Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 19 of about 273 results (0.022 seconds)Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Esteem Towers (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)472
1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order dt. 30th Nov., 1999, passed by CIT(A), New Delhi, for asst. yr. 1996-97. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 53 lakhs made under Section 68 on account of share application money credited in the books of the assessee despite the fact : (i) That letters sent by the AO were received back with the remarks of the postal authorities that no such firms existed at the given address as pointed out in para 3.4 of the assessment order. (ii) That the AO has recorded categorical finding that copies of balance sheet of M/s LCL, FLFL, LDPL, CLCL and BBFL do not reflect the investment made by them.3. Briefly stated the facts are that during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the assessee received share application money from several applicants amounting to Rs. 53 lakhs.The AO issued letters calling for information under Section 133(6) of the IT Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Sep. Jai Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT66; 2005(2)ESC1355; 2006(1)SLJ256(Delhi)
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioner was enrolled as non-combatant in the trade of sweeper in Indian Army on 29th of April, 1964 in the Corps of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers(EME). He accepted combatantisation under the terms and conditions of service laid down in GOI, Ministry of defense letter No.19178/IX/Trg.2(MP)(C)/1 of 16.3/D(AO) dated 31.12.1971 with varied terms of engagement of 18 years of service or on attaining 45 years of age, whichever was earlier. He was discharged from service w.e.f. 1.11.1977(F/N) under Rule 13.(3)(iii)(i) of Army Rules, 1954 on completion of 13 years and 174 days service and on attaining the age of 45 years. The petitioner was placed in low medical category `CEE'(Temp) w.e.f.13.8.1976. He was brought before a Medical Board and was placed in medical category `CEE'(Prmt). His disability `MYLAGIA BACK' was assessed at 33% for two years and was, accordingly, granted disability pension. The same was, however, stopped w.e.f.24.2.1988 by CCDA(P) on Re-s...
Tag this Judgment!Partap Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT281; 2005(81)DRJ282
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In all these cases, the petitioners seek directions to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) directing it to allot flats in lieu of those cancelled. The further relief claimed during the hearing is that the lower of two costs,- as between the cost at the time of the original allotment, and the current cost,- ought to be charged.2. The petitioners in WP 13385/2004 and WP 19682/2004 had registered in the schemes known as the New Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS) formulated by the DDA in 1979, and the petitioner in WP 13314/2004 had registered in the Ambedkar Avas Yojna, (Ambedkar Scheme ) formulated in 1989. Such registrants were given a priority number in the scheme. As per the scheme, the DDA used to hold periodic draw of lots, and dispatch intimations, in the form of allotment cum demand letters, calling upon allottees to make payment, and complete formalities, as a condition for securing possession of the property.3. The petitioners had changed their addresses...
Tag this Judgment!Anuj Johri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT418; 2005(81)DRJ238
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common judgment, questions and issues raised in a batch of writ petitions numbering around 183 filed by Tourist Guides, are being decided. The above petition has been taken as a lead case since it by and large covered grievances and concerns of the petitioners in the batch of petitions. Union of India was also permitted to file in this petition an additional affidavit.During the course of hearing, Mr. G.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Y.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Anjana Gusain, Mr. S.D. Kindra, Mr. Ajay Malviya, Mr. S.Q. Kazim, Mr. Falak Mohd and Mr. Tarique Siddiqui addressed the court on behalf of the petitioners. Counsel were also directed to file their synopsis of submissions. Interim directions were also given from time to time to which, I shall advert during the course of judgment later. Apart from Lead counsels addressing the court, an opportunity was also given to counsels in the batch of writ petitions to make submissions or file synopsis of submission...
Tag this Judgment!Darshan Lal Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT440
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India an action of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) canceling the perpetual lease deed of the petitioner, dismissing a plot measuring 978 sq.yds. (hereafter the plot ) has been impugned.2. The petitioner was allotted a plot, as member of Mohan Cooperative Estate Ltd. A perpetual sub-lease was executed in his favor on behalf of the Central Government on the 17th of April 1978. 3. After securing the necessary permissions the petitioner put up building on the plot and started using it. On 10.12.2002 the DDA (which in the meanwhile had been handed over the management of the Estate and lease hold rights) issued a show cause notice alleging that during the course of a site inspection it was discovered that the plot was being used for Godown Engineering Tool which was in breach of conditions the lease deed. The DDA further directed that the said misuse of the plot be stopped forthwith and that an amount...
Tag this Judgment!Datt Enterprises Ltd. Vs. V.K. Dua and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi16; III(2005)BC321; 118(2005)DLT408; 2005(81)DRJ277; (2005)140PLR45
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Present order disposes of the application filed by the defendants seeking leave to defend. Needless to state, suit filed by the plaintiff seeks a summary judgment under Order 37 CPC.2. In brief, plaintiff claims that defendant no. 2 was carrying on the business of sale and purchase of shares as the Sole Proprietor of defendant No. 1 and was a member of Delhi Stock Exchange. On accounts being settled, evidenced by writing of letter dated 7.2.1997, a sum of Rs.31.1 lacs was acknowledged by the defendants as payable to the plaintiff. In satisfaction of the amount due and acknowledged, defendants issued 5 cheques as under :-------------------------------------------------- Sl.No. Cheque No. Date Amount--------------------------------------------------1. 263076 13.2.97 Rs.6,00,000/-2. 263077 13.2.97 Rs.6,00,000/-3. 263078 19.2.97 Rs.6,00,000/-4. 263079 25.2.97 Rs.7,10,000/-5. 263080 28.2.97 Rs.6,00,000/--------------Total : Rs.31,10,000/--------------3. Acknowledgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Mandir Jeernodhan Sanathan Sabha (Regd.) Through Its General Secr ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT444
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue Rule. With consent of parties, the matter was finally heard.2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges an action of the Delhi Development Authority, (DDA), by its letter dated 16th October 2002 cancelling the allotment of the petitioner plot. An appropriate direction, in the nature of mandamus enjoining the respondent not to take any action pursuant to the impugned cancellation letter, has also been sought.3. The petitioner, is a registered society. It avers that sometime in 1977-78, an old Shiva Temple (Shiv Mandir) located near a well and a large Pepel tree, was discovered between plot Nos.B-17 and B-18, at Kirti Nagar. This took place when an existing Timber Market was moved from Motia Khan to Kirti Nagar. Some devotees started to maintain the area. Eventually, the petitioner society was formed, which bore the responsibility of the maintenance of the said temple. The aims of the society include development, maintenance and upkeep...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Satish Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT577; 2005(81)DRJ344; (2005)IILLJ1129Del; 2006(1)SLJ250(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order made by the learned single Judge in WP(C) No. 3242/2002 on 20.7.2004 confirming the order made by the Industrial Tribunal No. III, Delhi in I.D. No. 638 of 1990 decided on 12.3.2001.2. There is a gross delay in preferring the appeal and we find no proper and satisfactory Explanationn for 160 days of delay. We find that almost in all the matters the appellant Corporation has no respect for the provisions contained in the law of limitation and instead of taking action against the erring officers, who are negligent in dealing with the matters in this behalf, lightly applications are preferred in the Court for condensation of delay. This is required to be deprecated. The Commissioner has a battery of officers and yet this is happening which is difficult to understand. On flimsy grounds indicated in the application the delay cannot be condoned.3. With a view to see that there may not be injustice to the Corporation, we examined t...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Devi and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT484; 2005(81)DRJ445
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners by this writ petition seek award of compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- against respondents 1 & 2 for a failed sterilization operation and birth of an unwanted child.2. Petitioner No. 1 is the wife and petitioner No. 2 is her husband. Petitioners married under Hindu rites in February,1992. Petitioner No. 1 between 1992 till 1998, gave birth to two sons and one daughter. Petitioner No. 2 is a night watchman in a locality and collects contributory small monthly amounts from residents of the locality. The income is irregular and uncertain. 3. Petitioners facing financial difficulties with meagre income and three children, decided not to have any more children. Petitioners opted for sterilization of petitioner No. 1. A tubectomy operation was performed on petitioner No. 1 by the doctor of respondent No. 2 in respondent No. 2 hospital on 7.3.2000. A certificate to this effect was also issued.4. Petitioners claim to have been assured by respondents that operation ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramjas College Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT605; 2005(81)DRJ13; [2005(106)FLR701]; (2005)IIILLJ289Del; 2006(1)SLJ253(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This application filed by the respondent No. 2 seeks modification of the order dated 20th July, 2000 passed in CM No. 10160/99. The order dated 20th July, 2000 was passed in an application filed by the applicant/respondent No. 2, workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), directing the respondent No. 2 to be given the last drawn wages from the date of the application i.e. September, 1999. Thereafter the position of law in respect of the amount payable under Section 17B of the Act was laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 84/2002 titled Delhi Development Authority v. Smt. Omvanti and Ors., in December 2002, reported as 2003 6 AD (DEL) 205, wherein it was held that the claimant/applicant under Section 17B of the Act, was entitled to be paid last wages drawn or minimum wages whichever was higher. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2/applicant has informed this Court that this order of the Divis...
Tag this Judgment!