Delhi Court August 2003 Judgments

Finquick Finance (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)87ITD323(Delhi)

1. In this appeal, the assessee has objected to the order of the CIT(A) dated 31-1-2001 by way of following grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are clearly illegal, arbitrary, perverse, mala fide, vexatious, violative of natural justice, without fair and objective application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable, without being guided by the correct factual and legal position and appear to have been passed to meet the pre-determined revenue targets and hence both the orders of the lower authorities are liable to be set aside and quashed and declared non est in law. 2. The Respondent ought to have issued an effective and purposeful show-cause notice to the Appellant as to why, how and for what reasons he propose to make any addition/s to the assessee's declared income and how it was justified both on facts and in law and in the absence of any such effective show-cause notice indicating wha...

T.N. Vohra and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ273

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1.The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking a restraint order against the respondents from taking any action in respect of the property of the petitioners situated in khasra Nos. 424 - 425 (popularly known as Group-4 Building), situated in the area of Village Mahipalpur, Tehsil Mehrauli. 2. The notifications for acquisition of land were issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter to be referred to as `the L.A. Act' ), but the same were dismissed. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners on instructions had stated on 22.07.2003 that the petitioners are not disputing the fact that the land in question stands acquired and the acquisition stands upheld. 3. The plea of the petitioners is based on the ground that Mahipalpur Extension is being considered for regularization on the ground of built up area prior to 31.01.1993 and is enlisted in the list of unauthorized colonies so slated for regularization is s...

Model Ways Educational and Welfare Society(Regd.) and anr. Vs. Lt. Gov ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)498; 106(2003)DLT666; 2004(72)DRJ112

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this petition the order dated 31.5.2001 passed by the Lt. Governor in an appeal under Section 4(3) of the Delhi School Education Act 1973 is impugned. The issue at hand is that the school run by the petitioner No.1 had moved an application on 30.3.1999 for upgradiation from secondary to senior secondary level. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Delhi School Education Act 1973 a period of four months from the date of receiving of such application is prescribed, within which, the appropriate authority is required to decide the application for recognition. In case, the authority decides not to grant recognition, it is required to communicate the reasons for not granting such recognition. It goes without saying that in view of this provision the decision of the authority concerned is required to be passed within four months from the date of making of the application. In this case, unfortunately, this is not what has happened. The decision was taken ...

Delhi Administration and anr. Vs. Chaitali Sen Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC589; 2003VIAD(Delhi)447

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT. 2. As the matter is short, the appeal with the consent of the parties has been heard and disposed of by this order. 3. This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal had allowed the claim application of the respondents claiming compensation for the death of the husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondents 2 and 3 who had died in a road accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the jail van owned by the appellants. A few facts relevant for deciding the appeal are:- On June 13, 1994 while the deceased was going to his office at about 9.30am and was waiting by the side of pavement for clearance of the traffic, the jail van belonging to the Government of NCT of Delhi, came from Dhaulan Kuan side in a shooting speed and took a sudden turn on Sadar Patel Marg and dashed against the deceased dragging him and crushing him at the spot. As a result of the accident, the decea...

West Coast Industries (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 106(2003)DLT386; 2003(71)DRJ665; 2003(90)ECC714; 2003LC535(Delhi); 2003(158)ELT149(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The petitioner's quota was revalidated during the year 1997. Coupled with this revalidation was the petitioner's obligation for shipment of a certain extent. The non-shipment entailed the forfeiture of the EMD/LUT/BG. In this case the amount was Rs34,34,184/-. The petitioner could not meet its export obligations, as a result of which a show cause notice was issued and thereafter the AEPC passed a speaking order dated 23.01.1999.2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Textile Commissioner where, under the rules, the petitioner contended that its case would be covered under the 'Force Majeure' clause. The issue of a transporter strike was taken as a ground for invoking the Force Majeure clause. However, the Textile Commissioner, after considering the records of the case, held that the petitioner could not substantiate its claim that its performance was affected because of any Force Majeure conditions as applicable in v...

Sona Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Triupati Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR307(Delhi); 106(2003)DLT653; 2003(71)DRJ584; 2003(4)RAJ719

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge whereby the objections filed by the respondent under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 were allowed and the award of the Arbitrator was set aside. 3. The case set up by the appellant was that pursuant to the request of the respondents, the appellant had granted a loan of Rs.2 lakhs to respondent no.1 for purchase of a truck and a hire-purchase agreement was entered into between the parties on 3.7.2001. While respondent no.1 had purchased the truck on hire-purchase, respondent no.2 had alleged to have stood surety for respondent no.1 for regular payment of Installments of the hire-purchase amount. It was alleged that pursuant to the loan having been granted, the respondent no.1 executed the hire-purchase agreement and a guarantee bond was executed by respondent no.2. The Installments of hire-purchase having allegedly not been paid in terms of the agre...

Rajbir Singh Vs. A.J.S. Sawhney and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)555; 107(2003)DLT69; 2003(71)DRJ168; (2004)ILLJ682Del

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner-Workman has complained that the Orders passed in CW No. 5700/2000, dated January 24, 2002 have not been fully complied with till date. The operative part of the Order reads thus :-'........The Writ Petition is thus allowed and the order of termination dated 10.7.98 is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to take the petitioner back into service and pay the salary from the date when respondent stopped paying full salary after termination of his service. The petitioner would be treated as in continuous employment without any break in service. In case the petitioner is not fit to perform duty which he as performing since the initial appointment till his disability, the respondent shall deal with the case of the petitioner in terms of proviso to Section 47 of the said Act.Petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of Rs. 3000/-.Sd/- Sanjay Kishan KaulJudge' 2. This Order was carried in Appeal firstly before the Division Bench and thereafter to the Ho...

Sanjay Goyal Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT600; 2004(76)DRJ23

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a case which deals with the grant of L-52 licenses for retail sale of IMFL/Beer in Delhi. Earlier, a writ petition had been filed by the same party being CW 1295/2003. The same was disposed of by the order dated 20.05.2003 in the following manner:-'In this petition, the only question is with regard to the allocation of district. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in this petition, the respondent is willing to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner on this question itself and the petitioner would have full opportunity to reply to the show cause notice and also have an opportunity of being heard in the matter. In view of this, since it would involve detailed investigation into facts, the appropriate course would be for the respondent to issue a show cause notice and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner come to a decision on the merits of the case in accordance with law. It is expected that this process would be compl...

Chief Post Master, General Post Office, Parliament Street Vs. Bishan S ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 20.12.2002 passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/844/2001 entitled Shri Bishan Seth v. The Chief Post Master, GPO, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Bishan Seth had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that he, in his capacity as Karta of Bishan Seth HUF, had purchased National Savings Certificates VIIIth issue (for short the Certificates) on 17.12.1994 for Rs. 50,000/- under registration No. 45279 of even date. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the respondent, before the District Forum that when he presented the above Certificates for encashment after the date of maturity, the payment...

Cit Vs. British Airways

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN613(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, CJ.Admit.2. At the request of the learned counsels for the parties, we are taking up these matters for final hearing and disposal.3. The common question in these appeals is :Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeals in liming only because the grounds were not mentioned in Memoranda of Appeal ?4. These appeals have been filed by the revenue as the Tribunal dismissed their appeals in liming as the grounds were not mentioned in the memoranda of appeal in Form No. 36. On a similar question, the Tribunal (Chandigarh) earlier disposed of the matter and rejected the appeal in liming against which the appeal was preferred before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. V.K. Sood Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd. . The court, after examining the matter and the applicable rules in detail, allowed the appeal, set aside the order made by the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for disposal on merits. In our view identic...