Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Naresh Khattar (Huf)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Del)317; [2003]261ITR664(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, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), dated June 21, 2002, in I. T. A. No. 953/Delhi of 2002, pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99. The following questions, stated to be substantial questions of law, have been proposed in the appeal :'(a) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 8.01 crores made by the 'Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in the Mussoorie project under Section 69B of the Income-tax Act ?(b) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 8.01 crores only on the ground that the statement made by counsel is not conclusive, altogether ignoring the other evidence gathered by the lower authorities ?(c) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the state...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Del)266; [2003]262ITR260(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the order, dated May 16, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), in I. T. A. No. 238/Delhi of 2002, pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99. According to the Revenue, the said order involves the following substantial questions of law :'1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271D of the Act by holding that the appellant did not contravene the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act ?2. Whether the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse on both law and merits ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respon-dent-assessed, referred to as the 'special purpose vehicle', was promoted by one Infrastructure Leasing and Finance Services Ltd. (for short, the 'IL & FS'), with 30 per cent. holding, to constr...

Binay Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(69)DRJ143

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to modify and/or rectify the order dated 7.8.2001 to the extent of deleting the word 'interchange' and by incorporating the word 'transfer' in its place in the said order to make it in conformity with the office memorandum dated 17.9.1975 (Annexure P-5) with a further direction to issue a fresh order making the appointment of the petitioner as Director (Personnel) in the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Limited effective for a period of five years with effect from 7.8.2001 and also an order for revival of CWP No. 6094/2000.2. The petitioner, while working as Director (Personnel) in the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited was suspended from service by order dated 1.10.1999. The petitioner challenged the said order in the writ petition filed by him, which was registered as CWP No. 6301/1999, which was dismissed by order dated 21....

TIn Box Company Vs. Inderjit Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 104(2003)DLT130; 2003(67)DRJ537; (2003)IILLJ759Del

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the reference dated January 15, 1987 made by the Delhi Administration and also the order passed by the Labour Court dated February 22, 1989 asking the petitioner to lead evidence first. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that at this stage he is not pressing the first part of the prayer but is only asking for the second part of the prayer that is the quashing of the order dated February 22, 1989, reserving, however, his right to agitate with respect to the first part at an appropriate stage. 2. He pointed out the terms of reference of the industrial dispute in question which are as under:'Whether the termination of services of Shri Inderjit is legal and justified and if not to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'3. After the dispute was referred, an application dated February 22, 1989 was moved by the petitioner ...

Arunesh Awasthi Vs. Government of N.C.T.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT940; 2004(74)DRJ640; 2004(3)SLJ81(Delhi)

ORDER1. Dismissed as not pressed.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 29th October, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dismissing R.A. No. 205 of 1999 in O.A. No. 898 of 1998.3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioners are part-time teachers with the Government of Delhi, Initially, they had filed O.A. No. 1879/94 praying for regularization/absorption in service with consequential benefits. That O.A. was disposed of on 31st January, 1997 with a direction to the respondents to consider their case for regularisation against vacant posts of teachers after holding a suitable selection test. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Tribunal, the respondents held a selection test. Unfortunately, the petitioners were not successful in the selection test. Accordingly, they filed O.A. No. 898/98. In their fresh application, the petitioners alleged that the respondents had conducted a selection test to regularise part-t...

Mohd. Zaheer Ahmed Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT571TriDel

1. The appellant in this case is aggrieved by the imposition, by the Commissioner of Customs under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act against him, of a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.2. Examined the record. The appellant was one of the 13 persons who were intercepted aboard a bus heading towards Muzaffarpur from Sitamarhi, by officers of Customs. Foreign goods were recovered from all the persons except the appellant. Fake Indian currency was recovered from two persons including the appellant. Believing that the goods were being illegally imported from Nepal into India and hence liable to confiscation, the officers seized the goods under a Panchnama. Statements of all the persons were recorded. Some follow up investigations also were conducted. On the basis of the investigative results, the department by show cause notice called upon the appellant and others to show cause why, inter alia, penalties should not be imposed on them under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, for their alleged involveme...

D.C.M. Shri Ram Industries Ltd. Vs. Indo Organics and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ256A; 2003(88)ECC119a

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Plaintiff company has a unit known as Daurala Sugar Works which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of refined organic Chemicals besides vacuum pan sugar etc. Defendant No. 1 has been placing orders on the plaintiff company through its partners at its sales office at Kanchanjunga Building 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi for the purchase of Benzyl Chloride and Sodium Benzoate. Admittedly the goods were supplied from the unit of the plaintiff at Meerut. Plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 6,16,943/- under the summary procedure of Order 37 Code of Civil Procedure towards their dues. The details showing the goods supplied against each order and the cheques issued by defendant No. 1 which on presentation were dishonoured have been furnished in para 14 of the plaint. Vide letter dated 5.1.1995, defendant No. 1 through its partner defendant No. 4 acknowledged their liability to pay Rs. 4,80,237/- with the assurance that they would be making the balance amoun...

Ms. Manju Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)206; 104(2003)DLT583; 2003(71)DRJ783

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. The petitioner successfully underwent a written test for admission to the Elementary Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as ETE) Course conducted by State Council for Educational Research and Training, Govt. of India (hereinafter referred to as SCERT) and was placed at Seriall No.32 of the merit list and was thereafter required to appear before the respondents with the necessary documents and certificates on 26th August 2002. The petitioner did so and all her documents, certificates were considered and scrutinised by the respondents and were found meeting all prescribed requirements. Pursuant to action taken on the representation to the Minister of Education on being unfairly denied the admission, inspire of fulfilling all prescribed requirements, the petitioner was again interviewed and on 31st October 2002 the petitioner was again not found in the list of successful candidates and the denial of admission was challenged by this writ petition on averments, in...

D.C. Verma Vs. Prince Dry Cleaners

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 23rd March, 2002 passed by District Forum-IV, Nand Nagari, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 690 of 2000 entitled D.C. Verma v. Prince Dry Cleaners. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Shri D.C. Verma had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that he had given two coats for dry cleaning to the respondent M/s. Prince Dry Cleaners on 29th March, 2000. The date of the delivery of those coats, after dry cleaning, was given as 2nd April, 2000. It was stated in the complaint that when on 25th September, 2000 the appellant approached the respondent for the delivery of the coats in question, the appellant was informed by the respondent that due to fire in his shop on 13th September, 2000, the c...

Ms. Geeta Wadhwa Vs. Bhatia Global Hospital and Another

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 17.12.2002, passed by District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 512/2002 entitled Ms. Geeta Wadhwa v. Bhatia Global Hospital and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Ms. Geeta Wadhwa, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum claiming damages to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-, refund of the amount of Rs. 19,320/- paid to the respondents and another sum of Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. 3. The above mentioned complaint, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of a statement made by the learned Counsel for the appellant before the District Forum on 17.12.2002. 4. F...