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.
Daewoo Motors India Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ440
S. Mukerjee, J. 1. The petitioner (Daewoo Motors India Ltd.) have preferred this writ petition praying for the issuance ofwrit commanding respondent No. 1 to withdraw certain demand notices issued by the Customs Department, for invoking the related band guarantees provided by the respondents No. 2 and 3 on behalf of the petitioner and have further prayed for direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 not to pay the amount of guarantees to the respondent No. 1.2. These bank guarantees were furnished by the petitioner company to the Customs Department at the time of availing exemption from customs duty in relation to plants and equipment etc. imported by the petitioner under licenses covered by the EPCG Scheme in terms of the Export and Import Policy of the relevant period i.e. 1995-1999. It was a condition of the said exemption notification No. 111/95/customs dated 5.6.1995 issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 that upon the importer issuing a bond for such amount as is specifie...
Shri Raj Kumar Avasthi Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT390; 2002(64)DRJ320
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. The petitioner-tenant has come to this Court under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) aggrieved by an order dated 1.10.2001 passed by learned ARC, Delhi in Eviction Case No. E-196/2000 dismissing the petitioners application for leave to defend and ordering his eviction from the premises in question under Section 14D Read with Section 25-B of the Act.2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition, briefly stated, are that the respondent landlady, a widow, had filed a petition under Section 14-DRead with Section 25-B of the Act against the petitioner praying for eviction on the ground that she was in bonafide need of the premises in question shown in Red in the plan attached with the petition. She claimed that the said premises were required by her for her own residence and the residence of her family members in as much as the present accommodation with her at the first floor was not sufficient to accommodate her, h...
Ramesh Chand Goyal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT424
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This revision petition is directed against a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.1.2001 passed by Sh. H.S. Sharma, ASJ, Delhi whereby and whereunder, an appeal preferred by the petitioner herein from a judgment of conviction dated 24.4.1992 by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (the Act) sentencing the petitioner to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- was dismissed.2. The case has a chequered history. Petitioner herein, used to run a grocery shop under the name and style of Goyal Provision Store in Janakpuri Market, New Delhi.3. On 29th April, 1988 at 4 p.m. allegedly one R.K. Ahuja, Food Inspector, visited the said shop and allegedly upon disclosing his identity expressed his intention to take sample of black pepper whole. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner moved the packets of black pepper and ran away therewith and did not turn up thereafter. In the said circums...
Director of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs. Sindhi Panchayat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR259(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. C. M. No. 59 of 2002 :Allowed subject to just exceptions.2. I. T. A No. 139 of 2002 :This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), dated October 31, 2001 in I. T. A. No. 1243 (Delhi) of 1995, pertaining to the assessment year 1990-91.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are :While completing the assessment for the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer disallowed exemption to the assessed under Section 11 of the Act on the solitary ground that the audit report under Section 12A(b) of the Act was not furnished along with the return. The assessment was also completed under Section 144 of the Act.4. Aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessed-trust preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short 'the CIT(A)'). While holding that the assessed was entitled to exempt...
Parwana Coop. G/H Society Ltd. Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ489
B.A. Khan, J.1. Private Respondents 3-7 were enrolled as members in petitioner society by the then Administrator Mr. S.S. Harit whose appointment was later recalled. Feeling aggrieved they approached the Registrar and obtained an award which affirmed their membership. The petitioner society took appeal against this and they in turn filed execution proceedings. The Executing/Recovery Officer passed order dated 9.7.2001 passing certain directions requiring the petitioner society to apply for enhancement of F.A.R. and to construct additional flats for them and so on. The petitioner society has filed this petition to challenge the order passed by the Executing/Recovery Officer on the ground that he had exceeded his jurisdiction and had travelled beyond the terms of the award.2. L/C for the petitioner Mr. Chandra has taken us through the award and the order passed by the Executing/Recovery Officer to show that the award only culminated in upholding the membership of these private respondent...
Vijay Kumar Vs. Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(156)ELT827(Del)
ORDERVijay Kumar, J. 1. Petitioner has invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while seeking setting aside of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma dated 21st September, 2000 besides that of the Trial Court. The learned Trial Court had held that prima facie case was drawn against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 5 of the Impex Act read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 5 of the same Act against accused Nos. 1 to 3. Petitioner had preferred a revision petition against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate which was dismissed. Hence the present petition.2. The respondent Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports had preferred a complaint against the petitioner and others. It had been alleged that M/s. Choice Apparel Pvt. Ltd., Hauz Khas is a company registered under the Companies Act and is a merchant exporters. Shri C. Verghese and Ms. Mariya Kutty are the Managing Directo...
Director of Income Tax Vs. Tagore Education Society
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN22(Delhi)
ORDERCM 49 of 2002Allowed subject to just exceptions.IT Appeal 126 of 20022. While holding that the assessed was entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has relied on its orders passed in the case of the assessed in respect of the earlier years. Mr. R.D. Jolly, the learned senior standing counsel for the revenue, has not been able to point out any distinctive feature, which has now been brought on record by the assessing officer while passing the order for the present assessment year, i.e., 1996-97 and the same was not available in the previous years. Admittedly, the orders pertaining to the earlier years have attained finality. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed....
Shankar and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Del)26
D.K. Jain, J.In this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of a circular issued by the Dy. Commissioner to the Land Acquisition Collector, directing him to deduct tax at source at the time of making payment of interest to the petitioner on account of enhancement of compensation. It is also prayed that the Collector may be restrained from deducting the tax at source in terms of said circular.2. According to the petitioner, since the amount, of interest payable on account of delay in payment of enhanced compensation is not liable to be taxed, the Land Acquisition Collector cannot be asked to deduct tax at source.3. The issue raised in the petition is no longer res integra. In Bikram Singh & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. : [1997]224ITR551(SC) , the Supreme Court has held that the interest receipt on delayed payment of the compensation, determined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a revenue receipt exigible to tax under section 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein...
Raghubir (Decd.) and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Del)603
D.K. Jain, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners seeks quashing of a circular issued by the Dy. CIT to the Land Acquisition Collector, directing him to deduct tax at source at the time of making payment of interest to the petitioner on account of enhancement of compensation. It is also prayed that the Collector may be restrained from deducting the tax at source in terms of said circular.2. According to the petitioner, since the amount of interest payable on account of delay in payment of enhanced compensation is not liable to be taxed, the Land Acquisition Collector cannot be asked to deduct tax at source.3. The issue raised in the petition is no longer rest integra. In Bikram Singh and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. : [1997]224ITR551(SC) , the Supreme Court has held that the interest receipt on delayed payment of the compensation, determined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a revenue receipt exigible to tax under Section 4 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the A...
Shankar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR284(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of a circular issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax to the Land Acquisition Collector, directing him to deduct tax at source at the time of making payment of interest to the petitioner on account of enhancement of compensation. It is also prayed that the Collector may be restrained from deducting the tax at source in terms of the said circular.2. According to the petitioner, since the amount of interest payable on account of delay in payment of enhanced compensation is not liable to be taxed, the Land Acquisition Collector cannot be asked to deduct tax at source.3. The issue raised in the petition is no longer rest Integra. In Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector : [1997]224ITR551(SC) , the Supreme Court has held that the interest receipt on delayed payment of the compensation, determined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a revenue receipt exigible to tax under Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »