Delhi Court September 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.
Kamal Vihar Coop. G.H. Socy. Ltd. Vs. Mohan Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT660
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Petitioner society recommended the expulsion of as many as 46 members on account of their having committed persistent defaults against demands. The recommendations for expulsion of 45 members were approved by the Registrar vide order dated 26.3.1998 whereas the recommendation in respect of R-1 Mohan Chand did not find favor with him on the ground that R-1 had approached the Society way back in 1992 to complete the formalities for getting him loan advanced from the financial institutions but neither did the Society assist him in getting the necessary papers completed nor did it show any inclination to help him out and as a consequence he was burdened with huge interest on the principal amount. Besides this, the Registrar also directed the Society to only collect the principal amount from R-1 after getting all the documents executed. As regards the interest the Registrar directed both the Society as well as R-1 to go for arbitration and settle the matter there. Feeling...
Devinder Gupta and ors. and Smt. Renu Mittal and ors. Vs. Registrar of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT346
Khan, J.1. Both petitions are similar in nature and raise identical issue and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioner are the purchasers of flats from original members of R-2 society. They claim that they had purchased these flats as bonafide purchasers on payment of consideration amount and on execution of relevant documents/conveyance deeds. Thereafter they had informed the President/Secretary of the Society who had demanded gate money/entry free from them before letting them in. The amount paid by them was later deposited in the society's account which is also reflected in its balance sheets under the heading 'Residents Welfare Fund'.3. Petitioner's case is that since the original members of the society (vendors) had transferred all rights in these flats to them, the society's committee had no authorityunder law to charge any gate money/ entry fee from them. The action was vocative of Registrar's directives dated 14.12.1999 and 10.10.2001 besides being illegal and w...
Modern Coop. G.H. Socy. Ltd. Vs. Registrar Coop. Socy.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT341
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. As many as 27 members including respondents herein were expelled by petitioner-Society by Resolution dated 27.4.1987 on account of persistent defaults against demands. The society thereafter sent a proposal for approval of their expulsion to the Registrar on 20.2.1988 and meanwhile enrolled new members whose approval was also sought. Registrar allegedly did not take any action for grant of refusal of approval to expulsion till 1995 i.e. for seven long years. It was on 2.2.1996 that he ut the Society on notice and on consideration of the matter rejected its proposal for expulsion of the members by order dated 4.6.1996. The Society filed Revision against this which was dismissed by Financial Commissioner on 30.7.1996.2. Feeling dissatisfied the Society filed a petition CW 3325/1996 which was disposed of remanding the matter to the Registrar for fresh consideration. Pursuant thereto Registrar passed order dated 26.8.1997 and declined approval of expulsion of only 13 memb...
Manav Cghs Limited Vs. P.O. Delhi Co-op Tribunal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT428
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The petitioner-Society has grievance against the award dated 12th July, 1999 holding that it has no jurisdiction to waive off the interest form defaulter members on the defaulted amount. The petitioner-Society is of the view that General Body of the society is superior and final authority and if it has jurisdiction to take the decision of levying interest on the defaulters it has also jurisdiction and powers to waive off the same which in this case was the interest levied by the earlier Managing Committee on those persons who did not pay the demands raised by the society on account of suspension and delay in construction work.2. The row sparked off when the petitioner society vide its resolution dated 7th July, 1996 passed by the General Body decided not to charge interest from the Members who did not pay the demand amount because of the suspension or delay in the construction work whereas the categories of the Members including R-2 to R-6 were charged interest as ac...
R.H. Vaswani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT19
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 07.01.1985 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein inter alias claiming the following reliefs:-'a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction commencing the respondent No.5 to promote your Petitioner to the Class II Gazetted Post w.e.f. the date on which other juniors as stated above were promoted to the post of Settlement Officer and thereafter, to the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner or Settlement Commissioner in the office of the respondent No.2, so as to implement the decision of this Hon'ble High Court in the Civil Writ Petition No. 252 of 1972 which is equally applicable to the petitioner. b) Call for the entire record of the case from the respondent No.1 and 2 and issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash:- i) The order dt. October ...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ376Del
Khan, J.C. Ms. 7302/2002 & 7301/2001 in C.W. 2413/861. Petitioner's writ petition (CW 2413/86) was dismissed by court order dated 20.9.2001. The Corporation has now filed this first application for condensation of delay of 280 days or so in filing the second application which is for recall of the dismissal order and revival of the writ petition.2. Petitioner wants us to revive the petition primarily on the claim that its case was covered by the Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4552/89 entitled Food Corporation of India v. Provident Fund Commissioner decided on 26.10.1989. It also states its own reasons for suffering dismissal of the petition and for approach in this court after considerable delay for recall of the dismissal order. The Explanationn offered is that the matter was handled by successive counsel and that its track was lost midway despite occasionalinquiry being made from the court registry from time to time about its status. It was only on 21.5.2002 that petitione...
Apollo Fin. and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)9; I(2003)BC253; 100(2002)DLT753; 2003(66)DRJ488
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 21.3.2002 whereby he has rejected an application of the petitioner for recalling the summoning order and discharging the petitioner in a criminal complaint instituted by the respondent for his prosecution for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the Act). 2. The contention of Counsel for petitioner is that petitioner No. 2 Abha Gorawara is the sole proprietress of petitioner No. 1 concern and that the cheque which is the foundation for launching prosecution under Section 138 of the Act does not bear her signature. It is further contended that even otherwise Sharad Gorawara and Puneet Gorawara with whom the respondent had dealings have already repaid Rs. 25,00,000/- to the complainant. 3. The respondent sought prosecution of the two petitioners for commission, of offence under Section 138 of the Act on the averment that in September 1996 Sha...
Sucheta Singh Vs. Wto
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN678(Delhi)
CWP No. 794-799, 916-921/84Although nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner, upon perusal of the application, it appears that the question as to whether rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules is ultra virus of section 7(1) of the Wealth Tax Act has our opinion been covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) . The Apex Court has, regarding this aspect, observed as follows :'We may first take up the question whether rule 1D is void for being inconsistent with the Act or for the reason that it is beyond the rulemaking authority conferred by the Act. Section 7(1) indeed defines the expression 'value of an asset'. It is 'the price which in the opinion of the Wealth Tax Officer it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date', but this is made expressly subject to the rules made in that behalf. No guidance is furnished by the Act to the rule-making authority except to say that the rule made must lead to ascertainment...
Chittor Polyfab (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT473TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture HDPE/P.P. bags. They cleared 46,800 Nos.of P.P. bags for export under bond without payment of duty under AR.4s dated 2-5-97 and 4-5-97. They however did not submit the proof of export in respect of these AR.4s, within the stipulated period and hence a show cause notice dated 13-2-98 was issued to them calling upon them to show cause why an amount of Rs. 1,50,500/- being central excise duty on the aforesaid bags should not be recovered from them under Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and why a penalty should not be imposed on them. On considering the reply of the party, the Asstt.Commissioner of Central Excise, Chittorgarh vide his Order dated 28-4-2000 confirmed the duty of Rs. 1,50,500/- on the party under Rule 14A read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on them.2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur who has reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000/- but otherwise rejecte...
Sh. Madan Lamba Vs. Shri Jagdish Lamba and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ732
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. These are eight suits arising out of eight awards made by the learned Arbitrators Sh.D.V. Taneja, Ex. Chairman of Central Bank of India and Sh.D.M. Harish, aleading advocate of Bombay on taxation side in respect of various properties. These awards pertain to family disputes between four brothers namely S/Shri Madan Lamba, Jagdish Lamba, Harish Lamba, Kailash Lamba and their family members who were carrying on various usinesses under different names and style. 2. The learned Arbitrators entered into reference by virtue of agreement dated January 1982 and made their awards on 25.10.1986.These are non-speaking awards. It is alleged by the respondents that the parties have already taken possession of their businesses and properties in accordance with the consent award dated 21.10.1983 passed during arbitration proceedings. It is further alleged that except objector Madan Lamba all the three brothers namely Jagdish Lamba, Harish Lamba and Kailash Lamba and their family mem...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »