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.
Pushpal Chander Bhasker Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT620
K.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner-accused seeks setting aside of the order dated 17th November, 1999 and quashing of FIR No. 56/96 and the proceedings emanating there from, pending before a Special Judge, Delhi.2. In short, the allegations made against the petitioner are that on a complaint made on 11th December, 1996 by one Raghunath, after observing legal formalities a trap was laid. Petitioner demanded Rs. 5,000/- by way of bribe money from said Raghunath in the presence of S. Natrajan, witness. After taking money from his left hand the petitioner put it on the dash board of his Maruti Van No. DL-3C-7818 wherefrom it was recovered by Ranjit Ekka, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi. After registering FIR No. 56/96 under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), recording statements of PWs, collecting report from CFSL and obtaining sanction to prosecute dated 11th December, 1998 from General Manager (...
Social Jurist, A Lawyer's Group Vs. Government of National Capital Ter ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT539
ORDER1. With the consent of the parties we are disposing of the writ petition at the admission stage.2. By this writ petition, which falls in the category of public interest litigation, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to admit Harish Chander, a student of Class IX, in Government Co-education Senior Secondary School, Bakkarwaia, Delhi. It seems that the shack in which Harish Chander was living with his father at Shalimar Bagh was demolished and the family has been relocated to JJ Colony, Bakkarwaia, Delhi. The grievance of the petitioner is that Harish Chander has not been given admission in the Government Co-education Senior Secondary School, Bakkarwaia, Delhi. In Civil Writ Petition No. 3507/2000 where we were faced with the same situation, Counsel for the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, had made a statement to the effect that the children of the parents who have been relocated in re-settlement colonies will be granted admissions in the schools.2....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Del)358; [2002]258ITR246(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), dated September 25, 2001, in I. T. A. No. 2331/D of 1995. By the said order the Tribunal has upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short the 'CIT(A)'), deleting the penalty levied on the assessed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 5,93,432.2. Briefly stated the background facts are that in respect of the assessment year 1985-86, the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment made certain additions/disallowances. However, in this appeal we are concerned with the disallowances made under the following heads :1. Electricity and water chargesRs. 68,3782. Connection chargesRs. 37,8783. Addition made under section 28(iv) read with section 2(24)(va) of the Act.4. Addition of Rs. 3,57,000 in respect of capital gains.3. The Income-t...
Givo Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT317TriDel
1. The issue on which there was difference of opinion between the Members has been answered by the Larger Bench under order dated 1-4-2002. Following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) it was held that the goods imported by the appellant are to be classified under Heading 49.06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and liable to duty under Heading 98.03.2. On going through the original order where the Members had expressed difference of opinion on the above issue we found that the question relating to limitation and penalty was left open till the reference was answered. Learned Counsel for the appellant very fairly submitted that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2001 (128) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.) appellant's contention relating to limitation has only to be rejected.In the above case, it was held by the Apex ...
Sportking India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT535TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, whereby the request for remission of duty on the goods destroyed in fire was declined.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of acrylic yarns. On 4-3-98, appellants made a request to the Supdt. (Central Excise) regarding storage of finished goods in their raw material godown. On 16-3-98, appellants informed Range Office about a fire incident which broke out in their factory on the intervening night of 15th and 16th March, 1998. Thereafter, appellants applied for remission of duty under Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, in respect of goods destroyed in fire. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for denial of remission on the ground that the appellants had stored the goods in a place other than the store room, therefore, had not complied with the provisions of Rule 47 of Central Excise Rules. After granting an opportunity of hearing, the i...
Tilak Upbhokta Sahkari Store Ltd. Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi1; 99(2002)DLT551
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Petitioner-store is aggrieved of the winding up orders passed by the Registrar. Matter is lingering on since 1982 and winding up proceedings dragged on culminating in various remand orders in appeals. Be that as it may, last order of winding up was passed by the Registrar on 20.8.1982. It was by way of appeal to the Tribunal the petitioner challenged the order of the Registrar on the ground that Registrar has relied upon three grounds which were not contained in any of the show cause notices issued to the petitioner. On this score it is submitted that petitioner was denied an opportunity of meeting those grounds.2. It transpires that petitioner-Society has been in the business for more than ten years inspire of winding up orders in terms of provisions of Section 66(3) of DCS Act because this provision automatically stays the Registrar's winding up orders the moment appeal is filed. In this manner winding up orders passed from time to time against the society have beco...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Hukam Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT162
RFA No. 435/88 & CM No. 1428/88 (X-objections): 1. Subject matter of the appeal is the land situate in Village Yusuf Sarai, Delhi, which was acquired for public purpose by virtue of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 24.5.1961. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 27.7.1961. The Collector, Land Acquisition made his Award No. 1259 on 31.1.1962, offering compensation to the claimants @ Rs. 3,600/- per bigha. Feeling dissatisfied, reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the amount of compensation was sought by the claimant-respondent. The Reference Court by the impugnedaward, dated 20.8.1987 answered the reference as LAC No. 157/80 and thereby determined the market value payable to the claimant/respondent @ Rs. 16,000/-per Bigha. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal under Section 54 of the Act has been preferred by the Union of India seeking reduction in the amount of compensation and a...
G.D. and Sons Vs. Income Tax Cum Wealth Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)197
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Matter has been on the board for over 2 weeks for a every Thursday. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.2. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the valuation of the petitioner's property at Alpana Cinema, Model Town, New Delhi, as done by the Valuation Officer and seeks the quashing of the impugned order bearing No. O/VO/V/155 dt. 26th July, 1977, as being illegal and without jurisdiction. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner in filing the writ petition that there is no appeal provided against the valuation made by the Valuation Officer. Said ground does not appear to be correct in view of the provisions of Section 23(3)(3A) the relevant portion of which is being reproduced :'(3) The Dy. CWT(A) or, as the case may be, the CWT(A) shall fix a day and place for the hearing of the appeal and may, from time to time, adjourn the hearing.(3A) If the valuation of any asset is objected to in an appeal under Clause (a) of s...
G.D. and Sons Vs. Income Tax-cum-wealth Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN341(Delhi)
ORDERMatter has been on the board for over 2 weeks for a every Thursday. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.2. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the valuation of the petitioner's property at Alpana Cinema, Model Town, New Delhi, as done by the valuation officer and seeks the quashing of the impugned order bearing No. O/VO/V/155, dated 26-7-1977, as being illegal and without jurisdiction. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner in filing the writ petition that there is no appeal provided against the valuation made by the valuation officer. Said ground does not appear to be correct in view of the provisions of section 23(3) and (3A) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 the relevant portion of which is being reproduced :'(3) The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall fix a day and place for the hearing of the appeal and may, from time to time, adjourn the hearing.(3A) If the valuation of any as...
Gopal Trading Co. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN730(Delhi)
ORDERThe counsel for the respondent has taken me through the order passed by the Commissioner at page 43 of the paper book as also the assessment order Annexure 'C'. From a perusal of these orders, it would appear that the ground taken by the assessed of the delay in filing of returns being attributable to the CBI having seized account books, does not appear to be tenable and convincing ground, so as to justify waiver of the penalty and interest. It is noted in the assessment order that the assessed was not found to be maintaining books of account. It was discovered in the survey carried out that the assessed was not maintaining books of account. Rather the delay in filing is stated to be on account of making the accounts at its own convenience. As regards the seizure of books of account by the CBI, it is urged that if the assessed was earnest, he could have obtained inspection of the seized books and records and taken details and filed returns. Moreover, in view of the limited scope o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »