Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2003 Page 8 of about 205 results (0.012 seconds)Anjuman Co-operative Group Housing Society Vs. Delhi Development Autho ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)83; 106(2003)DLT725
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner society applied for allotment of land to the respondent i.e., Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and in terms of letter dated 12.11.1999, it was proposed to allot a plot of land measuring 7000 sq. mtrs. in Dwarka Phase-I and II Residential Scheme to the petitioner taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner society consisted of 120 members. The strength of the members of the petitioner society was communicated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, New Delhi vide letter dated 9.8.1999 and the provisional rate of Rs. 4,063/- per sq. mtr. was communicated to the petitioner vide the said letter. The petitioner was aggrieved by the rate being charged from the petitioner society in view of the fact that 57 other societies were sought to be charged @ Rs. 3,533/- per sq. mtr., who were to be issued allotment in the same draw of ...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT497TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,18,77,325/- on flat rolled products of alloy steel and demand of Rs. 64,36,765/- on the steel scrap. A penalty of Rs. 6,18,77,325/- was also imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of agricultural discs for agricultural harrows and clearing the same under exemption notification without payment of duty. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for demand of duty on flat rolled product of alloy steel, which is an intermediate product on the ground that as the final product is exempt from duty, the appellants are liable to pay duty at this stage. The benefit of Notification No.89/95-C.E., dated 18-5-95 was also denied in respect of scrap on the ground that the appellants were clearing the scrap arising out of excisab...
Tag this Judgment!Harmeeta Singh Vs. Rajat Taneja
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)14; 102(2003)DLT822; I(2003)DMC443; 2003(67)DRJ58
Vikramajit Sen, J. I.A. 577 OF 2003 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Court Fee be filed within a week from the date of its receipt by the Plaintiff.Suit No. 108 OF 2003 2. Plaint be registered as Suit. 3. Issue summons to Defendant in the ordinary process, by registered A.D. Post, electronic mail as well as facsimile, returnable for 12th March, 2003. Service be effected on all the addresses disclosed in the plaint.I.A. 576 OF 2003 4. Issue notice of this application to the Defendant, returnable on 12th March, 2003.5. Matrimonial disputes between estranged spouses are the most bitterly fought litigation raising myriad awkward questions. Not unoften, the jurisdiction of more than one Court can be invoked where the husband and wife have started residing in different territories, either nationally or internationally. It must then be decided that from amongst them which Court should be best suited and thereforee competent to exercise jurisdiction. Where the choice is between ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003IAD(Delhi)824; 102(2003)DLT833; 2003(67)DRJ53; 2003(1)JCC354
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed in Sessions Case No.33/96 on 14.5.1997. 2. Brief facts according to the prosecution are that on 5.9.1995 at about 5.30 p.m on finding deceased Gunjan alone in the jhuggi, the appellant entered Jhuggi No. 362, Y Block, Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi. The appellant made amorous advance on her and she rebuffed him. The appellant appeared to have reacted violently in frustration and attacked deceased Gunjan with a barbar's razor and caused a severe injury on the neck and after causing the injury he rushed out of the jhuggi. Deceased Gunjan followed him holding her neck. Just about the same time her parents, who had gone to Inder Puri happened to return. Her mother Kailashwati P.W.1 and her father Ram Amar P.W.2 saw the appellant emerging from the jhuggi being chased by the deceased. The injured girl was profusely bleeding from her neck. On being asked she said mother, Vijay had cut my neck with a razor. Her parents nat...
Tag this Judgment!M.C.D. Vs. Ashok Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 104(2003)DLT527; 2003(67)DRJ703; 2003(3)SLJ511(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Rule. 2. Respondent No. 1 was served as far back as on 5th March, 2001 and despite repeated opportunities, counter affidavit has not been filed by him. Today it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the said respondent has not contacted the counsel and they have, thereforee, no instructions in the matter. Counsel wants notice to be issued to the workman, however, since the workman has already been served at the address given by him before the industrial Tribunal, I do not deem it necessary to issue any fresh notice to the workman.3. The only dispute between the parties in this case is, about the date of regularisation of the workman. The workman was working as a daily wager since about 1980. On 1st April, 1990 his services were regularised. Since the workman had raised a dispute about the date of his regularisation, the matter was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. By the Impugned award, the Industrial Tribunal held him entitled...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Hosiery Mills Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)60; 104(2003)DLT503; 2003(69)DRJ540; 2003(159)ELT69(Del)
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the demand show cause notice dated 3rd April, 1973, order of the Assistant Collector dated 25th February, 1973 and the demand notice dated 29th August, 1983.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of electronics equipments for defense. The petitioner was also manufacturing and clearing record players and parts thereof from November, 1970 to December, 1972. The petitioner was holding an excise license under Tariff Item No. 37A of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Sales Act, 1944. It is stated that the record player and parts thereof were exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 145 of 1963 dated 31st August, 1983. The said notification provided that gramophones and amplifiers assembled and/or manufactured out of parts, on all of which appropriate amount of excise or countervailing customs duty is already paid, are exempt from paymen...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Daulat Ram Public Mission
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Del)423; [2003]261ITR512(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. By this application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'), the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), to state the case and refer the following questions, stated to be of law, for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,03,838 for the assessment year 1975-76, respectively, made by the Wealth-tax Officer on account of assets held by the assessed-trust in two excluded companies under Section 13(2) of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Holding that for the assessment year 1973-74 also the assessed's case is covered by the proviso 2 to Section 21A that any part of the property or income of a trust shall be deemed to have been used or applied for the benefit of prohibited category of person within the meaning of Section 13(3) if it is so used or applied ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.P. JaIn (Huf)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Del)273
ORDER1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred, under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, (for short the Act), the Mowing question for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the partner is entitled to exemption under Section 80L of the IT Act in respect of interest earned by the firm on bank deposits, etc. held in its name.'2. Although the Revenue has failed to file the paper books as well as the annexures to the statement of the case but keeping in view the fact that the issue involved in the case is purely legal, we dispense with the filing of the paper book and proceed to dispose of the reference.3. Despite service, no one appears for the respondent-assesses. We have, accordingly, heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue.4. The issue raised by the Revenue in the reference is as to whether a partner is entitled to exemption under Section 80L of the Act in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahendra Kumar Modi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Del)229
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), the following questions for the opinion of this Court :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount, of remuneration at the rate of 1 per cent of the net profit of the company known as Modipon Ltd. agreed to the assessed so as the addition of Rs. 22,081 to the total income of the assessed for asst. yr. 1979-80?'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the perquisite value in respect of residential accommodation made available to the assessed be limited to the value fixed by the legal authority under Section 9 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1971, and not under r. 3 of the IT Rules, 1962 ?'2. The reference pertains to the asst. yr. 1979-80. Since answers to both the questions stand concluded by decisions of this Court, we deem it unne...
Tag this Judgment!Goyal Mg. Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rathi Ispat Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT17; 2004(74)DRJ81
R.C. Jain, J. 1. The above named petitioner has moved this application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') seeking appointment of an arbitrator.2. The germane facts giving rise to the present application are that vide a lease agreement dated 1st March, 1996 executed between the parties, the petitioner had leased a certain equipment detailed in Schedule-I to the respondent for a period of 36 months commencing from 1st March, 1996. The said lease agreement contains an arbitration clause in Article 30 for the resolution of all disputes and differences and/or the claims arising out of the agreement by arbitration through the sole arbitration of Ms.Anuradha Dutt of Dutt and Menon, Advocate and in case of the death, refusal, neglect, incapability of the said arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator, to the sole arbitration of Mr.K.S.Mehta of S.S.Kothari & Co., Chartered Accountants having their office at 9th Floor, Atma Ram House, T...
Tag this Judgment!