Delhi Court April 2004 Judgments

Capital Cables ( India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2004]267ITR528(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. All these petitions filed by different petitioners raise common questions and thereforee, are decided by a common judgment. 2. The contention raised by the petitioners is that an order made by the Settlement Commission u/s 245D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is conclusive under Section 245I of the Act and it cannot be reopened in any proceedings under the Act, or any other law for the time being in force. 3. In all these cases, the applicants in the year 1994( in January or February) moved an application individually under Section 245-C of the Act. In all these cases, the Settlement Commission made an order under Section 245-D(1) on or about 21.4.1995. We are not referring to the assessment years for which the orders were passed by the Settlement Commission, as the same is not relevant for deciding the present controversy. After making an order under Section 245-D(1) of the Act, the Settlement Commission, after examination of all ...

Ramditti Jiwandaram Narang Public Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT66

...

Tej Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT465; 2004(74)DRJ572

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge dated 5th March, 2003 delivered in LAC No.42/1999.2. An area measuring 1374 bigha and 6 bids was was notified under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') for the public purpose of the planned development of Delhi and Papankalan Project Dwarka Scheme. The Land Acquisition Collector vide Award No.13/1991-92, fixed the market value of the acquired land for Block A at Rs.4.65 lacs per acre i.e Rs.96,875/- per bigha and Rs.18,900/- per bigha for Block B land. The appellant dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Act to the Additional District Judge. It may be pertinent to mention that for acquisition of agricultural land in Delhi, the respondent vide notification dated 3rd May, 1990 fixed the rate as Rs.4.65 lacs per acre. In the instant case, the land of the appellant was ac...

Krishan Dhawan Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi313; 111(2004)DLT446; 2004(74)DRJ562

R.C.Jain, J.1. C.M.Nos.4773-74/20042. These are applications for condensation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal.3. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the applications are allowed and the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal are condoned.4. These applications are disposed of accordingly.5.W.A.No.425/2004 & C.M.No.4772/2004 6. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27th August, 2003 thereby disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the action of the respondent-DDA in cancelling the allotment of the plots allotted to the father and mother of the appellant and not restoring the plot to one of them and seeking allotment of a plot in favor of the appellant. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground that there was mis-representation and concealment of material facts by filing of false affidavits which has lead to the cancellation of the plots allotted to the ...

Gur Partap Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT25

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is owner of land measuring 1.5 hectares situated in Village Sultanpur, New Delhi. The petitioner is aggrieved by refusal of the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to construct a motel on the land in question.2. A Gazette notification was issued on 16.6.1995 in Gazette No. 350 of 17.6.1995 by Delhi Development Authority (in short, 'DDA') for amendment of the Master Plan in terms whereof motels were permitted in rural zones/green belts and in commercial zones and national highways and inter-State roads as defined in the notification. The Gazette notification further prescribed in terms of para 4(xi) that 'all permissions and clearances for use of land, which are usually required in connection with approval or sanction for development, shall be obtained from the prescribed authority'.3. The Ministry of Urban Affairs and Environment issued a clarification dated 13.1.1999 in respect of the aforesaid subject matter. The relevant portions o...

Sukhmani Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Del)103

B.C. PATEL, C.J.1. All these petitions filed by different petitioners raise common questions and thereforee, are decided by a common judgment.2. The contention raised by the petitioners is that an order made by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'referred to as 'the Act') is conclusive under Section 245-I of the Act and it cannot be reopened in any proceedings under the Act, or any other law for the time being in force.3. In all these cases, the applicants in the year 1994 (in January or February) moved an application individually under Section 245C of the Act. In all these, cases, the Settlement Commission made an order under Section 245D(1) on or about 21st April, 1995, We are not referring to the assessment years for which the orders were passed by the Settlement Commission, as the same is not relevant for deciding the present controversy. After making an order under Section 245D(1) of the Act, the Settlement Commission, after examination o...

Cce Vs. Sandesh Springs P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.684/2003 dated 3.11.2003 allowing the deemed Modvat Credit under Notification No. 58/97 to M/s. Sandesh Springs (P) Ltd. under Notification No. 58/97-CE.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents. In fact, the notice of hearing sent to them has been received back from the postal authorities with the remarks 'undelivered'. We, therefore, heard Shri H.C. Verma, learned DR and perused the records. The respondents manufacture leaf springs and other products out of M.S. bars supplied by M/s. Vashisht Ispat Products and M/s. Mahalakshmi Steel Rolling Mills and had taken deemed Modvat Credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE. The Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 31-32/2000 dated 29.9.2000 disallowed the deemed.Modvat Credit to them on the ground that the suppliers of M.S. bars-had paid duty treating their furnace batch type and not in accordance with the capacity of production det...

Shri Paramjit Singh Lamba Vs. Smt. Prabjot Kaur

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi318; 111(2004)DLT117; I(2004)DMC806; 2004(74)DRJ106

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Revision brings to the surface an important question which universally affects and afflicts all persons belonging to a broken home, viz. the custody of the minor child of the two warring spouses. It cannot be over-emphasised that the paramount consideration in all such situations is the well-being of the child. It is this aspect which must be kept in focus and the individual `rights' of the parents would recede into the shadows. It is but a human frailty for the Judge to be prejudiced by the reproachable and unbecoming conduct of a particular spouse while determining the manner in which the child's time is to be apportioned. It has been noticed that the Guardian Judge does not follow a uniform practice in this regard in that sometimes the parent who does not have the custody of the child is granted a meeting of a duration of one or two hours in a month, that too in the uncomfortable and uncongenial environment of the Court, while in other cases weekly visitati...

Shri Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT230; 2004(74)DRJ144

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1 The heritage of any township lends character to it. The ancient monuments are like jewels in its crown. Delhi is replete with it and boast of a rich heritage and culture. Alas its various monuments fell into disrepair and suffered encroachments on account of negligence, lack of proper manpower, infrastructure and the will to protect such monuments.2 The monuments of Bhure Khan, Bade Khan and Chhote Khan are three such monuments located at one place in what is now known as - South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. These monuments are structured as tombs and are stated to be typical examples of the evolution of square tombs reflecting a distinct and harmonised architectural style. These monuments are stated to contain a treasure of inscriptions incurved stone and incised stucco in beautiful naskh alongside its arches and qibla walls. The structures of these monuments are estimated to have been built around the 15/16th Century AD and are more than 400 years old.3 The ...

Hindustan Prefab Ltd. Vs. Dosajh and Co. and S.P. Kapil, Special Engin ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR91(Delhi); 111(2004)DLT182

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 3rd September 1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Suit No.215/1982.2. Certain disputes arose between the Appellant and Respondent No.1. These disputes pertained to two separate contracts relating to foundation work of foot over bridge at Patel Marg and Nazafgarh Road. The disputes between the parties were referred for arbitration on 6th February 1980 to Respondent No.2 as the sole Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator entered upon reference on 5th September 1980 and gave his Award on 29th March 1982. The Award was a non-speaking Award.3. Respondent No.1 filed a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the Act) for making the Award a rule of the Court. The Appellant filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act but the learned Additional District Judge dismissed them by his order dated 3rd September 1983, which is impugned in the present appeal. 4. When the appeal c...