Delhi Court August 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.
Angel Saavedra Dopico Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT375; 2003(85)ECC325; 2002(150)ELT41(Del)
Usha Mehra, J. 1. Angel Saavedra Dopico, a Spanish national arrived at New Delhi from Zurich on 13th January, 2001. He was intercepted and was found carrying 33 gold bars on his person. Those 33 golds bars were seized and his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act) was recorded. Since 13th January, 2001 he is in custody and confined in the Central Jail, Tihar. Criminal complaint against him under Section 132, 135(1)(a) and (b) of the Act was filed on which the cognizance has already been taken by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. While the petitioner was still in judicial custody confined in the Central Jail, Tihar, he was served with the impugned order dated 12th July, 2001 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) {hereinafter called the COFEPOSA Act}.2. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the petitioner has assailed the same by...
Smt. Prem Lata Vs. M.C.D.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi211; (2003)134PLR1
Usha Mehra, J.1. Appellant/plaintiff submitted her tender for the supply of 5000 street light brackets on 4th of June, 1965 to the respondent. The said tender was accepted and the supply order was placed on her on 8th June, 1965. According to the plaintiff, the said supply order contained incomplete information. The details were missing with regard to type of hold to be provided in the refectories. That the complete details were supplied to her only on 9th August, 1965, hence the delay in supply. Moreover for lack of details and delay in furnishing the details she suffered losses. She, thereforee, made claim for the balance payment, damages, interest and refund of the earnest money as well as the price of the goods supplied in excess, total claim amounting to Rs. 14,000/-.2. That the suit of the appellant was contested by the respondent inter alia, on the grounds that complete information was furnished in the supply order dated 8th June, 1965. Moreover as and when any information was s...
D.R. Thadani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi10
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The petitioner is an Advocate of this Court. He has filed this writ petition claiming inter alias following reliefs:-'Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, it is necessary that this Hon'ble Court may issue such appropriate Writs, Orders and/or Directions as may be necessary and the Petitioner thereforee prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:- A. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions, directing the Public Servants in general and in this case, the Respondent No. 1 in particular to do their duty properly as Public servants, and to issue further orders and/or directions that the Public servants are duty bound, to accept all the communications addressed to them in their official capacity. B. To issue an appropriate writ, orders and/or directions that in case the new system and/or, are to be manufactured by any specified companies, then, in that case, it will not be possible for 10 lac vehicle owners in Delhi to ...
Sh. J.S. Garg Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT177; 2003(3)SLJ256(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Applicability of a decision of the Apex Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors. : [1996]1SCR1118 in the facts and circumstances of this case, is the question involved in this writ petition.2. The basic fact of the matter is as follows:3. The petitioner was appointed as Architect Assistant in the office of the Central Public Works Department. He was again appointed as Deputy Architect in the said department. He was promoted to the post of Architect. The petitioner would contend that he was eligible and qualified in all respects to be promoted to the post of Senior Architect. However, he was superseded by the respondents 3 to 6 although he was senior to them. The petitioner would further contend that his position is at S.No. 13 in the seniority list whereas the respondents 3 to 6 were at S.No. 14, 16 and 19.4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said action on the part of the respondents in promoting the said respondents in supersessi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Atam Ballabh Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Del)369; [2002]258ITR485(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to this Court for its opinion by the Income Tax Appellate tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the Tribunal') in terms of Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the said Act'):-'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of the C.I.T. (A) thereby directing the ITO to adjust the deduction under Section 80K/80M of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the dividend income before arriving at the gross total income of the assessed?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the directions of the Tribunal are not against the specific provisions of Section 80A of the I.T. Act?'2. The assessment year in question in 1976-77.The assessed submitted a return showing its income at a loss of Rs. 23,612/- which ...
Director, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Govt. of Nct of Del ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT247; 2003(3)SLJ248(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28th September, 2001 passed in OA No. 1516/1999 is the subject matter of the present writ petition by reason where of the Original Application filed by the first respondent herein questioning his termination from services and seeking reinstatement with full back wages and other allowances as per rules was allowed.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The first respondent was offered the post of Statistical Investigator on 1st July, 1998 which was accepted by him. He allegedly, at the time of joining, gave an undertaking to the effect that if anything adverse was found in his Police Verification (Character and Antecedents) Report, he would not claim any salary or other benefits. Allegedly, a complaint was received on 13th October, 1998 that a First Information Report dated 10th February, 1998 was filed against him. The first respondent on 28th October, 1998 submitted the Attestation Form two months af...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dass Jewellers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT318
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the Tribunal') has sent the statement of the case of this Court for its opinion in terms of Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the said Act'), on the following question :-'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent it was levied by reference to the addition of Rs. 19,000/- made in the assessment?'2. The fact of the matter, as noticed by the learned Tribunal, is as follows :-The assessed was a registered firm carrying on the business of jewellery. The firm consisted of two partners, namely, Smt. Nand Rani Khanna and her son Shri Ramesh Chand Khanna. Penalty for a sum of Rs. 18,419/- was levied upon the assessed by the Inspectin...
Sind Knitwears (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN749(Delhi)
ORDERThe case has been listed before the court for appropriate orders as despite service of notice on the petitioner-assessed by affixture, paper books have not been filed. Even the court notice sent to the counsel for the petitioner has been received back with the report that the counsel is not representing the petitioner any longer. Even today, no one appears for the assessed. Accordingly, we have heard the learned senior standing counsel for the revenue.2. At the instance of the assessed, the Tribunal Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the following questions, arising out of IT Appeal No. 981 (Delhi) of 1982, pertaining to the assessment year 1974-75, for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of expenditure on packing for exports, forwarding exp...
Cit Vs. Atam Ballabh Finance (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN403(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, CJ.At the instance of the revenue, the following questions have been referred to this court for its opinion by the Tribunal, Delhi, Bench 'B', in terms of section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, was correct in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) thereby directing the Income Tax Officer to adjust the deduction under section 80K/80M of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the dividend income before arriving at the gross total income of the assessed ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the directions of the Tribunal are not against the specific provisions of section 80A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessment year in question is 1976-77.The assessed submitted a return showing its income at a loss of Rs. 23,612 which was computed in the following manner :'That the assessed-company had returned its income a...
Cit Vs. Dass Jewellers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN702(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', has sent the statement of the case to this court for its opinion in terms of section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the following question :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the extent it was levied by reference to the addition of Rs. 19,000 made in the assessment ?'2. The facts of the matter, as noticed by the learned Tribunal, are as follows :The assessed was a registered firm carrying on the business of jewellery. The firm consisted of two partners, namely, Smt. Nand Rani Khanna and her son, Shri Ramesh Chand Khanna. The penalty for a sum of Rs. 18,419 was levied upon the assessed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Two additions of Rs. 18,419 for unaccounted stock of precious stones and of Rs. 19,000 for the discrep...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »