Delhi Court April 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Shri J.P. Aggarwal Vs. Director General of Works and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)142; 2002(3)ARBLR426(Delhi); 99(2002)DLT44
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately revalidate the registration of the petitioner and permit him to participate in the tenders for Class-II (B & R) Contractors. Petitioner also seeks quashing of the memorandums dates 1.7.1994, read with memorandum dated 13.10.1991, 12.12.1994, 27.6.1995, 17.10.1995 setting out the requirements for revalidation of enlistment of contractors in CPWD in respect of Class-I and V, declare the same as irrational, biased, discriminatory, defective and quash the same as vocative of Articles 19 and 21 and other relevant provisions of the Constitution of India. Petitioner also assails memorandums dated 6.6.2000, 21.8.2000 and 11.10.2000.2. Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments confined his submission and relief to direction to the respondents for renewal of the enlistment of the petitioner as Class-II contractor. Petitioner and other contractors were grate...
R.K. Aggarwal and ors. Vs. S.D. Marker and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)246; 97(2002)DLT1009
R.C. Jain, J. 1. The civil revision is directed against the Order of learned Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, dated 19-12-2000 by which an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC seeking substitution of the legal heirs of respondent No. 1 has been allowed and the proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 1 in appeal have been ordered to be substituted. 2. The relevant facts to be noted for disposing the present revision petition are that the father of the petitioner Shri Brij Mohan had filed a suit of permanent injunction against the respondent herein. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was made which was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 5-8-1988. The defendant-respondent filed appeal bearing No. 159/88 against the order dated 5-8-1988. During the pendency of the said appeal father of the petitioner Brij Mohan expired on 7-7-1988. On an application moved by the petitioner and other legal heirs they were substituted in place ...
Smt. Asha Rani Vs. Swami Keshwanand Puri and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)929
R.C. Jain, J. 1. This Civil Revision is directed against the order of the Addition Senior Civil Judge, Delhi dated 4th April, 2001 thereby disposing of a Civil Misc. Appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the learned trial court dated 4.11.2000 disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC moved by the present petitioner. The trial court had allowed the application and by means of an interim injunction restrained the defendant/respondent from interfering her peaceful possession over the first floor of the suit property and at the same time directing the plaintiff-petitioner herein to open the temple to public from 4.00 AM to 12.00 Noon and 4.00 PM to 10.00 PM, also giving a direction to the defendant-respondent to give at least one week's notice to the plaintiff-petitioner while arranging the bhandara on the Second Floor. The First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal of the respondent and dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.2. Learned c...
Mehant Joginder Singh Vs. Mrs. S.B. Naronha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)545; 98(2002)DLT183
R.C. Jain, J. 1. By means of this application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 the applicant seeks for the restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17-2-2000. The application is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condensation of 21 months delay in filing the restoration application.2. The applications have been made with the averments that an appeal filed by the applicant was pending before this court and it was dismissed for non-appearance on 17-2-2000. During the pendency of the appeal the respondent had expired and an application CM No. 3133/93 as filed for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased who were brought on record vide an Order dated 6-7-1995. The appeal, thereafter, remained pending in the category of 'Regular Matters' and suddenly appeared in the cause list for hearing on 17-2-2000 and the appellant-applicant could not know about the listing of the appeal or its hearing. After some t...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi - Ii, New Delhi Vs. Quantas Airw ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT172; [2002]256ITR84(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. All the references made at the instance of the Revenue in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The questions, which have been referred for opinion of this Court, are as follows:-'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the order of the C.I.T. (Appeals) in excluding the profits arising from the sale of capital assets located outside India from the world income? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the order of C.I.T. (Appeals) that the profit due to change in exchange rate of the Australian Dollars is a capital gain?' 3. However,...
Rajesh Mishra and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)276; 98(2002)DLT624
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The status of the home guards appointed in terms of the Bombay Home Guard Act, 1947 (in short, 'the said Act') as extended to Delhi is the question involved in these three writ petitions.2. The writ petitioners herein were appointed as Home Guards. Their services were sought to be terminated pursuant whereto they filed original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), which had been dismissed inter alia on the ground that they are not holders of civil post.3. The contention of the petitioners is that the State under the garb of the statutory scheme under the said Act read with Delhi Home Guard Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') had been abusing their statutory power in terms whereof the Home Guards are recruited as labourers to supplement the normal regular work force engaged in its various Departments such as Police, Railways, etc.4. The modus operandi of the re...
Vinod Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)385; 99(2002)DLT266; 2003(3)SLJ267(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. How long a departmental proceeding should remain stayed pending judgment in a criminal trial is the question involved in these writ petitions, which arise out of judgments and orders dated 18.03.1998 and 28.07.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal') in the original applications Nos. 3209 of 1992 and 2887 of 1996.2. The fact of the matter is being noticed from CWP No. 4116 of 1998. The petitioner was a constable working with Delhi Police.3. The following charge sheet was issued against him by the Additional Commissioner of Police, North-East District, Delhi:-'It is alleged that Constable Vinod Kumar, No. 931/NE posted to Distt. Lines absented himself from duty vide D.D. No. 23 dated 12.7.91. Meanwhile an information was received from S.S.P. Ghaziabad (U.P.) that Const. Vinod Kumar, No. 931/NE has been arrested along with 4 other persons namely Rishi Pal, Dharambir, Lokendar and Vinod ...
Dy. Cwt Vs. I.C. Khurana
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(Del)840
ORDERSikander Khan, A.M.In this appeal the revenue has contested the deletion by the learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) of the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1988-89.2. In the relevant assessment, the assessing officer made addition of Rs. 26,09,086 for the value of farm house which was claimed by the assessed as exempt under section 2(e)(iii) of the Wealth Tax Act. Penalty proceeding under section 18(1)(c) of the Act was initiated on the basis of this addition. No appeal was filed against the said addition of Rs. 26,09,086. However, the assessed intended to file revision petition before the learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) seeking deletion of the said addition.3. In response to the show cause under section 18(1)(c), the assessing officer (sic-assessed) submitted that penalty under section 18(1)(c) was not exigible in the case on the following grounds :'(a) That the exemption und...
Mangat Ram, Etc. Vs. State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC204
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 1207/ 2001 under Sections 406/498-A, IPC. P.S. Sultanpuri, Delhi.2. Notice. The same is accepted by Mr. Pawan Sharma, Counsel for State.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 married to Manjula; they blessed with one child from the said marriage; that respondent No. 2 was also earlier married with someone else and blessed with a child from that marriage; and that petitioner No. 2 is mother-in-law, petitioner No. 3 is sister-in-law and petitioner No. 4 is brother-in-law of respondent No. 2. However, as respondent No. 2 had some problems with her husband, consequently some arrangements between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were made and they started living together. This arrangement could not succeed, on account of some misunderstanding, private and personal problems, as a result of which, above noted FIR was registered. As both the parties were already mar...
Cit Vs. Quantas Airways Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Del)98
S. B. Sinha, C. J.All these references made at the instance of the revenue in terms of sub-section (1) of section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The questions, which have been referred for opinion of this court, are as follows :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in excluding the profits arising from the sale of capital assets located outside India from the word 'income'?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the order of Commissioner (Appeals) that the profit due to change in exchange rate of the Australian dollars is a capital gain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »