Delhi Court October 2003 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.
Sanjay Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ359CAT
1. The applicant has challenged the vires of certain actions taken by respondent No. 2 by declaring four other persons as successful candidates for the posts of Primary School Teacher, that is respondents 3-6 by order dated 2.4.2001, which has not been annexed by any of the parties. However, the respondents have annexed Annexure R-11 dated 5.10.2001 posting these four persons as Assistant Teachers/Primary Teachers.2. The aforesaid impugned order of selection of respondents 3-6 has been passed by the official respondents, in pursuance of the advertisement issued by them in September, 2000 for appointment to the posts of Primary Teacher. The qualifications for the post of Primary Teacher as given in the advertisement arc as follows: "(i) Higher Secondary and Junior Basic Training (two years); or (ii) Intermediate and Junior Basic Training (one year); or (iii) Senior Secondary and Junior Basic Training (one year) (age limit 18 to 55 years)".In the advertisement, it has been mentioned tha...
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)88ITD283(Delhi)
1. These are the cross appeals by the assessee as well as revenue and the same were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience.2. The first common issue relates to the disallowance of rural development expenses. The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 3,38,333, Rs. 3,27,949, Rs. 6,96,634 and Rs. 2,89,102 for assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively. It was explained before the Assessing Officer that such expenditure was in the nature of advertisement and publicity. Since similar claim had been disallowed in earlier years, the Assessing Officer disallowed such claim in these years also. It was contended before the CIT(A) that assessee had running a rural development programme which provided medical aid to the poor in the rural areas and thereby earned a goodwill and publicity which helped in the growth of company's product as well as its name. The CIT(A) was of the view that the expenditure was revenue expenditu...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kamleshwar Dubey
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)589; 107(2003)DLT634; 2003(71)DRJ396; 2004(2)SLJ312(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. This writ petition challenges the award dated 23rd January, 2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal which allowed an application filed by the respondent under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for fully implementing the decree dated 13th October, 1981 passed in the Civil Suit No. 233/1975 filed by the respondent. 4. The conduct of the case shows shows that the petitioner, Union of India through Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Firozepur has resisted and delayed by their obstructionist tactics the compliance of the orders of various courts. There have been several rounds of litigations in this Court which demonstrate that the petitioner has been obdurately and unfairly resisting the claim of the respondent No.1. In 1981, a civil suit filed by the respondent was decreed in the following terms by th...
Sanjay Suri Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi9; 107(2003)DLT626; 2003(71)DRJ446; (2004)136PLR13
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1.Petitioner, Sanjay Suri filed a petition for grant of probate/ Letters of Administration under Section 278 read with Section 218 of the Indian Succession Act (in short the Act) and seeking a probate in respect of the will of the deceased Smt.Kaushalya Devi dated 6.7.1993. The petition was instituted in May, 1998. However, the same was not registered on account of objections of non-filing of the affidavit regarding valuation of property. Petition was registered in September, 2000 on valuation being filed and issues were framed on 25.9.2000.2.The deceased Kaushalya Devi, widow of late Sh.Khub Chand Suri expired on 22.3.1997. Her husband, Sh.Khub Chand Suri, who owned property bearing Municipal No.WZ-177, G Block, Hari Nagar, jail Road, New Delhi pre-deceased her on 4.11.1969. Late Sh.Khub Chand Suri and Smt.Kaushalya Devi had only one issue, namely, late Sh.Siri Ram Suri. Late Sh.Khub Chand Suri left behind the following legal heirs. i)Smt.Kaushayla Devi- Widow of Sh...
Chander Bose Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)157; 107(2003)DLT604; 2003(71)DRJ647
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking allotment of an alternative plot as a consequence of the acquisition of the land of Shri Bhikan, grand-father of the petitioner under the scheme for alternative allotment of plot against large scale acquisition of land.2. The factual matrix is not in dispute to the extent that late Shri Bhikan owned an agricultural land in Shakarpur and a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 3.9.1957. Award No.1179 was issued was made on 7.8.1961. The payment of the compensation was received on 27.9.1961 by Shri Khem Chand, son of late Shri Bhikan. Shri Bhikan was survived by four sons - Ami Chand, Tek Chand, Deep Chand and Khem Chand. Shri Ami Chand died in 1962 and is survived by his son Prahlad. Shri Khem Chand, who also passed away, is survived by the present petitioner since the brothers of the petitioner have executed a Deed of Relinquishment dated 28.07.1998 in his favor.3....
Pramod Kumar Kushwaha Vs. Indian Institute of Technology
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)316
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner had applied for admission to the MBA Course conducted by the I.I.T. , Delhi. Not only had he cleared the Examination but he had also been called for the Interview. It was after that stage that the Respondents took the decision that his educational qualifications are not equivalent to those acceptable by them. The fact that the Petitioner had reached this advanced stage before the Respondents considered it appropriate to look into his qualifications is a factor which the Respondents should ensure that does not recur in the future. So far as appearing in the Examination is concerned, it may be reasonable for a University to fall back on the large number of applications it receives to submit that it is not feasible to check equivalence or basic qualifications at the early stage. But certainly when candidates are called for Interviews, and they are shortlisted prior to the interview, it is certainly feasible that such a scrutiny should be undertaken. 2. ...
Gauri Shankar Dhanwaria Vs. Mrs. Maya Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)549; 107(2003)DLT583; 2003(71)DRJ566
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2002 passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge whereby the petition of the appellant for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was dismissed. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are:Marriage between the parties was performed according to Hindu rites and customs on 15.2.1997. From the wedlock of the parties, one male child was born on 9.11.1998. Alleging that the respondent had treated him with cruelty, the appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the allegations as contained in the petition. Some details of the alleged acts of cruelty were given in the petition. Paragraphs 4 to 24 of the petition narrating incidents of the alleged cruelty read as under: - 4. That from the very beginning of the marriage, the respondent showed disinclination to settle in the matrimonial home. The petitioner tried very hard to break down the resistance,...
Bhagwan Dass Vs. Prabhati Ram and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)343; AIR2004Delhi137; 108(2003)DLT25
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. R.S.A. 177/2003 is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge dated 14.7.2003 in R.C.A. 6/2003 whereby the learned Judge has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court while directing the appellant herein to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises shown in red in the site plan, Ex.PW-1/1.2. The facts of the case, as noted by the First Appellate Court, are as under :'The respondent No. 1 herein married two wives, namely, Smt. Dhani Devi and Smt. Dhapa Devi @ Smt. Dhaba Devi. The respondent No. 1's first wife, Dhani Devi, expired in 1967 and after her death the respondent No. 1 married second wife, Smt. Dhapa Devi on 14.2.1969. She died on 16.11.1993. Prior to her death she had purchased the suit property in her name in 1978. The appellant is respondent No. 1's son from his first wife Dhani Devi. He got married in the year 1982-83. Prior to his marriage he had a joint mass with the respo...
Sunita Baveja and ors. Vs. D.T.C. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC146; 2004ACJ1125; 2003VIIAD(Delhi)591; 108(2003)DLT589
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of one Mr.Suresh Kumar Baveja, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants 2 to 4, who had died in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to respondent No.1 by its driver. 2. The only contention of learned counsel for appellant is that while deciding the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased, the tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased and though the deceased was 39 years of age at the time of his death, the tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12 instead of 16, as is provided in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act.3. The appellant was employed as the Section Officer with UPSC and was drawing a total salary of Rs.6,404/- per month as on the date of the accident. Though it is stated by one of the witnesses who had appeared before the tribunal that with the pas...
Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)384; [2004]266ITR349(Delhi)
ORDER1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act for short) is directed against order dt. 19th Jan., 2001, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi, 'F' Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in ITA No. 6994/Del/94-pertaining to the asst. yr. 1991-92.2. By the impugned order the Tribunal has dismissed Revenue's appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) had come to the conclusion that the respondent-assessed was entitled to exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act. While holding so the CIT(A) had observed that there had been no instance of any expenditure being incurred by the assessed-society for purposes other than educational and no personal benefit had been derived by any member of the society or persons close to the society. It has been further observed that the society will also not lose exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act merely because it has claimed depreciation.3. While agreeing with the CIT(A), the Tribunal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »