Delhi Court April 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Reuters India (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)95
1. This is an application filed by the assessee seeking stay of the outstanding demand of Rs. 6,62,69,659 relating to the asst, yr.2000-01. The application has been filed under the following circumstances.2. The assessee is a news agency. In the return it claimed deduction in respect of the distribution fee paid to Reuters of UK (UK Co.) in the amount of Rs. 54.03 crores. The AO invoked Section 92 of the IT Act and disallowed Rs. 29.01 crores. Pursuant to the assessment a demand of Rs. 15.99 crores was raised which was amended under Section 154 to Rs. 15.34 crores, comprising of income-tax of Rs. 11.17 crores, the balance being interest. On appeal to the CIT(A) the disallowance was confirmed and an appeal to the Tribunal filed by the assessee is pending.3. After the order of the CIT(A), the assessee approached the CIT-V, New Delhi, by means of application dt. 10th March, 2004, seeking stay of the recovery of the demand. It was pointed out that out of the demand the assessee had paid R...
Nathu Ram and Mange Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3109; 111(2004)DLT582; 2004(75)DRJ38
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.11.2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Crl.A.16/2001, whereby the learned Judge while adjudicating on the judgment and order dated 28.3.2001 and 10.4.2001 of the Metropolitan Magistrate has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners herein. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the petitioners under Section 420/120-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo three years R.I. together -2- CRL REV P 876/2003 with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and to further undergo SI for six months each under Section 420 IPC and to undergo R.I. for three years each under Section 120-B IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Counsel for Nathu Ram - petitioner no.1 as also counsel for Mange Ram - petitioner no.2 state that they do not wish to challenge the judgment of conviction on merits but confine their arguments only to the question of sentence. Counsel submit that Nathu Ram is above 70 ...
Shri Hari Shanker Vs. Shri Madan Mohan Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT534; 2004(75)DRJ291
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner tenant has filed the present revision petition aggrieved by the impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 23.3.2001 dismissing the application of the petitioner for leave to defend the eviction petition filed in the proceedings of eviction initiated by the respondent landlord. 2. The respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') against the petitioner claiming to be owner landlord of the tenanted premises consisting of three rooms with the mezzanine inside one of the rooms, store, kitchen, two bathrooms on the first floor of property No.927, Gali Inderwali, Kuch Pati Ram, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. The respondent claimed title to the property by virtue of a Will dated 25.10.1986 executed by his mother in his favor as also a registered Gift Deed dated 13.5.1946. The premises was stated to be let out for residential purposes to the petitioner and...
Km. Para Vs. Director, Central Board of Secondary Education
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi310; 111(2004)DLT573; 2004(74)DRJ609
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The writ petition raises the issue of the right of the petitioner to get her date of birth altered after initiating proceedings under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The date of birth of the petitioner with the respondent Central Board of Secondary Education is 20.9.1988 while as per the school admission form it is 19.9.1988. The petitioner claims that her actual date of birth is 4.7.1987 and thus applied for the issuance of a certificate by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under Sections 12 and 17 of the said Act. The petitioner claims that due to the aforesaid mistake, the petitioner was unable to apply for the medical entrance examination because the requisite age qualification for admission to the medical colleges is 17 years. The petitioner requested for the correction of her date of birth vide letter dated 4.9.2003 to her school and letter dated 15.10.2003 to the Regional Officer of the resp...
Mono Caps (India) Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi349; III(2004)BC436; [2004]122CompCas517(Delhi); 2004(75)DRJ340
Manmohan Sarin, J.1.The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a mandamus to be issued to respondents to accept the proposal of the petitioner under the ''One Time Settlement Scheme.'' This is sought to be done on the basis of guidelines issued by respondent no.3-Reserve Bank of India and respondent no.2-State Bank of India on 27.7.2000 and 20.3.2001. Petitioner is also seeking quashing of the letter dated 16.6.2000 and 26.6.2001 issued by respondent no.1 by which petitioner's proposal for accepting one time settlement as not acceded to. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled to relief in terms of circular of Reserve Bank of India itself dated 12th February, 2003. 2. The facts in brief relevant for disposal of this writ petition are:- Petitioner had been granted a loan in 1977. It went into default and a suit was filed on 24.5.1980 before Addl. District Judge, Jaipur for recovery of amount of Rs.9,43,100/-. After protracted litigation, suit was decreed o...
Airports Authority of India Vs. Sea Hawk Cargo Carriers P.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ735
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5th December, 2002 in Suit No.1112A/96 and is No.11711/96 which dismissed the objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940(hereinafter referred to as the `Act') has been preferred by the International Airport Authority of India(in short the IAAI). Objections were filed by the appellant/IAAI against the reasoned Award dated 10th April, 1996 passed by the Arbitrator, who was an employee of the IAAI/respondent.2. The facts of the case according to the case set up by the claimant/respondent in this appeal is as under:- (a) that under the Contract dated 19th November, 1987 and 3rd July 1990, the respondent M/s Sea Hawk Cargo Carriers Pvt. Ltd, was awarded the job of loading and unloading export and import cargo at Delhi Airport for the following periods: Contract date Period of validity1st contract 19.11.1987 1.5.1986 to 30.4.1989IInd contract 3.7.1990 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1992 (b) that since there...
Gur Charan Das Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT207TriDel
2. Appellants filed these appeals against the confiscation of the truck and imposition of penalties.3. Brief facts of the case are that on 26-11-2001 a truck belonging to the appellants was intercepted by the Customs Authorities. On search, Cigarettes of Bangladesh origin were found concealed in the machine and Pumps which were loaded in the truck. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants alleging that they had tried to transport the smuggled Bangladesh Origin Cigarettes from Calcutta to Delhi.4. The Adjudicating authority confiscated the truck and allowed the release of the truck on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 40,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on Sudarshan Kumar and Rs. 30,000/- on Gur Charan Das.5. The contention of the appellants is that in fact, on 9-11-2001, the truck was intercepted by Sale Tax authority and Panchnama was prepared by Sale Tax authority. The contention of the appellants is that statement of interception of the truck on 26-11-2001 by the C...
Ranjan Grover Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT167TriDel
2. Appellants filed this appeal challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,71,077/-.3. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Latex Foam products and were availing the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification. During the verification of their accounts, the appellants found that they had crossed the limit of clearance provided under the Small Scale Exemption Notification and vide letter dated 20-1-2000 wrote to the Revenue Department regarding their clearance and deposited the amount of Rs. 3,52,285/-, Thereafter, Revenue issued a show cause notice on 5-12-2000 asking for the duty in respect of the goods which were cleared over and above the value of clearance under the Small Scale Exemption Notification. As per the Revenue, the appellants were required to pay an amount of Rs. 4,51,185/-, The appellants accepted the demand and deposited the whole of the duty.4. The contention of the appellants is that when they had their own deposited the...
Prem Chand Soni Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT158TriDel
1. This is a Misc. application filed by Shri Dharmendra Choudhary, learned Advocate for restoration of appeals filed by Shri Prem Chand Soni and Shri Ram Chand Soni which have been dismissed vide Final Order No. A/71-72/95-B, dated 20-1-1995.2. Shri U. Raja Ram, learned D.R., at the outset, pointed out that the application has been filed only by the learned Advocate without any affidavit by the Appellants and as per CEGAT Procedure Rules the application cannot be entertained unless it is filed by the applicants themselves.3. It is the fact that the Misc. application has been signed by the learned Advocate himself and there is no affidavit by the applicants supporting the application. As per CEGAT Procedure Rules, every application has to be filed by the applicants himself. In view of this we dismiss the present Misc. application as not maintainable....
T. Sagar Vs. Indian Council of Agricultural
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ358CAT
1. Applicant impugns respondents order dated 5.12.1994 imposing upon him a penalty of removal from service, appellate order dated 14.6.1995 confirming the punishment and also order in revision dated 10.5.2002 confirming the punishment.2. The factual matrix relevant for adjudication is reproduced as under : Applicant while functioning as Programme Officer (Impl.), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR for short) was served with a major penalty chargesheet on 15.6.1983 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 alleging failure to account Rs. 5000/- out of Rs. 35000/- received from Sh. Rup Ram to meet the expenses to the non-official members attending a meeting held on 22.3.1980 by submitting a false adjustment account enclosing false and forged payment vouchers of 4 persons. On completion of the enquiry the punishment of removal was inflicted on 26.8.1985. A writ was filed against it and was transferred to the Tribunal as TA-118/87 by the Delhi High Court.3. By an order dated 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »