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.
National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Through Shri Joginder Si ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT670
Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage.3. The petitioner is aggrieved by issuance of notice to Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Chairman and Managing Director, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd.4. Mr. Dutta counsel for the petitioners has contended that at very first time while issuing notice by Mr. Harinder Singh Khalsa, respondent No. 2 could not have summoned petitioner No. 2, Chairman & Managing Director of the Corporation for personal appearance. It was contended that neither there was a willful default nor non-cooperation by the petitioners. Commission instead of taking note of the fact that complainant had already filed a writ petition in High Court, could not have maintained a petition before the Commission.4. On the other hand counsel for the respondent has contended that power to summon is implicit in Article 338 of the Constitution of India and thereforee, summoning of petitioner No. 2 was justified in terms of Article 338(5) of the Co...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hydle Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR344(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The following questions at the instance of the assessed and/ or the Revenue in respect of the assessment years. specified hereinbelow have been referred to by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal) under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the said Act') for opinion of this Court:-'ITR No. 86-88/1984For the assessment year 1976-77: (i) 'Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the assessed- company was eligible for deduction under Section 80J. of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and assessed's undertaking could be held to be manufacturing or producing articles within the meaning of Section 80J?' ITR 315-318/851Assessment Year 1979-80 & 1980-81 assessed: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed company was eligible for deduction Under Section80J and80HH of the Act and the assessed's undertaking could be held to be manufacturing or producing articles within th...
Priya Enterprises and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT529
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The respondents, Delhi Police, had invited tenders for supply of tents and other allied items on hire basis in August, 2001. The petitioners Along with some others submitted their bid. The tenders were opened on 6th September, 2001 and the bid of the petitioners was found to be lowest. The difference between their bid and the second lowest, namely, M/s. Punjabi Tent House was to the extent of 40 per cent. The petitioners were, however, not favored with award of the contract immediately. Instead two officials of the respondents visited the godown of the petitioners with a view to check the stock position. It is the allegation of the petitioners that they gave false and baseless report indicating that the petitioners have only 50 tents in their stock while as a matter of fact more than 500 tents were lying there at that time. It is also alleged that this false inspection report was submitted at the instance of the petitioners competitor. In these circumstances, the peti...
Bharat Catering Corporation and anr. and Vardan Restaurant and Caterer ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT640
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. These two writ petitions involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The basic fact of the matter, however, is being noticed from C.W.P. No. 95 of 2002.The petitioner, which is a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of catering since 1988. It is admitted that the Railways provide catering services classified in major and minor services. Catering services in passenger trains constitute major services.Allegedly according to the policy framed by respondent No. 1 herein, i.e., 'New Catering Policy, 1992', license was to be given to private caterers for five years with provision for renewal and extension thereof for a further period of five years subject to satisfactory performance of the licensee during the period of agreement.The respondent No. 3 acting for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1 issued advertisement in the 'Hindustan Patna' on 13.11.1996 inviting one common ten...
Ms. Geeta Sharma Vs. All India Council for Technical Education (Aicte) ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: 102(2002)DLT873; 2003(66)DRJ750
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession, has filed this writ petition in public interest. The issue brought before the court by means of this writ petition relates to the starting of a three year degree course for hotel management and catering by the respondent No. 2, namely, National Council for Hotel Management and Catering Technology. The respondent No. 2 is affiliated to the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) which is arrayed as respondent No. 4. The commencement of this course by the respondent No. 2 with the blessings of the IGNOU is challenged primarily on the ground that the IGNOU, which is a University, provides only correspondence courses and technical courses like the one started by the respondent No. 2 can only be provided through regular practical training. It is further started that in any case after the Parliamentary enactment in the shape of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short 'the AICTE Act'), it is this ...
Pradeep Kumar Hooda Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ278; 2003(1)SLJ74(Delhi)
Khan, J.1. Petitioner was enrolled in BSF as ASI (Clk) on 8.6.1987. He says that Ministry of Home Affairs, govt. of India, circulated letter dated 27.12.1995 proving grant of pension for those who had or would resign under Rule 19 of BSF Rules on completion of 10 years service. He claims that he also submitted his resignation pursuant thereto on 24.6.1997 and asked for full pensionary benefits. But his resignation was accepted without grant of any pensionary benefits. he filed representation against this and his case was recommended by his Commandant also by letter dated 7.8.1997. But even this did not work and his claim was eventually rejected by order dated 16.8.1997. While all this was going on respondents changed their policy doing away with grant of pensionary benefits in cases but option was given to those who had report back on duty. He was also informed of this and asked to report by communication dated 15.10.1998 addressed by his Commandant. He reported for duty in compliance ...
Escorts Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN519(Delhi)
The petitioner in this writ petition has, inter alia, questioned the orders dated 5-1-1988, 18-1-1988 and 11-8-1987 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 respectively. The basic fact of the matter is as follows :The petitioner is a public limited company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It entered into an agreement with Smit Tak Towage and Salvage(s) Private Limited, a Singapore based company in terms whereof the mooring job of the Floating Dock at Port Blair was entrusted to the latter. The said company was incorporated at Nhava Sheva Port near Bombay. The said contract was entered for at lump sum price of U.S. $ 1,73,500.2. However, in terms of clause 7 thereof, the work was to be completed within an estimated period of 16 days. Clause 6(C) of the said contract reads thus :Performance(a) Smit Tak shall undertake to use their best endeavors to perform and complete the work within the shortest possible time as described in clause (3).(b) Escorts shall ensure tha...
Cit Vs. Hydle Constructions (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Del)119
S.B. Sinha, C.J.The following questions at the instance of the assessed and/or the revenue in respect of the assessment years specified hereinbelow have been referred to by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for opinion of this court :IT Ref. Nos. 86 to 88/1984; Assessment year 1976- 77 (i) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed-company was eligible for deduction under section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessed's undertaking could be held to be manufacturing or producing articles within the meaning of section 80?'IT Ref. Nos. 315 to 318/851; Assessment years 1979-80 & 1980-81assessed :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed-company was eligible for deduction under sections 80J and 80HH of the Act and the assessed's undertaking could be held to be ...
Sanjay Gupta and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: 2004CriLJ157; 101(2002)DLT258; 2003(66)DRJ146
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. isfiled for quashing of the criminal proceeding emanatingfrom FIR No. 253/1995 registered at P.S. Gandhi Nagar foroffences under Section 39 and 44 of the IndianElectricity Act and Section 379 of IPC pending before aMetropolitan Magistrate at Karkardooma Courts.2. The question that arises for determination in this case is whether the Magistrate has rightly exercised his power given under Section 473 of Cr.P.C. (the Code) in extending the limitation prescribed under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of taking cognizance of the offence in a criminal proceedings instituted on police report under Section 173(2) of the Code for the prosecution of the Petitioner.Factual matrix of the case as disclosed in the petition, the documents filed and the trial curt record, briefly stated, is that a joint inspection team of the DESU (now DVB) conducted a raid on 13.11.1995 at premises No. 9/7137, Durga Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi of which the ...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Parshadi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(69)DRJ751
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. These three appeals are filed by the Union of India the Delhi Development Authority and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi respectively against the same judgment/order dated 1st August, 2001 rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 923/97 which was filed by the unofficial respondents herein.2. The unofficial respondents herein had filed the aforesaid writ petition herein direction was sought to the appellants herein (official respondents) to decide representations dated 4th November, 1996, 6th December, 1996 and 24th January, 1997 of the respondents for releasing from acquisition the lands situated in Village Okhla Mahigiran, Mehrauli. They also made a prayer to the effect that the appellants herein should be directed to implement the National Housing Policy 1994 ('NHP-94' for short) as adopted by both the Houses of Parliament. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, certain significant developments took place. A decision was taken...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »