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.
Confederation of Northern Zone Flour Milling Industries and ors. Vs. F ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ435
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. A notice inviting tender issued by the respondent herein, which inter alias was published in The Times of India dated 15-04-2002 and as contained in Annexure-P1 to the writ petition is in question in this writ petition.2. By reason of the said notice inviting tender, the respondent invited offers for sale of 'luster lost wheat' (2001-02 crop year) available in the Food Corporation of India districts situated in the procuring regions of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Such FCI Districts in the region of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh are specified.The relevant paragraphs of the said notice inviting tenders reads thus:-'2. Offers may be made on net weight basis. Taxes will be as applicable. The intending buyers will send their sealed offers to Manager (Sales) FCI, Headquarters, 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi.3. The intending buyers will indicate the quantity and Railway Goodshed in consuming Regions of Gujarat, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Karna...
J.R. Parashar, Advocate and ors. and Lawyers Reformist Forum (Regd.) V ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi482; 2002(64)DRJ472
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner Mr. J.R. Parashar Along with two other advocates has filed CW No. 647/2001 seeking a mandamus for enforcement of Chapter IV of Bar Council of India Rules 1975 framed under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act 1961, which prescribes the form of dress or robe to be worn by advocates. An order of restraint is also sought against the senior advocates from wearing what is described as the Queens Counsel (QC), gown contrary to the above rule. The petitioners' case in brief is that the relevant rule prescribes the same dress for all advocates. Senior advocates thereforee cannot wear the QC gown as also the short coat or jacket decorated with frills and fineries, to make out a different class of advocates.2. CW No. 1959/2001 has been filed by the Lawyers Reformist Forum, through its President Shri K.L. Rathee, seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the Senior Advocates from wearing the Queens Counsel gown, contrary to the Bar Council Rule and to direct all adv...
Sethi Construction Company Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Ntpc an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2003]41SCL314(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. This is an application under Section 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ((for short the Act), praying for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes and differences, which are stated to have arisen between the applicant and National Thermal Power Corporation, hereinafter referred to as NTPC, the respondent herein.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the material facts leading to the filing of the present application are:A works contract for the construction of a school building was awarded by the NTPC to one M/s. Gangotri Enterprises Limited (hereinafter referred to as the GEL), vide letter dated 1 July 19998. Since the GEL could not complete the work on time, the said work is stated to have been assigned to the applicant by GEL with the consent of the respondent. According to the September 1999, finally approved on 7 October 1999, had agreed that the balance work could be entrusted to the appellant. In terms of the said arrangement, the applic...
Smt. Sharda Dhir Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Makhija and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi288; 99(2002)DLT350
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This is plaintiff's chamber appeal by which an order of the Joint Registrar dated 28th August, 2001 passed on is 4495/98 has been challenged. is 4495/98 was filed by the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC for the service of Interrogatories for examination of the defendant No. 1 for discovery of facts on oath.2. The facts leading to this application succinctly stated are as follows. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendants on the allegation that defendant No. 1 in collusion with other defendants entered into an agreement of sale of property No. 706, Sector 15-A, Faridabad for a sale consideration of Rs. 19,40,000/-. The defendant No. 1 executed a Receipt-cum-Agreement to Sell dated 10th January, 1997 on receipt of a sum of Rs. 1 lac in advance. It was recited in the agreement that the plot/property was free from all encumbrances and that the documents of title in original would be delivered to the plaintiff at the time of the pa...
Action Electricals Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Del)62
D.K. Jain, J. 1. This appeal by the assessed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the order of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench D, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), dt. 18th Oct., 2001, in ITA No. 1305 (Del) of 1996 pertaining to the asst. yr. 1991-92. 2. Briefly stated the background facts giving rise to the present appeal are that during the course of search at the business and residential premises of the assessed on 28th Nov., 1990, the assessed surrendered a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 132(4) of the Act as income for the year under consideration as per the following break-up : '(a)Cash accumulated from the transactions of business of Action Electricals.The said cash was found and seized during the course of search fromresidence2,00,000(b)Amount outstanding from parties and since received back after search2,00,000(c)Investments in household goods like VCR, TV, fridge, furniture, AC,etc., kept and found at the residence of the partners S...
Action Electricals Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR188(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench D, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), dated 18-10-2001, in I.T.A. No. 1305 (Delhi) of 1996 pertaining to the assessment year 1991-92.2. Briefly stated the background facts giving rise to the present appeal are that during the course of search at the business and residential premises of the assessed on 28-11-1990, the assessed surrendered a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs under section 132(4) of the Act as income for the year under consideration as per the following break up :Rs. "(a) Cash accumulated from the transactions of business of Action Electricals. The said cash was found and seized during the course of search from residence. 2,00,000(b) Amount outstanding from parties and since received back after search 2,00,000(c) Investments in household goods like VCR, TV, fridge, furnitu...
Apar Industries Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT213TriDel
1. This is an application at the instance of the appellant in Appeal No. C/221/2002-AD to condone delay in filing the appeal.2. The Designated Authority in its final finding dated 20-7-2001 recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty on the import of NBR into India. The recommendation was accepted and the Central Government issued Notification on 14-9-2001. Any appeal challenging the notification should have been filed on or before 13-12-2001. The present appeal was filed only on 15-2-2002. No application to condone delay was filed along with the appeal. Subsequently, COD No.197/2002-AD was filed on 22-5-2002. It is the case of the applicant that when it filed the appeal it was intended to be a cross appeal. If it was to be treated as cross appeal, it was filed in time since M/s.Korea Kuhmo International and M/s. Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. had filed separate appeals against the notification and they were pending.Since this Tribunal has taken the view in Ahimsa Mines and Minerals Ltd...
Rahul Associates Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC845
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Rahul Associates, is whether the whole consignment of shoes imported by them is of Chinese origin as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order or a part thereof is of Indonesian origin as claimed by them.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants for the first time imported a consignment of 3,648 pairs of assorted varieties of sport shoes from M/s. Adel Mohd. AL Hussain Trading Co, Dubai; that they had placed orders for shoes of Indonesian origin; that on examination of goods by Customs Officers, 936 pairs were found to bear stickers "Made in China"; that as the sports shoes of China origin are of inferior quality and subject to anti-dumping duty, they enquired from the supplier about supply of shoes of Chinese origin; that the supplier under Letter dated 2-12-2001 informed that due to mistake of porters and loaders, certain quantity of shoes of Chinese origin were loaded; that the Ad...
Sh. S.C. Manchanda Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ295CAT
1. The applicant, who belongs to the Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS) and has been working as Chief Personnel Officer, Northern Railway in the pay grade of Rs. 22400-24500/-, has not been considered for promotion/ appointment to the higher post of Additional Member (Staff) [AM (S)] in the pay grade of Rs. 24050-26000/-. The post of AM (S) fell vacant on 31.1.2002 when Shri A.S. Gupta, the incumbent of the post and belonging to the IRPS, retired on reaching the age of superannuation.2. The respondents passed a Resolution on 11.10.2000 (A-1) providing, inter alia, as follows: "(vi) Post of Additional Member (Staff) is normally to be filled up by a senior and suitable officer of Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPC). However, since Indian Railway Personnel Service is a new service, in case a suitable IRPS officer of appropriate seniority is not available, the post may be filled up on deputation by a senior and suitable officer belonging to any other Group 'A' service (except IRM...
Smt. Brij Rani Deceased Through Lrs. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT819; 2002(64)DRJ245
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. These are regular second appeals against the common judgment dated 25th October, 1980 passed by Addl. District Judge, Delhi whereby decree for possession passed by Sub Judge Delhi on 27th February, 1979 in favor of appellants was set aside.2. Facts are broadly admitted. The suit land bearing khasra No. 1424/958 measuring 17 bighas 13 bids was situated in the revenue estate of Bahapur, Delhi originally vested in the appellants. So much so 'jamabandi' of the land still stands in the names of the appellants. Under Section 3 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act No. 40 of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), the said land was notified for acquisition for the purpose of Kalka colony for resettlement of displaced persons vide notification No. F.I(71)/48-LSG (i). The Land Acquisition Collector made the award on 30.5.1962 to the effect that the land in question along with several other khasra numbers had been released from acquisition for the rea...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »