Delhi Court October 2004 Judgments

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mohinder Kaur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005ACJ372; 115(2004)DLT359

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th August, 1986 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi (for short ''the Tribunal'') in Suit No. 138/1979, whereby the learned Tribunal has held the insurance company liable to pay the entire awarded amount while turning down the contention of the insurance company that it had a limited liability restricted to act-only. 2. The question that arises before me is whether the insurance policy in this particular case Ex.R3W1/1 is one that limits the liability of the insurance company to the act only or is it unlimited. For this purpose, I hardly need to set down the facts of the case or to go into any aspect other than the one raised before me. 3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant/insurance company that bare perusal of the policy shows that a basic premium of Rs. 496/- together with half per cent IEV Rs. 270/- has been paid. In addition thereto, a sum of Rs. 135/- to cover riot and strike and Rs. 16/- ...

Pradeep Mishra Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)412

1. These petitions were disposed of by an order dt. 27th July, 2004, with the direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to carry out the directions of the Income-tax Settlement Commission within a period of four weeks from that date. However, in the meanwhile, CM No. 9697 of 2004 was filed by the chartered accountant who was appointed as a special auditor under the provisions contained in Section 142(2A) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The order of the Settlement Commission was to the effect that the assets will be released after the taxes and interests are fully paid. The Court was informed that the taxes and interests are fully paid. On 20th Aug., 2004; a statement was made by the applicant in CM No. 9697 of 2004 that the fees are to be recovered as tax dues from the respondents as provided in Section 142(2D) of the Act. It is in view of this that we stayed our order dt. 27th July, 2004, till further orders. It may be noted that so far as the question of paym...

Satyawan Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT424

ORDERIt has been observed that instruments of General Power of Attorney are being used for transfer of immovable property. Such instruments are being made between unrelated persons and allow widespread delegations including power to sell or otherwise alienate immovable property. Such instruments are irrevocable and are also accompanied by a Will which makes it clear that the intention of executing such instruments is to effectively transfer the complete interest in the immovable property as per the meaning of a conveyance. Such instruments of General Power of Attorney are being used to evade payment of stamp duty as applicable to an instrument of conveyance. To prevent such misuse of General Power of Attorney instruments for stamp duty evasion, it is hereby ordered that all Sub-Registrars/Registrars within the NCT of Delhi shall, on presentation of any instrument of Power of Attorney without consideration in respect of immovable property which meets any of the following conditions advi...

Dhanesh Gupta and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)612; [2005]272ITR482(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. These petitions are essentially against the order made by CIT under the provisions contained in Section 142(2D) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order was made on 16th Feb., 2000. It may be noted that an order was made earlier under Section 142(2A) of the Act whereby a chartered accountant was appointed as a special auditor to examine the matters and to submit a report. It is mentioned in the order that a search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 21st Jan., 1997. It was felt that the books of account and documents seized from the premises of the assesseds did not give a true and correct picture of the income of the assesseds for the years covered under the block period. The reasons have been given by the officer in detail and for the said reasons that the accounts of the assesseds being of a complex nature, a special auditor was appointed. The special audit was required for the following purposes :(a) To prepare a receipt and p...

Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(80)DRJ661

B.A. Khan, J.1. Petitioner's OA No. 2446/2001 seeking compassionate appointment has been dismissed by impugned order dated 6.6.2002. Hence this petition.2. Petitioner's father one Chander Singh was an employee of Government of India Press. He died on 21.7.1994 and his wife applied for grant of compassionate appointment for her son (petitioner) on 11.11.1995. Petitioner was interviewed on 16.9.1997 but the request for his appointment was rejected on 4.3.1998 on the ground that he could not be treated as dependent being of 27 years age and that the family of the deceased was not in financial disaster as petitioner had received terminal benefits of Rs. 1,76,625/-.3. Petitioner challenged this in OA No. 2446/2001 which was opposed by the respondents on the plea that he could not ask for compassionate appointment as a matter of right and that his case was rejected by the Compassionate Committee in terms of provisions of OM dated 30.6.1987. It was submitted that his family was not indigent o...

National Stock Exchange Members' Association Vs. Union of India (UOi) ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]130CompCas468(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The trading members of the National Stock Exchange have challenged the circular of the respondent requiring separate registration fee to be paid in case of multiple registrations with the SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India).2. The petitioner is an association of the trading members of the National Stock Exchange. These members deal in sale and purchase of shares and Securities in India. These stock brokers have to be registered with the SEBI under the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Regulations'). Such stock brokers have also to pay fee for registration in accordance with the Regulations. The grievance of the brokers arises from the impugned circular dated March 28, 2002 to the extent that in Part A, sub-para, (vi), the clarification provides for fee payable by composite corporate members and requires that where stock brokers hold more than one registration with the SEBI, separate fee would ...

Roger Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kumar Oxygen Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR583(Delhi)

R.C. Jain, J.1. This order will dispose of objections under Section 47, CPC filed by the judgment debtor in the execution taken out by the decree holder for realisation of the balance decretal amount.2. The undisputed facts are that disputes/differences arose between the parties in relation to lease agreement dated 10.10.1988 and Mr. P.S. Khera, Advocate, Supreme Court was appointed as a sole Arbitrator to settle the disputes/differences. The sole Arbitrator entered upon the reference, made and published his Award dated 27.12.1999 awarding a sum of Rs. 30,33,398 with interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs. 50,000 as cost of the Arbitration proceedings in favor of the decree holder and against the judgment debtor. The said Award was challenged by the judgment debtor by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, after filing of the said application/objections, the parties reached a settlement which were reduce...

B. Krishan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi119; 115(2004)DLT428

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner has impugned the nomination of respondent No. 3, Mr. J. Pratap as a Civilian Member of the Cantonment Board of Secunderabad by respondent No. 1, Union of India. The challenge is based on the violation of statutory provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (hereinafter to be referred to as, the said Act'). Section 13 of the said Act provides for constitution of the Cantonment Boards and Section 14 deals with the power to vary the constitution of the Boards in special circumstances. The nomination/appointment of respondent No. 3 is in pursuance to the power exercised under Section 14(2)(c) of the said Act and over this, there is no dispute. The relevant Section 14 is as under :'14. POWER TO VARY CONSTITUTION OF BOARDS IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13, if the Central Government is satisfied-(a) that, by reason of military operations it is necessary, or(b) that, for the administration of the cantonment, ...

P.N. Misra and ors Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]143TAXMAN343(Delhi)

B.C. PATEL C.J.These petitions are essentially against the order made by the Commissioner of Income Tax under the provisions contained in section 142(2D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The order was made on 16-2-2000. It may be noted that an order was made earlier under section 142(2A) of the Act whereby a chartered accountant was appointed as a special auditor to examine the matters and to submit a report. It is mentioned in the order that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 21-1-1997. It was felt that the books of account and documents seized from the premises of the assessed did not give a true and correct picture of the income of the assessed for the years covered under the block period. The reasons have been given by the officer in detail and for the said reasons that the accounts of the assessed being of a complex nature a special auditor was appointed. The special audit was required for the following purposes :(a) To prepar...

K.L. Batra Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 22.1.1996 passed by District Forum-II, New Delhi as the respondent has been allowed to offer the delivery of possession of the flat allotted to the appellant on 31.3.1989 on the price prevalent at the time of said offer and not at the price prevalent at the time of allotment. 2. Facts in brief are that one MIG Flat No. 566 East Loni Road was allotted to the appellant vide letter dated 31.3.1989 with demand of Rs. 77,560.46 towards part payment payable by 5.7.1989. It was stipulated that in case the appellant failed to pay the demanded amount the allotment will be treated as cancelled. However, the appellant made the payment well in advance i.e., on 27.6.1989, though he submitted the documents on 15.12.1989. It appears that late submission of documents by the appellant resulted in cancellation of the flat. However, the allotment was revived on payment of Rs. 5,000/- as restoration charges on 18.9.1992 but the posse...