Delhi Court August 2002 Judgments

Samtel Color Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT764

D.K. Jain, J. 1. Since a common question of law is involved, both the cases are being disposed of by this judgment.2. The intimation letters sent to the petitioners, hereinafter referred to as the assessed, under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), after making certain adjustments to the total income returned by them and demanding additional tax under Section 143(1A) of the Act, are under challenge in these writ petitions.3. In order to appreciate the issue involved and the rival contentions, we shall briefly refer to the facts of each of the cases.4. In CWP 2087/91, the assessed, engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and export of colour picture tubes, filed its return of income for the previous year ending 31 March 1990, relevant to the assessment year 1990-91, on 28 December 1990, declaring a loss of Rs. 21,16,08,308/-. The return was accompanied by tax audit report, audited balance sheet, profit and loss account and some other documents. Whil...

Borman Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003(97)FLR442]; (2003)IILLJ551Del

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14th January 2000 setting aside the award of the labour court directing the reinstatement of the appellant after recording a finding that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the offence.2. The facts of the present case are that the appellant was employed with the respondent ITDC Management at Ashoka Hotel as Masalachi and his services were terminated by the management with effect from 13th June 1984 after an inquiry leading to the dispute referred to the Labour Court. Before the labour court the appellant had admitted impliedly that he remained absent without leave and the relevant portion of the finding of the Labour Court on this issue is as under:'MW2 Shri M. Andrews has testified that he was working as a head Time Keeper with the management uptil 01.08.90 and he has prepared the record of absence of the workman Sh. Boman from 01.01.83 to December 1983 on the basis of th...

Everest Enterprises Vs. Ntpc and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 101(2002)DLT49

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the Limited Tender, issued on the 17th June, 2002, by respondent No.1 for Annual Maintenance Contract (hereinafter referred to as 'AMC') for specialized upkeep and maintenance of the Noida Township of National Thermal Power Corporation which admittedly is amendable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court as covered within the meaning of the Article 12 being wholly owned Government undertaking and 100% shares being held by the President of India.2. The writ petition avers as under:The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent No. 1 in calling for AMC without issuing any letter or bid documents to the petitioner, who is the existing contractor and has been registered contractor with the respondent No.1 for the last 8 years. On 1st May, 1994. the petitioner was appointed as a contractor by the respondent No. 1 for house-keeping and sanitation continuously working with respondent No.1 On 11th August, 2000 the petitioner was awar...

Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and ors. Vs. Mr. S.K. Wal ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(3)SLJ403(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The petitioner, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, had filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 7th March 2001 promoting the respondents to the post of Senior Personal Assistant and have further sought a direction to the respondents/appellant to consider their names for promotion to Delhi Administration Subordinate Service (hereinafter referred to as DASS) Grade I. The petitioner/respondents case before the Central Administrative Tribunal had been based under Rule 6(I)(1)(a) of the Delhi Subordinate Service Rules 1967 (hereinafter called the DASS Rules). 2. The impugned order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 27th February 2002 in OA No. 1195 of 2001 quashed the order dated 7th March 2001 purporting to promote the two respondents herein to the post of Senior PA and directed the petitioner herein to reconsider the claim of the respondents for DASS Grade I by holding a review DPC in the light of the options submitted by the respond...

Samtel Colour Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Del)289

D.K. Jain, J.Since a common question of law is involved, both the cases are being disposed of by this judgment.2. The intimation letters sent to the petitioners, hereinafter referred to as the assessed, under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') after making certain adjustments to the total income returned by them and demanding additional tax under section 143(1A) of the Act, are under challenge in these writ petitions.3. In order to appreciate the issue involved and the rival contentions, we shall briefly refer to the facts of each of the cases.4. In CWP 2087/91, the assessed, engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and export of colour picture tubes, filed its return of income for the previous year ending 31-3-1990, relevant to the assessment year 1990-91, on 28-12-1990, declaring a loss of Rs. 21,16,08,308. The return was accompanied by tax audit report, audited balance sheet, profit and loss account and some other documents. Whil...

Prakash Wadhwa and Others Vs. Credential Finance Limited.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 5.6.2002, passed by District Forum (New Delhi), Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/49/1998entitled Sh. Prakash Wadhwa and Ors. v. Credential Finance Limited and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in narrow compass. The appellants had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that Sh. Prakash Wadhwa, appellant No. 1 alongwith his family members had invested amount in Fixed Deposits with the respondent as detailed in document annexed with the impugned order and marked as Annexure A. The amount, so deposited, was to carry interest at the agreed rate of 15% p.a. and was repayable to the appellants after one year. It was stated that the respondent had given post-dated cheques/warrants for th...

Madhu Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC619

1. The above-captioned appeals have been directed against the common order-in-original dated 20.2.02 passed by the Commissioner vide which he has confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties on the appellants, as detailed in the order itself.2. The appellant No. 1 is a company engaged in the manufacture of aluminium extruded profiles, while appellants Nos. 2 & 3 are directors of the company, and appellant No.4 is an authorised signatory. The factory premises of the company was visited by the preventive officers of the Central Excise on 22.6.99. After completing inspection and checking of the raw materials stock, the statements of employees were also recorded. Ultimately, show cause notice was served on the company vide which duty demand of Rs. 45,15,285 was raised and penalty of equal amount was also proposed to be imposed on it. On the other appellants also, penalty was proposed to be imposed under Rule 209A. The confiscation of plant, machineries and building etc. was also so...

Sanjay Kumar S/O Shri Badri Narayan Singh, Muzaffarpur, Bihar Vs. the ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 103(2003)DLT126; 2003(67)DRJ220

V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. This is an appeal, filed by Sanjay Kumar (hereinafter described as 'the Appellant'), directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara dated 13.1.2000. The learned trial Court held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Act (for short 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months.2. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 21.3.1997 Sub Inspector Vikramjit Singh was posted at Police Station Gokal Pur. On the say day, along with Head Constable Joginder and Constable Ganga Singh they were patrolling near Shiv Vihar Tiraha. At 8.20 p.m. he received a secret information that a boy is standing at Shiv Vihar Pulia and is in possession of charas. SI Vikramjit Singh...

Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. State (Through Commissioner of Police) and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ511

S. Mukerjee, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the allottee of a site in DDA's Swaran Jayanti park, Sector 10, Rohini who had been granted permission to install 'jhoolas'/joy rides such as Catter/Piller, Joint-Wheel, Merry-Go Round, Jumping and Toy Train for a period of two months from 6.7.2001 to 4.9.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that after he deposited the money and completed the formalities, there was considerable delay in DDA giving possession allegedly at the instance of local MLA. Subsequently according to the petitioner, he got the possession and immediately thereupon made an application dated 14.8.2001 seeking grant of permission at the allotted site from the DCP Licensing. 2. According to the petitioner, when he ultimately started running his joy rides, the area SHO, at the instance of area MLA, not only booked the petitioner under Section 28/112 of Delhi Police Act, but also stopped his business by total transgression of the police powers, both by arresting ...

Anil Pratap Singh Vs. Onida Savak Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]112CompCas701(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petition has been filed under Section 433(e) and 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act praying for the winding up of the Respondent Company on the ground that it is indebted to the Petitioner for a sum of Rs. 10,62,022.96 as on 31.8.1997. It has been averred that the statutory notice dated 6.10.1997 claiming the afore-mentioned sum of money, comprising Rs. 6,18,035.00 as the principal sum and Rs. 4,43,987.96 as interest was outstanding against various bills raised for providing adverting services to the Respondent Company by the Petitioner.2. Admittedly, the statutory notice was duly replied to in terms of the letter dated 27.10.1997. In it, reliance was placed on letter dated 24.4.1995 written by the Petitioner to M/s. Adonis (India) Ltd. which is undisputably a sister concern of the Respondent Company. It reads as follows:-'Dear Sir, This has reference to our discussions at your office on 20th April, 1995 regarding the Hoarding sites in Delhi metro. As decided and a...