Delhi Court February 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.
R.L. Toshniwal Vs. Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)65; 2003(68)DRJ474
O.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31st May, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby he rejected the petitioner's application for discharge. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against M/s. Sidhartha Super Spinning Mills Limited and its office bearers. It was alleged in the para 3 of the complaint that the accused No. 1 is the Company of which accused No. 2 is the Chairman, Accused No. 3 is the Managing Director and accused Nos. 4 to 13 are the Directors. All the accused Nos. 2 to 13 are in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the accused company, thus all of them are jointly and severally liable for the acts done in furtherance of the business of accused company. A cheque bearing No. 530934 dated 12th January, 1998 for Rs. 5 lacs drawn on Punjab National Bank, Rajendra Pl...
Orissa Cement Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)93; [2003]263ITR652(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the validity of the notice, dated March 30, 1978, issued to the petitioner under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), proposing to reopen assessment for the assessment year 1973-74.2. To appreciate the controversy involved, it would be necessary to notice the background facts, which are as follows :The assessment for the assessment year in question was completed on April 6, 1976. While completing the assessment, the Income-tax Officer had allowed a deduction of Rs. 45,43,630 under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. However, subsequently, the Commissioner of Income-tax felt that deduction, amounting to Rs. 45,00,000 in respect of the contribution made by the petitioner to Dalmia Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, had been wrongly allowed by the Assessing Officer and hence his assessment order was erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Invoking his powers unde...
Orissa Cement Ltd. Vs. Ito
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN570(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.The challenge in this writ petition is to the validity of the notice, dated 30-3-1978, issued to the petitioner under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), proposing to re-open assessment for the assessment year 1973-74.2. To appreciate the controversy involved, it would be necessary to notice the background facts, which are as follows :Assessment for the assessment year in question was completed on 6-4-1976. While completing the assessment, the Income Tax Officer had allowed a deduction of Rs. 45,43,630 under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. However, subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax felt that deduction, amounting to Rs. 45,00,000 in respect of the contribution made by the petitioner to M/s. Dalmia Institute of Scientific & Industrial Research, had been wrongly allowed by the assessing officer and hence his assessment order was erroneous insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Invoking...
Shakti Sikand Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN276(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.The case has been listed before the court for appropriate orders, as the assessed, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books despite various opportunities, However, since answer to the questions referred for our opinion stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court, we dispense with the filing of the paper books and proceed to answer the reference.2. The following questions have been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi for our opinion :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that rule 1BB was not mandatory the vis-a-vis Valuation Officer.2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the values of the two residential properties namely, Kautilya Marg and 8, Curzon Road should be adopted as valued by the departmental Valuer ?'3. Since the issue involved is purely legal, we deem it u...
Metal Strips Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC47
1. Heard both the sides. The appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 45,000 as one cold rolled machine was dismantled for three months and they had paid duty under protest in respect of this machine.2. The appellants were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme as per the duty assessed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. They applied for dismantling of machine for three months and the necessary permission was granted by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide letter dated 25.5.98. Accordingly, the machine was dismantled. However, on asking of the Revenue, they paid duty and thereafter filed refund claim which was rejected. The contention of the appellant is that the machine was dismantled for three months i.e., from 1.7.98 to 30.9.98 with due permission from the competent authority. Therefore, for three months they are not liable to pay any duty. The appellants relied on the decision of Jupiter Industries v. CCE, Jaipur, 3. The contention of the Revenue is that no refund is permiss...
Shyam Marbles and Stones and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC92
1. The appellants are the defendants in C.A. 220/ 96 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT').The respondent Bank has filed the claim against the appellants/defendants for the recovery of about Rs. 19 lakhs and odd.The appellants/defendants have filed written statement denying the execution of Exhibits A/15 and A/16, the balance confirmation letters.According to them, the signatures and the seal found therein are forged. The appellants/defendants filed a miscellaneous application dated 10.10.2001 praying that Exhibits A/15 and A/16 be sent for comparison with the admitted documents Exhibit A/8 and report by the Government Examiner of the Questioned Documents, Railway Board Building, Shimla or another institution. This application was opposed by the respondent-Bank, and the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by the impugned order dated 25.10.2001 dismissed the said application observing that the matter is very old, that on earlier occa...
Smt. Kamla Devi and ors. Vs. Shri V.K. Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)219; 2003(1)ARBLR681(Delhi); 103(2003)DLT158; 2003(67)DRJ585
Vikramajit Sen, J. is No. 12875/99 1. On the first hearing of the suit the Defendant was restrained from selling, transferring or alienating in any manner or parting with possession of the property bearing No. 2187, Upper Bela Road, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi-110 006 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) in terms of Orders dated December 23, 1999. On that very date, since the Plaintiff had claimed specific performance of the between the parties, he had sought permission for depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs.11,50,000/- in the Court. This permission was granted and the deposit was duly carried out. Summons/notices were issued returnable for 20.4.2000 on which date counsel for the Defendant sought and was granted time to file a Written Statement. Thereafter on 25.7.2000 the parties were directed to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing. It is in this background that the Plaintiffs' application (IA No. 12875/1999) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC and the...
State Vs. Sant Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)341; 2003(2)Crimes62; 103(2003)DLT334; 2003(67)DRJ340; 2003(87)ECC45; 2003(1)JCC358
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. By this judgment we propose to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 1996 and Criminal Reference No. 1 of 1996. Both the appeal and reference arise out of the Sessions Case No. 21 of 1994, State vs. Sant Kumar.2. Brief facts necessary to dispose of the appeal and the reference are as follows.3. According to the prosecution Inspector Ram Kishan, in charge of Special Staff, New Delhi Range had a secret information that a gang of criminals hailing from Rajasthan was engaged in illegal trade of supplying opium in Delhi. On 28.4.1992 secret information was received that jeep No. RJP-5326 was scheduled to arrive at Upper Ridge Road, Delhi for transportation of opium. The further prosecution story is that Inspector Ram Kishan informed his superiors about this information and requested R K Jha, Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Headquarter, New Delhi District to join the raiding party. One public witness, Rattan Bahadur Chauhan, resident of Darshanpura, Gandhi Naga...
Jaipal Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)182; 106(2003)DLT466; 2003(70)DRJ305; 2004(1)SLJ189(Delhi)
ORDERMukundakam Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondent to pay to the petitioner full pay and allowances from the date of his suspension to the date of his reinstatement and also to treat the entire period as spent on duty, i.e. w.e.f. September 9, 1974 to May 15, 1978.2. The petitioner while working with the respondent Corporation was arrested on September 9, 1974 in connection with a criminal case instituted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After filing of a charge-sheet in the said criminal case, trial was started and finally the petitioner was convicted in the said criminal case under Section 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code by a judgment and order dated December 13, 1976 and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal in this Court. The sa...
Manju Chaurasia Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)66; 107(2003)DLT23
ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.CWP No. 908/2003 :1. Petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming to be resident of Suraj Park, Auchandi Bawana Road comprised in Khasra No. 36/26 in the revenue Estate of village Sameypur, Delhi seeking a restraint order against the respondents from dispossessing them from the property in question and prohibiting them from demolishing the building constructed.2. It is stated in the writ petition that the colony in question is one of the colonies mentioned in the list of 1071 unauthorised colonies in respect of which the question of regularisation is pending consideration. It is not disputed that the land in question stands acquired and the landowner has failed in the challenge to the acquisition proceedings right till the highest Court.3. The question of regularisation of these unauthorised colonies form subject matter of Civil Writ Petition No. 4771/93, titled 'Common Cause v. Union of India and Anr.', : 73(1998)DLT451 , wherein the Division Bench vid...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »