4. Answer to the question stands concluded by the decision of the apex Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario and Ors. : [2000]241ITR312(SC) , wherein it has been held that the rupee payment taken in India in the shape ...

Bigdot Advertising and Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uo ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 102(2003)DLT696; 2003(67)DRJ162

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is an application under Order XI, Rules 12 & 14 read with Order VII, Rule 15, Order XII Rule 8 and Section 151 CPC for production of the documents which are alleged to be in possession of the defendants.2. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for recovery of Rs. 3,16,39,009.64. Out of which Rs. 1,36,01,743.20 is the principal amount. The suit amount is towards damages for the advertisement jobs carried and executed by the plaintiff on the orders and directions of officials of defendant Nos. 1 & 2. The main premise of the instant suit was the communications addressed by defendant Nos. 1 & 2 to the plaintiff. Now through this application, plaintiff is seeking direction of this court to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to produce all orders, directions passed by the Ministers concerned at the relevant time and also by the officials of defendants 1 & 2 on the subject matter. It is admitted that some of these orders and directions passed by the officials of defendant Nos. ...

Cit Vs. Kammholz Kurt

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN270(Delhi)

ORDERD.K. Jain, J. At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench E has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the living allowance was exempt under section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. There is no appearance an behalf of the assessed. Accordingly we have heard Mr. R.C. Pandey, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue.3. As is apparent from the format of the question, the issue arising for consideration is as to whether the living allowance received by a foreign technician is exempt under section 10(14) of the Act. Since the issue is purely legal, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts.Answer to the question stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario : [2000]241ITR312(SC) , wherein it has been held that the rupee payment taken in India in ...

Shanti Prasad JaIn Vs. Asha Ram and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2003)ACC256; 2003(70)DRJ355

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on account of the accidental death of their son, who died in a road accident on 17th March, 1983. There is no dispute between the parties that the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The only point urged by the appellant is that the Tribunal has completely erred in assessing the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased at 25% of the income of the deceased and the Tribunal has also erred in not awarding any amount towards funeral expenses and loss of consortium. The award has also been challenged on the ground that no interest has been awarded from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award. 2. The Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- p.m. The deceased was u...

Cit Vs. C. Babbington

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN579(Delhi)

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the living allowance was exempt under section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. As is apparent from the format of the question, the issue arising for consideration is as to whether the living allowance received by a foreign technician is exempt under section 10(14) of the Act. Since the issue is purely legal, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts.4. Answer to the question stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario : [2000]241ITR312(SC) , wherein it has been held that the rupee payment taken in India in the shape of daily allowances for the foreign technician is exempt under section 10(14...

Brig. Anant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Del)377; [2003]261ITR335(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J. 1. By this writ petition the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the assessed, seeks to impugn an order, dated January 29,1976, passed by the Income-tax Officer, declining to waive/reduce the interest charged under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), as also the order dated October 12, 1977, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, affirming the order passed by the Income-tax Officer.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the material facts are as follows :The assessed is an individual, deriving income from pension, house property and profession. For the assessment year 1972-73, for which the relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1972, he filed his return of income on December 4,1972. The assessment for the said assessment year was completed on March 10, 1975. Since, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, there was default on the part of the assessed in paying the requisite amount of advance tax and there was delay in filing the ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lakhee

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Del)665

1. The case is listed for appropriate Orders as the Revenue, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books despite various opportunities. Since, in our opinion, the issue raised in the present reference is no longer rest integra, insofar as this Court is concerned, we dispense with the filing of the paper books and proceed to dispose of the reference at this stage itself.2. The following questions have been referred by the Tribunal for our opinion :'l. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that provisions of Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, are not applicable to the rural area of Union Territory of Delhi ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the capital gain arising on transfer of the agricultural land in village Haiderpur cannot be charged to tax under the IT Act, 1961 ?'3. As is evident from the format of the que...

Cit Vs. Lakhee

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN507(Delhi)

ORDERBy the courtThe case is listed for appropriate orders as the revenue, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books despite various opportunities. Since, in our opinion, the issue raised in the present reference is no longer res integra, insofar as this court is concerned, we dispense with the filing of the paper books and proceed to dispose of the reference at this stage itself.2. The following questions have been referred by the Tribunal for our opinion :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to the rural area of Union Territory of Delhi ?'2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the capital gain arising on transfer of the agricultural land in village Haiderpur cannot be charged to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'3. As is evident...

Mittar Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) averring therein that the complainant is a Credit Card holder of City Bank. The City Bank in collaboration with O.P. No. 2 Insurance Company floated a Group Insurance Scheme (Medical) whereby the complainant was also eligible for a mediclaim policy under the said scheme. It is stated by the complainant that lured by the false representations of the opposite party, he applied for the grant of insurance policy under the Group Insurance (Medical) Scheme and paid a premium of Rs. 5,256/- by cheque, which was duly encashed by the O.Ps. who issued Insurance Policy No. 48/712500/7/04956/CS.97 dated 24.2.1997 valid for the period from 1.2.1997 to 31.1.1998 in favour of the complainant. The complainant was thus insured with the O.P. for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs against the said mediclaim policy. 2. On the night of 15.5.1997, th...