Delhi Court April 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.
Mr. NitIn Pant and ors. Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ31
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by 25 students to Kirori Mal College, who have been denied permission to take the examination for the year 2001-02, commencing in April, 2002. Petitioners, 25 in number, are sportsmen, who took admission in the College, primarily on account of their excellence in their respective games. They happen to be sportsmen playing football, Hockey, Cricket and Chess etc.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajiv Sharma made a very impassioned plea for a compassionate view in the matter. He submitted that sportsman are initially were encouraged and lured to join the college on account of their excellence in sports. Assurances are given to them that they need to concentrate on sports and undertaking to play games is also obtained, failing which disciplinary action is to be taken. The petitioners have brought laurels to the college.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sportsmen in pursuit of attaining excellence in t...
Dr. Raman Arora Vs. University of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT326; 2002(64)DRJ214
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. Dr. Raman Arora and Deepti Lal, the petitioners in these two writ petitions, medical graduates who have done their MBBS from Goa and Maharashtra respectively in 15% All India quota, are seeking admission to Post Graduate Diploma Course (M.S./M.D) of University of Delhi under 75% quota for Delhi. Their applications have been rejected by the respondents on the ground that they do not fulfill requisite eligibility criteria as laid down in Clause III(A)(2)(i) of the prospectus issued for admission to the aforesaid course. The respondents contend that the petitioners are not eligible as they had not passed their 10th, 11th and 12th Class examinations from the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Both the petitioner plead that they are bonafide residents of Delhi but had to go out of Delhi in 15% All India quota as they could not get admission in Medical Course in Delhi. They plead that they had completed their 10+2 course from Delhi schools, but could not do their 10th fr...
Vijay Textiles Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT121
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This reference was made at the instance of the assessed under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Tribunal'), for opinion of this Court on the following question:-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate tribunal was justified on facts and in law in treating the cash credits - loans of Rs. 1,00,000/- and interest thereon as income of the assessed for the assessment year under appeal by invoking Section 68 of the Act?'2. Nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. We have heard Mr. Khanna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, who has taken us through the records.3. The learned Tribunal in its order 29.04.1982 inter alias disbelieving the transaction noticed:-'3. At the assessment stage since some sums detailed as under were found credited in the account books of t...
Orissa Oil Industries Limited Vs. Tribal Cooperative Marketing Develop ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)198; 98(2002)DLT659; 2002(65)DRJ682
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. An order of passed by respondent No. 1 herein, i.e., Trifed dated 23.01.2002 appointing respondent No. 3 herein as the sole arbitrator is the subject matter of this writ petition. The said order reads thus :-'TRIBAL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETINGDEVELOPMENT FEDERATION OF INDIA LIMITED(MINISTRY OF TRIBAL AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA)No. TFD / HO / LEGAL / 2001 - 02 / 856223rd January, 2002Mr. Justice Jaspal Singh (Retd.)59, Hemkunt,New Delhi.Sub : Appointment of Sole Arbitrator forarbitrator of dispute under Agreementdated 15.4.94 between Trifed and M/s.Orissa Oil Industries Ltd., Sambalpur -768002 Orissa.Sir,1. Whereas as per Clause 15 of the Agreement dated 15.4.94 executed between Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. ( Trifed), NCUI - II Floor, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi - 16 and M/s. Orissa Oil Industries Ltd., Sambapur - 768002, Orissa, all disputes or differences, whatsoever arising between the parties within or relating to the construction /...
Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)274; 99(2002)DLT631b; 2002(64)DRJ479b
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This writ petition has been filed questioning a judgment and order dated 02.02.1990 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 90 of 1987. The petitioner herein filed the said application purported to be on the ground that he was prevented from performing his duties and he had not been paid his wages. He further prayed that he should not be discharged from service without following the procedure laid down under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Constitution').2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Safaiwala as a casual labourer in the Carriage and Wagon Branch, New Delhi on 08.04.1985. He worked as a casual labourer only for 137 days up to 31.07.1986. According to him, he had worked as casual labourer for a total number of 280 days. In support of which plea, he has annexed a purported chart containing the names of 12 persons wherein the petitioner's name is at Seriall No. 10....
S.K. Sharma and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ620
ORDER NO. 329/91 The following Preventive Officers working in the Customs Houses mentioned against their names are hereby transferred to Customs & Central Excise Collectorate, Delhi on inter-collect orate transfer basis: Sl.No. Name of the Officers Customs House1. Indra Prakash Bombay Customs2. Pradeep Shukla Bombay Customs3. Rajeev Singh Madras Customs (On deputation at IGI as ACO) 4. Harish Chand Saini Bombay Customs5. Chandra Bhatia Bombay Customs6. L.K. Maheshwari Calcutta Customs 7. Rajeev Kumar Bombay Customs 8. P.P. Singh Calcutta CustomsThey will not be entitled to count their service rendered in their parent Collectorate for the purpose of seniority in Delhi Collectorate. In other words, they will be treated as new entrant in this Collectorate. They will be assigned seniority in this Collectorate, in accordance with the rules/instructions in force. They will be adjusted against the direct recruitment vacancies.In transfer, they will not be considered for promotion/confirmation...
Vijay Textiles Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]122TAXMAN726(Delhi)
S. B. Sinha, C.J.This reference was made at the instance of the assessed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', for opinion of this court on the question :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified on facts and in law in treating the cash credits, loans of Rs. 1,00,000 and interest thereon as income of the assessed for the assessment year under appeal by invoking section 68 of the Act ?'2. Nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. We have heard Mr. Khanna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue, who has taken us through the records.3. The learned Tribunal in its order dated 29-4-1982, inter alia, disbelieving the transaction noticed :'3. At the assessment stage since some sums detailed as under were found credited in the account books of the assessed maintained for the previous year relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessed was ca...
Asstt. Cit Vs. Ruchika Chemicals and Investment (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Del)85
ORDERR.S. Syal, A.M.:This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on 17-12-1996, in relation to assessment year 1993-94 deleting the penalty imposed under section 271D. The solitary ground projects the grievance of the revenue as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in accepting assessed's Explanationn of there being bona fide belief that such transactions were not covered under section 269SS of the Act, despite the fact that out of total transactions of Rs. 39,87,063 transactions amounting to Rs. 19,51,093 were through account payee cheques. '2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that the assessing officer while completing assessment under section 143(3) noted that the assessed- company had accepted loans and deposits by way of transfer entries from Sh. D.K. Gupta (individual), Smt. Poonam. Gupta, Sh. D.K. Gupta (HUF), Smt. Chandra Kala Devi, Ms. Ruchika Gupta, Ms. N...
Colby International Limited Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT928Tri(Chennai)
1. The appellants imported SF 600 Plus CT Spectrophotometer with Data Color Tools QC Software. They filed a Bill of Entry dated 3.7.2001 with the Air Cargo Customs, New Customs House, New Delhi for the clearance of the same. They declared the value of the goods as Rs. 11,85,854. The Customs Authorities have however initiated the proceedings against them. The importers waived the show cause notice. The Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Customs, New Customs House, New Delhi in his order dated 5.9.2001 observed that the appellants have not obtained a valid IEC number; that as per the provisions of Exim Policy 1997-2002 no export or import can be made by any person without such IEC number unless specifically exempted. The Commissioner in his order has further observed that as per para 4.6 of Handbook of Procedures the exempted categories of persons, include persons/institutions/hospitals importing or exporting goods for personal use not connected with trade or manufacture or agriculture....
Refnol Resins and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Ahmedabad-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC1073Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-appeal dated 27-11-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Headings 29 & 39 of the CETA. They were purchasing various chemicals and allied items by importing the same in bulk quantity. A part from undertaking the manufacturing activity with respect to their firnished products, they were also repacking in small containers the imported goods and marketing the same after putting their label. This activity of their, before budgetary changes of the year 1997, was not being treated as process amounting to manufacture. But thereafter, a note was added in Chapters 29, 34, 35 & 39 of the CETA, vide which it was specified that such an activity i.e.of labelling, relabelling of containers, repacking from bulk pack to retail packs etc. would amount to manufacture. But the appellants in spite of these changes neithe...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »