Delhi Court July 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.
Shailender Tiwari and ors. Vs. Meenakshi Anhal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT356; 2002(64)DRJ340
K.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 16th January, 2001 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the applications filed for dropping the proceedings by them were dismissed and quashing of complaint case No. 4193/99 filed by respondent No. 1.2. Submission advanced by Sh. H.S. Phoolka for petitioners was that unless there is averment in the complaint and/or evidence in terms of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the 'Act'), person who is merely a director of company, cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the Act. According to him, in view of averments as made in the complaint and statement recorded on 3rd December, 1999 of respondent No. 1/complainant (CW-1), the trial Magistrate was unjustified in declining to drop the proceedings against the petitioners. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors., : 1976CriLJ1533 , Girdhari La...
Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT150; 2002(64)DRJ328
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner has prayed for expunging the remarks against him in the order dated 10th August, 2000, passed by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in the case State v. Abdul Rehman & Ors. FIR No. 152/95 under Sections380/411/406/448/467/468/420 read with 120B IPC P.S. KotlaMubarkpur. The petitioner is a qualified doctor working as psychiatrist in the Psychiatric Department of RML Hospital, New Delhi. 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that on 9th May, 1995 Smt. Subhash Devi lodged a report stating that some bad characters have entered the ground floor of her house E-82, NDSE Part-II. Above-noted case was registered and after investigations challan was filed against the accused persons. However, further investigations against Abdul Rehman and his wife Smt. Suricha continued and non-bailable warrants against them were issued. She on 5.8.2000 wa...
Dula Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT564
1. These three appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are for further enhancement in the amount of compensation. Though the notifications under which claimants lands were acquired were issued on different dated but appeals can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. In RFA 404/84 the claimants land situate in village Ladha Sarai was acquired for public purpose, namely, Planned Development of Delhi through notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 23.9.1968. The Collector Land Acquisition made his award No.26/74-75 dated 28.3.1975.Compensation was offered @ Rs.3,000/- per bigha. Feeling dis-satisfied reference was sought. The reference court by the impugned award dated 24.4.1984 assessed market value of part of the land at Rs.4,000/- per bigha and for remaining part @ Rs.3,500/- per bigha. In RFA 227/88 subject matter of appeal is land situate in village Ladha Sarai, Delhi acquired for Planned Develo...
Harvinder Singh Arora and anr. Vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT613
ORDERMahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. The petitioners have applied for grant of anticipatory bail. Their daughter-in-law Ms. Sudha Kaur was admitted in hospital having consumed alprex tablets. The SDM recorded her statement in which she made grave and serious allegations of mental and physical cruelty and harassment against her husband and harassment and cruel treatment against the petitioners. The SDM recommended for registration of the case under Section 498A and 406 IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed their application.2. Counsel for petitioners has argued that the son of the petitioner was married with the complainant on 11.12.1999 and thereafter for about 3 weeks they went abroad. They were happily residing thereafter till the complainant gave birth to a female child, unfortunately the child died and the complainant suffered depression although she was given full support by her husband and petitioners to come out of it but to no effect. It is submitted that in the night of 27....
Abdul Rehman and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT348; 2002(64)DRJ308
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the orders dated 26th and 27th July, 2000 passed by the court of Shri G.P. Thareja, Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in the case FIR No. 152/95, under Sections 448/380/411/406/420/468/467/471/120-B IPC, P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur, whereby bail application of petitioner No. 2-Smt. Suricha Rehman (wife of petitioner No. 1) was rejected. Case of petitioner No. 1 is that the impugned order also affects his rights, thereforee, joint revision by both the petitioners is maintainable.2. Facts in brief are that on 9th May, 1995, Smt. Subhash Devi lodged a report alleging that some bad characters have entered ground floor of her house No. E-82, NDSE Part-I, New Delhi, and taken control of the same (hereinafter, 'the property'); the police on the basis of her report, registered above noted case. The investigations revealed that the property was sold through eight sale deeds, all dated 11.1.95, by the petitioner No. 1 o...
Director of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs. Bharat Kalyan Pratishthan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR609(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. CM No. 48 of 2002 : Allowed subject to just exceptions : I.T.A. No. 125 of 2002 : This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), dated October 19, 2001, in I.T.A. No. 7156/Delhi of 1994, pertaining to the assessment year 1991-92. 2. The main ground on which the assessed had been denied exemption under Section 11 of the Act was that the assessed-trust had allegedly made donations to an association which was involved in unlawful activities and had been declared to be so by the Central Government. While dealing with the said objection by the Department, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short 'the CIT(A)') and the Tribunal have noticed that the stand of the Assessing Officer is not correct inasmuch as the notification declaring the association concerned as unlawful has been quashed by the Tribunal. This fact has not been controverter in t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Greater Delhi Planners P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR799(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.(C. M. No. 52 of 2002) : Allowed subject to just exceptions.I. T. A. No. 129 of 2002 :1. Order dated July 11, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), in I. T. As. Nos. 333 and 445 Delhi of 1993, pertaining to the assessment year 1990-91 is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').2. The short controversy before the Tribunal was whether the enhanced compensation received by the assessed on the acquisition of the land could be subjected to tax in the assessment year 1990-91.3. While holding that the addition on account of enhanced compensation in the assessment year 1990-91 could not be sustained, the Tribunal has found as a fact that the order of enhancement of compensation was made on October 10, 1986, and the enhanced compensation was received by the assessed on December 28, 1988, and, thereforee, the said amount could not be taxed in the said assessment...
Manmohan Singh and anr. Vs. Joginder Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ293
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. The main case (Suit No. 921/93) has been consolidated with Probate Petition No. 38/92 for the purpose of trial and decision because of the commonality of the disputes and evidence. Suit filed by the plaintiff is a declaratory suit. It seeks declaration of the effect that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing Bungalow No. 4, Rajdoot Marg. Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi by virtue of Will dated 6.8.1990 executed by his father late Sh. Kartar Singh, the owner of suit property as defendant Nos. 1 & 5 have only limited right of residence in the portion of the property as described in the Plan.2. Plaintiff and defendants 4 & 5 are the legal heirs of late Shri Kartar Singh whereas defendants 1 to 3 are the children of the predeceased son of Shri Kartar Singh.3. As is apparent case of the plaintiff stems from the unregistered Will dated 6.8.90 whereas the defendant No. 5 Mohini, the daughter of late Sh. Kartar Singh has based her claim and sought Probate o...
Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Bharat Kalyan Pratishthan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Del)541
D.K. Jain, J.CM 48/02Allowed subject to just exceptions :ITA 125/022. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 19-10-2001 in ITA No. 7156/Del/1994, pertaining to assessment year 1991-92.3. The main ground on which the assessed had been denied exemption under section 11 of the Act was that the assessed-trust had allegedly made donations to an association which was involved in unlawful activities and had been declared to be so by the Central Government. While dealing with the said objection by the department, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have noticed that the stand of the assessing officer is not correct inasmuch as the notification declaring the association concerned as unlawful has been quashed by the Tribunal. This fact has not been controverter in the appeal.4. It is contended by Mr. R.D. Jolly, learned...
Premium Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT380TriDel
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order dated 23-6-2002 vide which the learned Commissioner, as adjudicating authority, has in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court's order dated 24-5-2002, disposed of the request of the appellants regarding the supply of non-relied upon and other documents.2. The learned SDR, at the very out-set, has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeal. He has contended that the order passed by the Commissioner as adjudicating authority is only an interim order vide which he has disposed of the representations and requests made by the appellants through various letters for supply of documents relied upon and non-relied upon. No final adjudication so far has been made by the Commissioner.3. The learned counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, has simply contended that the appeal is maintainable as the order has not been passed in accordance with the direction o...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »