Delhi Court December 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.
Anil Kumar Bansal Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC205
1. Mr. Anand Aggarwal states that this appeal is directed against the order passed in LA. 379/2003 by DRT-I, Delhi on 1.10.2003. The same is recorded accordingly.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant points out even from the averments in the O.A. filed before the DRT by the respondent-Bank that even prior to the filing of the O.A., the Bank had issued notice under Section 13(2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on 11.7.2002. By pointing out this fact, the learned Counsel for the appellant states that a Miscellaneous Application was moved before the DRT to dismiss the O.A.itself as not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (10) of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest, Act, 2002, which reads as under: "(10) Where dues of the secured creditor are not fully satisfied with the sale proceeds of the secured assets, the secu...
Cea Consultants (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Delhi)1146
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 15/10/ 97 of Commissioner (Appeal)-X, New Delhi pertaining to 1995-96 assessment year.1. That on the facts and circumstances Of the case and in law the Commissioner (Appeal) erred in cafirming the action of the assessing officer in treating the long capital gain of Rs. 21,67,506 as taxable income of the appellant and not accepting the appellant's contention that the same was not chargeable to tax as per the provisions of section 47(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. That the order passed by the assessing officer and Commissioner (Appeal) are bad in law and void ab-initio." The relevant facts of the case are that in the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer observed that the assessee had made certain deduction from, the gross income profit on sale of investment.In view of the fact that no reason was given by the assessee for making the said deduction from sale of investments, the assessee was asked to...
Dy. Cit V.M/S Prakash Industries
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Delhi)135
These are 13 appeals by the department. In all these 13 appeals the -department has objected in holding by the CIT(Appeals) that no tax should be deducted at source on making payment to non-resident company.And in the first five appeals i.e., ITA Nos. 2546 to 2550(Del)/94 the department has also taken one 'more ground i.e., the CIT(Appeals) erred in passing rectification order on the orderdated 27-8-1993 passed by the CIT(Appeals), by which the appeals of the assessee were dismissed.We will take first then second ground of the department raised in five appeals stated above.The brief facts are that captioned five appeals were filed before the CIT(Appeals) against the order passed under section 195 of the Income Tax Act passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Spl. Range, Rohtak. These appeals were dismissed by the CIT(Appeals) vide his order dated 27-8-1993 on the ground that order passed under section 195 is not appealable and, therefore, the appeals are misconceived. After that the asse...
R.P. Nanda Vs. Dda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ23; 2004(3)SLJ15(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Should this court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bring to an end the disciplinary proceedings at the threshold by quashing the charge-sheet? This is the issue which squarely arises for my consideration in the present writ petition and the connected batch.2. Before I set out the sequence of the essential facts with consequences, culminating in the filing of the writ petition, it would be appropriate we have a birds eye view of the legal position.3. In the judgment reported : 1990CriLJ1315 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh in Para 4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-'The appeal against the order dt. 16-12-1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laces and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned Counsel. The irregularities which were the ...
Venkatesh Dutt Vs. Ms Shoes East Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC19; 2004CriLJ1695; (2004)137PLR32
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Short question involved for consideration in these proceedings is whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act relating to dishonoring of a cheque which in this case was of the amount of Rs. one core can be allowed to continue along with other complaints under Section 138 of the Act arising out of the agreement or compromise arrived at between the parties in the original complaint wherein several cheques were issued and accepted by the complainant but on presentation were dishonored. In other words, can the complainant be allowed to continue the original complaint along with as many complaints as many cheques are issued and accepted by way of compromise in the original complaint.2. Admittedly in the instant case not only the proceedings of the original complaint relating to the cheque of Rs. One core are continuing but as many as seven more complaints arising out of the cheques given by the petitioner in lieu of Rs. One core by way of agr...
Mr. Piyush JaIn Vs. the Election Commission of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT470; 2004(72)DRJ642
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that allegedly the petitioner's name was not published according to alphabetical order in violation of Rule 10 (3) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 in the recently concluded election to the Delhi Legislative Assembly in which the petitioner was a candidate in the 41-Gandhi Nagar Constituency. He was set up by the Jai Prakash Janata Dal Party. 2. The petitioner has alleged that the dummy ballot paper as well as the electronic voting machine indicated that the names were not printed in alphabetical order inasmuch as the candidates of the Indian National Congress and the Bhartiya Janata Party have been given precedence over the other candidates whereas, according to him, in terms of Rule 10(3) the entire list ought to have been prepared in alphabetical order. This plea of the petitioner is clearly untenable in view of the fact that Section 38 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, in refe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Pritam Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: [2005]272ITR359(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 dated June 26, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), in I. T. A. No. 6092/Delhi of 1996, pertaining to the block period 1986-87 to 1995-96 and latest block period from April 1, 1985, to October 13, 1995. According to the Revenue, the order involves the following substantial questions of law :'(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct, both on facts and in law, in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,10,000 ?(b) Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in allowing the relief to the assessed on assumption that profits made on unaccounted sales have partly been invested in stocks and partly was available as cash, recovered during the course of search ?(c) Whether the ...
Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)1; 108(2003)DLT718; 2004(72)DRJ644
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary powers of this Court best owed on it by Article 226 of the Constitution. The Petitioner is the widow of late Surender Kumar who earned his livelihood as a three-wheeler scooter driver. He died in police custody in the afternoon of 8th April, 2000,2. The following reliefs have been prayed for, out of which the prayer for compensation has been emphasised upon;'(a) That SDM, Rajouri Garden Shri Inderjit Singh Dahiya, be ordered to produce and place before this Hon'ble Court the original inquest report post-mortem report, the video reel and all other materials (including evidence, if any recorded by him in respect of the circumstances leading to, and the cause of, the death in custody of Petitioner's husband);(b) that an inquiry by C.B.I. or an independent judicial inquiry be ordered into the circumstances leading to, and in order to ascertain the cause of, the death of the Petitioner's husband, fixing an early d...
Brown Forman Mauritius Limited Vs. Jagatjit Brown-forman India Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: [2005]126CompCas392(Delhi); (2004)1CompLJ368(Del); 109(2004)DLT198; 2004(72)DRJ655; [2004]51SCL214(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Brown Forman Mauritius Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Petitioner`) has invoked Section 433(f) of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') which enunciates that a company may be wound up by the Court if it is of the opinion that it is just and equitable for such action to be taken. This section must be applied conjointly with Section 443(2) of the Act which enables the Court to refuse to order winding up if it appears to it that some other remedy is available to the Petitioner which is unreasonably not being pursued. The prayer in this Petition is to order the winding up of Jagatjit Brown-Forman India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the `Company`) in which the Petitioner and Jagatjit Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the Respondent`) are equal shareholders, each entity holding fifty per cent of the Company's equity. 2. The Petitioner has submitted that in actuality the Company was a 50-50 quasi partnership between the Petitioner...
Ram Kumar Contractor Vs. Ntpc Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(109)AWC934; 109(2004)DLT478; 2004(75)DRJ369
H.R. Malhotra, J. 1. This is a petition made under the Provisions of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking revocation of the authority of respondent No. 4 as the sole Arbitrator and for the appointment of an independent and impartial Arbitrator to act as sole Arbitrator between the parties.2. The facts as taken out from the petition are as under:3. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement for running a canteen within the premises of respondent No. 1 for a period of three years. The license deed executed between the parties contained various terms and conditions on the basis of which the said canteen was to be operated. This license deed also contained an arbitration Clause No. 44 which reads as under:'That in the case of dispute between the parties arising out of or in connection with meaning or operation of license the same shall be decided by a sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the General Manager, BTPS and there shall be no objection that A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »