Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 12 of about 208 results (0.023 seconds)Jayanita Export (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mcd
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT694
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Though various grounds have been urged in the writ petition as drafted, only point urged at the hearing was that the MuniciCorporation of Delhi could not levy property tax on petitioner's property on the basis of the rate of tax applicable to the year in question to which the assessment related. It was pleaded that the rate of tax applicable had to be 10%.2. Rectification order was passed on 30.3.2005 determining the annual value of the property on unit area method. The annual value determined was effective from 19.2.2001. 3. For the reasons stated in my decision of even date dismissing the WP(C)s No. 20255/2005 and 8969-70/2005, the present writ petition is dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT207; 2005(85)DRJ491
T.S. Thakur, J.1. These writ petitions are destined to dismissal not only because the petitioners, as purchasers subsequent to the notifications, do not have the locus standi to challenge the same but also because the challenge to the validity of the acquisition proceedings comes 25 years after the issue of the preliminary notification. The facts are few and may be summarised as under:2. A large extent of land situate in different villages in South Delhi including that in village Sahurpur was notified for acquisition for the public purpose of 'Planned Development of Delhi' as early as in November, 1980. A Declaration under Section 6 followed on 7th June, 1985 and an award in May, 1987. Four years thereafter, the land in question was sold by the owners concerned in favor of the petitioners herein in terms of different instruments all executed on 27th February, 1991. The petitioners claim to have applied for grant of building permission to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for raising c...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. Vs. Debts Recovery App ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT158; 2006(86)DRJ544
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dated 16.9.2005. It appears that some proceedings are pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). In those proceedings, an application was made by respondent No.2 for cross-examination of two persons who had filed their affidavits. The application was rejected by the DRT. Against the order rejecting the application for cross-examination, an appeal was filed which has been partly allowed by the impugned order inasmuch as cross-examination of one of the deponents has been allowed. 2. It is well settled that ordinarily no writ lies against an interlocutory order.3. In The Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand : [1967]1SCR310 the question was about the construction of Section 38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. That provision gave a right of appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal 'from every order of the Controller made under the Act'. 4. The Supreme Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Jindal Stainless Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT326; 2005(85)DRJ368
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Writ Petition assails the Notification/Final Finding dated 13.9.2005 on the subject of Mid-term Review of Anti-dumping Duty imposed against imports of Cold Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel from European Union, USA, Japan and Canada. The Order in terms records that none of the exporters from EU, USA and Canada has given any information on the Questionnaire and that the exporters from Japan were non-cooperative. The impugned Order itself mentions that an Appeal against it shall lie before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act. It is in this connection that an objection concerning the maintainability of the Writ Petition has been raised on behalf of the Respondents. 2. I had the opportunity of considering similar issues in WP(C) No.10615/2005 entitled Kalyani Steels v. Union of India in which an Order dated 20.5.2005 was assailed. This Order was the Final Finding on the subject of Midterm Anti...
Tag this Judgment!international Metro Civil Contractors Vs. R.K. Verma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1663; 125(2005)DLT191
T.S. Thakur, J.1. The following two precise questions arise for consideration before us :-(i) When the Court directs a statutory authority to pass an appropriate order on a pending application, does the authority concerned commit contempt if the order that it passes is, according to the party aggrieved of the same, legally erroneous?(ii) What is the remedy available to a party aggrieved of any such order. In particular, can the validity of the order be assailed by it by way of a miscellaneous application filed in the proceedings in which the direction for disposal was issued?2. The questions arise in the following factual backdrop :-3. The petitioner is a joint venture constituted to undertake the construction of metro corridor between Central Secretariat to ISBT Kashmere Gate awarded to it by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. The joint venture is registered under the Delhi Sales Tax on Works Contract Act, 1999. It was for the year 2001-02 assessed under Section 16 of the Act aforement...
Tag this Judgment!Yuv RajnaraIn Gorwaney Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT401
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of one Rajiv Sharma s/o late Shri Prakash Chand Sharma. It is the case of the applicant that he is the son of late Shri Prakash Chand Sharma who was the brother of late Shri Gyan Chand Sharma who, in turn, was the husband of the deceased Smt Avinash Pandit who is said to be the executor of the Will dated 13.2.2001 which is the subject matter of these probate proceedings. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant Rajiv Sharma was a necessary and proper party and, thereforee, ought to have been cited as a party in the first instance. He submitted that for determining whether a party is necessary or proper in a probate proceedings it should first be assumed that the testator had died intestate and the heir then should be ascertained and all of them, who would, de hors the Will, be heirs according to the personal law of succession, ought to have been imp ...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Sagar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(85)DRJ564
T.S. Thakur, J.1. The impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued more than 32 years before the filing of these petitions. That kind of delay is manifestly inordinate. The only question is whether the petitioners have offered any Explanationn, and if so, whether the same is acceptable to the Court to prevent dismissal of the petitions on the ground of laches. 2. A large extent of land measuring 516 bighas situate in 7 different villages including Ziauddinpur was notified for acquisition in terms of a preliminary notification issued under Section 4 of the act as early as on 6th March, 1965. The acquisition was meant for the public purpose of planned development of Delhi. Seven different declarations one each for each one of the villages was issued by the competent authority under Section 6 of the Act including a declaration dated 7th January, 1969 in relation to the lands under acquisition from Ziauddinpur. An award was eventually made by the Collector, L...
Tag this Judgment!Anand and Anand Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2006]286ITR432(Delhi); [2006]152TAXMAN113(Delhi)
T.S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of IT Act, 1961, arises from an order passed by the Tribunal whereby it, has upheld the order passed by the CIT(A) and affirmed the finding that a sum of Rs. 92,91,442 out of a total foreign receipt of Rs. 2,13,36,647 did not, qualify for deduction under Section 80O of the Act. The facts are few and may be set out, at the threshold.2. The appellant is a partnership concern comprising legal practitioners specializing in cases involving intellectual property rights and disputes relating to patents, trademarks, copyrights and designs, etc. For the asst. yr. 1997-98, the appellant declared a total professional receipt of Rs. 2,79,09,740 which included receipts to the tune of Rs. 2,13,35,647 in foreign exchange. Claiming deduction under Section 80O for an amount of Rs. 1,06,68,824, the appellant declared its net taxable income at Rs. 19,05,515 only.3. The AO completed the assessment in the process holding that the deduction allowable under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Josoka India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2007]290ITR336(Delhi)
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record including the order under appeal. It is a common ground that the appellant was not heard by the Tribunal before passing the order under appeal. All that the Tribunal has in this regard stated is that since the assessed has not appeared despite a notice under registered AD, the appeal was being decided on merits ex pane, Mr. P.O. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant, did not dispute the proposition that the Tribunal was competent to dispose of the appeal on merits even in the absence of the appellant but submitted that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and particularly the fact that promoters of the appellant-company had been affected by Hindu Sikh riots of the year 1984 and the company itself was under a scheme of reconstruction before the BIFR, the matter could be remitted back to the Tribunal to afford an opportunity to the appellant of being heard in the matter bef...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Modi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT685
T.S. Thakur, J.1. These writ petitions are destined to dismissal not only because the petitioners, as purchasers subsequent to the notifications, do not have the locus standi to challenge the same but also because the challenge to the validity of the acquisition proceedings comes 25 years after the issue of the preliminary notification. The facts are few and may be summarised as under:2. A large extent of land situate in different villages in South Delhi including that in village Sahurpur was notified for acquisition for the public purpose of 'Planned Development of Delhi' as early as in November, 1980. A Declaration under Section 6 followed on 7th June, 1985 and an award in May, 1987. Four years thereafter, the land in question was sold by the owners concerned in favor of the petitioners herein in terms of different instruments all executed on 27th February, 1991. The petitioners claim to have applied for grant of building permission to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for raising c...
Tag this Judgment!