Delhi Court November 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.
Newtech Estate and Industries Private Limited and anr. Vs. Sh. Inder S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT90; 2004(72)DRJ420; (2004)137PLR12
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge in a suit filed by respondent No. 1 whereby the appellants were restrained from putting the property in question to any use other than residential purpose till the disposal of the suit. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are :-Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is the owner of residential premises bearing No. 78, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi. The adjacent plot of land bearing No. 79 was purchased by the appellants and they constructed a building thereon after allegedly getting the building plans sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Respondent No. 1, being the immediate neighbour of the appellant, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from putting the property bearing No. 79, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi to any non-residential use or from doing any commercial activity from the said premises on the allegations that the appellants were intending to p...
Capt. Satish Sharma and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT938
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the communication dated 20.10.2003 whereby the respondent No. 2 has communicated to the petitioners that its Special Director is of the opinion that adjudication proceedings as contemplated in Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange and Regulations Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the FERA) should be held against the petitioners in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as a said Rules) and intimating the petitioners of the date of personal hearing. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that in the said communication dated 20.10.2003, it is communicated that the petitions had failed to reply to the memorandum/show-cause notice issued by the respondent No. 2. The show cause notice/memorandum dated 23.5.2002 had been issued by the respondent No. 2 to all the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners are under the provisions of Sections 9(1)...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shankarlal Ved Prakash Huf
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)8
ORDER1. CM 97/2002 & RA 96/2002This is an application by the Revenue under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, r/w Section 151 CPC, seeking condensation of delay of 'about 12 months' in filing the review application against the order passed by this Court on 10th April, 2001, in ITA No. 1/2000. By the impugned order, following the decision of this Court in ITC No. 35/1999, Revenue's appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), was not entertained.2. In the application, which is supported by an affidavit of the CIT, Delhi-VII, New Delhi, it is stated that delay in filing the review application was on account of the fact that the decision to file SLP/review application had to be taken in consultation with multiple authorities, namely, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short CBDT) or the Ministry of Law, etc. which was a time-consuming process. A list of dates and events filed with the application reads as follows:S. Date EventsNo.1. 10-4-2001 Order of the H...
Canara Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar Arora and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi304; [2005]123CompCas800(Delhi); 108(2003)DLT729; 2004(72)DRJ381
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st March, 1998 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in appeal against the judgment of the Civil Judge dated 11th April, 1997, whereby the learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal while setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court.2. The brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional District Judge are as follows :'In brief the facts are that the plaintiff was employed in Libya from 1979 to 1985. He returned to India on 26/1 /86. While he was in Libya, the plaintiff has opened a NRI account with defendant No. 1 and he gave to defendant No. 1 for realisation a bank draft dated 18/7/84 US $ 1560 purchased by defendant No. 3 and issued by defendant No. 2 bank. Defendant No. 1 credited the amount equivalent to Indian Rs. 17904.40P in the NRI account of the plaintiff/ appellant on 10/8/84. However on 5/2/85, the defendant No. 1 sent to the plaintiff a copy of the communication allegedly addressed b...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Iffco Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Del)558
D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal, by the Revenue, under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F', New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 948/Del/1986, in respect of asst. yr. 1991-92. According to the Revenue, the order involves the following substantial questions of law :'(a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the order of CIT(A) and thereby holding that the depreciation of Rs. 8, 13, 16, 666 is to be allowed to the assessed on the increased cost of plant and machinery due to fluctuation in the rate of exchange as on the last date of the accounting year ?(b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the increased depreciation on increased cost of plant and machinery, when the increased liability to pay did not accrue during the relevant year ?(c) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in taking into consideration the fluctuation in the rate of exchange as on the...
Vinay Construction Co. and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT14
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The action of the respondent MCD in blacklisting six concerns and de-listing them from the list of contractors in terms of the impugned circulars dated 26.6.2003 has given rise to these petitions by the petitioners who have a common grievance. The rules for enlistment of contractors as prevalent in the MCD were circulated vide letter dated 7/13.8.2001 and the contractors have been enlisted in pursuance thereto in different categories and classes. The petitioners herein are registered in different classes and as per Table-I of the said rules, there are different enlisting authorities for different classes of contractors. The details in respect of the petitioners are as under:------------------------------------------------------------------------CW Number Name Class Enlisting Authority------------------------------------------------------------------------4381/2003 M/s Vinay V Executive EngineerConstruction Co.4382/2003 Shri Om Prakash II Addl. Commissioner/Mitt...
Gulfam Gazi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT931; 2004(73)DRJ386
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. The present case was registered on 16.8.2003, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Smt. Maya Devi, alleging that the petitioner (Gulfam Gazi) pretending himself to be the owner of the flat bearing No, C-80, DDA Flats, New Seema Puri, Delhi (hereinafter 'the flat'), proposed to sell the same to her for a total sale consideration of Rs. 19.80 lacs; complainant paid a sum of Rs. 3.80 lacs to the petitioner, as earnest money; complainant later on came to know that the petitioner is not the owner of the flat and had no right to sell the same. After inquiry the FIR was registered; during investigation, police recorded the statement of the real owner (Saroj Bala), who has stated that she is the owner of the above noted flat and that petitioner has no right, title or interest therein. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the cheated amount and to interrogate other persons, if any, involved in the...
Cit Vs. Iffco Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)547
D.K. Jain, JThis appeal by the revenue, under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 7, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in ITA No. 947/Del/1986, in respect of assessment year 1992-93. According to the revenue, the order involves the following substantial questions of law :'(a) Whether Tribunal was correct in confirming the order of CIT(A) and thereby holding that the depreciation of Rs. 53,76,09,402 is to be allowed to the assessed on the increased cost of plant and machinery due to fluctuation in the rate of exchange as on the last date of the accounting year ?(b) Whether Tribunal was correct in allowing the increased depreciation on increased cost of plant and machinery, when the increased liability to pay did not accrue during the relevant year ?(c) Whether Tribunal was correct in law in taking into, consideration the fluctuation in the rate ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Santoshi Steels P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC437
1 This order will dispose of the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue which have been directed against the common impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the orders-in-original of the adjudicating authority. Since the facts and issues involved in all these appeals are common, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of agricultural knives and soil levellers. They filed declaration under Rule 173B claiming exemption from payment of duty under Notification 64/86-C.E., dated 10-2-86 as amended by Notification 196/86, dated 14-3-86 by claiming the classification under Chapter Headings 84.33 and 84.32 as parts of the machines falling under these Headings. But the Department proposed classification of these goods under Chapter Heading 82 of the CETA. They were served with various show cause notices for the periods in dispute from July, 1996 to March, 2000. ...
Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT835TriDel
1. The demand is with regard to goods which had been supplied for a project (Feroze Gandhi Unchahar Thermal Power Project) financed by Asian Development Bank. There is no dispute that the goods in question were in-fact supplied for that project. Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.8.95 exemption for such goods, provided there was a certificate produced from the nodal Ministry that the goods are to be supplied to a project financed by an international organization. The impugned order has denied the exemption. It reads as under: "In my view it implies that the name/description of the goods which are to be supplied should find place in the certificate from the nodal Ministry to be produced before the Assistant Commissioner." 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the above view taken by the Assistant Commissioner is not only impracticable, it is also against the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bindawala Electrical Industries Ltd. v. CCE 2002-Taxindiaonline-28-Cesta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »