Delhi Court August 2003 Judgments
Anz Grindlays Bank Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)88ITD53(Delhi)
1. The first issue arising in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs, 1,20,86,352/- on account of disallowance of speculation loss as sustained by CIT(A).2. Brief facts relating to this issue are these: The assessee is a foreign company which is engaged in banking business and related activities such as purchase and sale of securities in India. As per banking norms, the assessee is required to maintain standard liquidity ratio (SLR in short), meaning thereby that assessee is required to invest certain percentage of its total deposits and liabilities in the Government securities. To maintain such ratio, the assessee has either to purchase or sell such securities from time to time throughout the year. These transactions are done through Banker's Receipts (BRs) without actual delivery but against full payments. According to the BR, delivery can be given at a fixed future date. In such process, according to the AO, the assessee suffered loss of Rs. 4,66,34,835/- The assessee was asked ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Agencies Vs. Income-tax Officer [Alongwith
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)89ITD1(Delhi)
1. These are six appeals by assessee and department against the order of CIT(Appeals) relating to assessment year 1985-86. Two cross appeals are in the case of M/s Chandra Agencies and other four cross appeals are in case of Shri Kharaiti Lal Khanna and Shri Kapil Khanna, partners of the firm M/s Chandra Agencies. The main order is in the case of the firm, M/s Chandra Agencies and the orders in cases of partners are consequential to the order in case of the firm, as in those cases the share of profit from the firm has been assessed in the hands of the partners as per their sharing ratio.2. We will take first the appeal in case of the firm M/s Chandra Agencies filed by assessee being ITA No. 1970(Del)/98. Return of income accompanied with the audit report Under Section 44AB and Form 3CD was filed on 3.1.1986 declaring an income of Rs. 61,140/-. The firm has also filed Form No. 11 and copy of partnership deed on 31.12.1984. The assessment was completed originally Under Section 143(1) of...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Garg Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)23; 106(2003)DLT433; 2003(71)DRJ658
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner registered himself under the Rohini Residential Scheme in 1980 and vide application dated 25.02.1981 applied for allotment of a plot under the MIG category. The petitioner was issued a letter dated 18.04.1988 intimating to the petitioner that he had been provisionally allotted a plot bearing No. 11, Pocket 3, Block C, Sector 11, Rohini Residential Scheme measuring 60 sq. mtrs. at a total premium of Rs.24,600/- and calling upon the petitioner to deposit the balance amount. The petitioner deposited the balance amount on 19.05.1988 and submitted the requisite documents. The petitioner submitted a copy of the sale deed dated 01.05.1973 in favor of the petitioner in respect of plot No. F-7/10, Model Town, Delhi. This plot measures 77.68 sq. yds. (64.4 sq. mtrs.). The sale deed shows the existing structure, which included tenanted shop on the ground floor. A copy of the sanctioned plan, which was submitted vide letter dated 24.10.1990, shows that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mekaster Trading Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)161; 106(2003)DLT573; 2003(71)DRJ376
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Vide order dated 19th March, 2002 petitioner has been black-listed. Order has been passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce to the effect that all departments/Ministries/offices of the Government of India are forbidden to have commercial/business dealings with the petitioner and its subsidiaries, if any, for a period of five years with effect from the date of the order, i.e. 19th March, 2002. Petitioner has impugned this order in the present writ petition and the prayer is for issuance of writ of certiorari and any other writ quashing the said order.2. The factual matrix of the matter may be summarised first, before taking note of the legal challenge to the impugned order:-Department of Commerce in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Supply Division (respondent No. 2) sent an indent to Director General of Supply and Disposal (DGS&D;) (respondent No. 3) vide memorandum dated 16.8.1993 for procurement of four numbers...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Ram Khatik Vs. Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)271; 106(2003)DLT643; 2003(70)DRJ526; 2004(2)SLJ278(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.CM 9325/2001 This application is filed by the review applicant seeking condensation of delay in filing the review application. No reply to this application is filed and at the time of arguments also prayer made in the application was not opposed. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the review application is condensation.CM stands disposed of.RA 9324/2001 in CWP 1301/20001. We shall understand the genesis of this review application better, once we take note of the background material and events culminating into passing order dated 5.1.2001 review of which is sought in this application.2. Respondent No. 2, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (in short 'DSSSB') issued an advertisement on 11.6.1998 calling for applications from Indian nationals for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers/Nursery Teachers/Assistant Teachers in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, New Delhi Municipal Council and Directorate of Education, ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sarupi Devi and ors. Vs. Katar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ46; 2003VIAD(Delhi)235; 106(2003)DLT663; 2004(72)DRJ192
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of one Mr. Ran Singh, husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellants 2 to 5 who had died in a road accident on 25.7.1982 allegedly caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The facts in short giving rise to this appeal are:- On 25.7.1982, the deceased was sleeping in front of his house away from the road when oil tanker owned by respondent no.2 and being driven by respondent no.4 and insured with respondent no.3 ran over the deceased resulting in his death at the spot. The deceased was 45 years of age at the time of the death and was an agriculturist cultivating 12 bighas of ancestral land and allegedly taking another 4 acres of agriculture land on `batai' for cultivation. Claiming that the accident was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving by the tanker by its driver, the appellants filed the petition before the Motor Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Kapil Garg and Sh. Hari Singh Shekhawat Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 4(2003)CCR172; 107(2003)DLT228; 2003(70)DRJ621; 2003(3)JCC1488; 2003RLR111
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Through the above mentioned petitions the legality as well as validity of the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2002 passed by Ms. Kamini Lau, Metropolitan Magistrate has been challenged. 2. Bare facts and perusal of the order show that erroneous approach has been adopted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in not accepting the report submitted by the Investigating Officer for closure of the case due to insufficiency of evidence and that no case of extortion and criminal intimidation as punishable under Sections 386/506/34 IPC is made out against the petitioners who are Senior Doctors of Mool Chand Hospital. They have been accused of forcing the respondent Dr. Rajiv Johri to submit resignation else his services would be terminated and employing threat that if he would not resign, they would send letters to all the hospitals informing about his termination and thereby he would not get job anywhere. 3. This act on their part has been brought by the MM within the mis...
Tag this Judgment!Gajender Singh Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)131; 109(2004)DLT486
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties who are all present.2. The petitioner is a student of the respondent no.3 (College of Vocational Studies), University of Delhi, studying in the second year of the Office Management and Secretarial Practice Course. The petition pertains to the ongoing elections of the Delhi University Students' Union. The petitioner is seeking election as a Member of the Central Council. The petitioner filed the nomination papers for the elections which are to be held on 05.09.2003. He filed the nomination papers with regard to the membership of the Central Council of the Delhi University Students' Union on 21.08.2003. The scrutiny of nomination papers was done on 22.08.2003 at 3.00 p.m. It is the petitioner's allegation that at the time of scrutiny, though the petitioner's nomination papers were not rejected, it was however, decided that the nomination papers be placed before the Students Advisory Commit...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Motors Limited Vs. the Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)26; 107(2003)DLT667; 2003(71)DRJ641; (2004)ILLJ1020Del; 2004(2)SLJ314(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 5th April, 2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 8 passed under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). For reference Section 36 is set out below:'36. Representation of parties - (1) A workman who is a party to dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by (a) [any member of the executive or other office bearer] of a registered trade union of which he is a member; (b) [any member of the executive or other office bearer] of a federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred to in clause (a) is affiliated; (c) where the worker is not a member of any trade union, by [any member of the executive or other officer bearer] of any trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed in, the industry in which the worker is e...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Service Station Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT400; 2004(75)DRJ384
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved primarily by the action taken by the District Supply Office, Meerut. The District Supply Officer issued a letter dated 25.4.2003 from Meerut to the petitioner who runs a retail outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation under the name and style of M/s Ram Raj Service Station, Ram Raj, District Meerut (UP). This letter is a show cause notice with respect to the testing of some samples which were taken on 17.8.2002. Apparently, the samples were tested eight months later on 29.3.2003. The samples taken were allegedly found to be contaminated high speed diesel. Accordingly, the District Supply Officer issued this show cause notice to the petitioner to show cause within seven days failing which it was indicated therein that it would be presumed that the petitioner had nothing to say and action would be taken as per the Marketing Guidelines and a fine of Rs.10,000/- would be imposed and the retail outlet would be suspended for 30 days. Learned c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »