Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 1 of about 292 results (0.023 seconds)industrial Finance Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)894
1. As all these appeals relate to the same assessee, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by way of a common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.2. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 25th Jan., 1999 pertaining to asst. yr. 1995-96. The main grounds preferred by the assessee are as under: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 6,96,449 incurred on the maintenance of visiting officer's flats meant for the stay of officers of the assessee-company while on official tour, which is more economical for the assessee-company rather than incurring huge cost in hotels. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the revenue expenditure of Rs. 67,06,33,245 . incurred in connection with the swapping of foreign currency funds for augmenting the rupee funds required for the business of the as...
Tag this Judgment!Tidewater Marine International Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Delhi)130
1. These appeals of the appellant-assessees are directed against the various orders passed by the learned CIT(A), Dehradun, for asst. yrs.1996-97 and 1997-98 in the case of abovenamed assessees confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the facts involved in all the appeals are identical, we dispose of these appeals by this composite order for the sake of convenience.2. During the course of hearing of the above appeals, the learned Counsel for the assessee has moved an application for admission of an additional ground which is identical in nature in each of the aforesaid appeals, which reads as under : "That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty order dt. 11th May, 2001, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and void ab initio." 3. Briefly stated, the facts of ITA No. 5393/Del/2003 are that the assessee, Mr. Greer Robert, was a non-resident person. Proceedings und...
Tag this Judgment!Harsh Khurana Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT301
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The present case is a classic example of how the petitioner has managed to ensure that the criminal proceedings initiated against him do not even take off much less achieve any final adjudicatory stage.2. The petitioner claims to be a whole-sale dealer of mild steel tubes carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Banarsi Dass and Co. In terms of a notification issued by respondent No. 1 / Union of India bearing No. GSR 374(E) dated 08.07.1978 called the Mild Steel Tubes (Excluding Seamless Tubes and Tubes According to A.P.I. Specifications) (Quality Control) Order, 1978 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Order') in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Act'), the following provision was made :'3. No person shall by himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture or store for sale, sell or distribute any mild steel tubes having wall thickness less than the wall thicknes...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate of Press of the University of Cambridge Trading as Cambridge ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(32)PTC487(Del)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the `CPC') in a suit filed by plaintiff No.1 inter alias the Syndicate of the Press of the University of Cambridge which trades in the name of Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building, United Kingdom(hereinafter referred to as the `Syndicate') and its Associate in India which has published the low price edition of the book in question, M/s Foundation Books Private Ltd., i.e., the plaintiff No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the `Company'). The Syndicate has averred that it is a reputed publisher with an international standing and holds all rights in respect of the publication 'Advance Grammar in Use by Martin HEWINGS'(hereinafter referred to as he `subject work').2. The plaintiffs have averred in the plaint as follows:-(a) that the aforesaid subject work has been prescribed and used in several institutions and universities all over the world and is inter alias...
Tag this Judgment!Crb Capital Markets Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi Sahney (Deceased Thru. Lr ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: IV(2005)BC53; [2006]132CompCas788(Delhi); 2005(83)DRJ126; [2006]71SCL460(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. M/s. CRB Capital Markets Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') is in provisional liquidation. At the instance of Reserve Bank of India, which filed CP No. 191/97, order dated 22nd May 1997 was passed admitting the petition and appointing the Official Liquidator as the Provisional Liquidator with direction to take charge of the assets and records of the company. This application is filed by the company through the O.L. under Section 446(2) of the Companies Act (in short the 'Act') for recovery of Rs. 10 lakhs plus interest thereon @ 18% per annum from 15th July 1997 till realisation as well as administrative expenses @ 1%. Averments made in the application are that the respondents entered into a Lease Deed and Maintenance Agreement with the company for the premises located at 1st Floor, C-643, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and paid Rs. 10 lakhs as security deposit. These premises were vacated by the company on 15th July 1997 and rent for June and July 1997 was...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT576; [2005(107)FLR1032]
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In these petitions a challenge has been laid by the Petitioners to the discontinuance of their services on daily wage basis by the Delhi Police.2. The Petitioner, Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, had also ventilated his grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Singh who had returned the finding that a proper opportunity had been given to the Applicant to defend his case. Having considered the matter in all its complexities I see no reason to depart from that view.3. The Petitioner, namely, Shri Dalvir Singh, was employed on daily wages in a Scheme introduced in February, 1986 which may be styled as the 'Pre-paid Taxi/TSR Service' introduced at the Delhi Airport and now available at various other points in the metropolis. This Scheme was conceived by the Delhi Traffic Police in order to alleviate the problems faced by commuters in connection with the malaise of overcharging visitors to the city and/or refusing ...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Col. (Time Scale) D.S. Pandey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT177
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army in June 1982 into 4/A Gorkha Regiment. Since his commissioning, petitioner attended various professional courses and according to him, he did consistently well and achieved highest possible grading. Despite petitioner achieving high grading because of his hard work and successfully completing the course, he was found unfit even for first rank of Lt. Colonel by Selection Boards held in year 1998, 1999 and 2000.2. Petitioner contended that while gleaning through the possible reasons for his supersession, he has come to know that his supersession to the rank of Lt. Colonel was due to his subjective recording of ACR/ICR for the period 1993-95. Petitioner's plea is that he was never warned verbally or in writing by any of his superiors for any shortcomings nor was he charged of any indiscipline at any stage. He has all along been obedient, sincere and an honest officer. He feels that his supersession was based on the ACRs o...
Tag this Judgment!Firoz @ Sahil Vs. State (Govt of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT493
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as the petitioner (Firoz alias Sahil) is concerned, he was the pillion rider in the motorcycle and he is not responsible for any grievous injury caused on the injured Mohd Raja.2. The incident, according to the prosecution took place in the following manner:The co-accused Avdesh was driving the motorcycle and the present petitioner was the pillion rider. While driving the motorcycle, the injured Mohd Raja was accidentally hit by the motorcycle. Consequent upon this, an altercation took place between Mohd Raja and the petitioner. It so happened that Mohd Raja told the petitioner and co-accused Avdesh that can't they see where to drive. The pillion rider (the present petitioner) caught hold of the collar of Mohd Raja's shirt and gave him some beating with has bare hands. Some others intervened and shortly thereafter, the co-accused (Avdesh) who was driving the motorcycle, all of a sudden and on his own, ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. B.K. Dawesar Vs. Sh. K.K. Sapra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT147
ORDERO.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of two connected matters namely SAO No 27/2000 and CRP NO 242/2001. Both these matter relate to property No. B-4/31, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and arise out of the two different proceedings relating to the same property between the same parties.2. Admitted facts between the parties may be noticed first. Property No. B-4/31, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi is built up on a plot of land which was granted on perpetual lease basis by the Delhi Development Authority to the revision-petitioner herein for the purpose of raising construction thereon only for residential purpose. It is also not in dispute that the said building is built on stilts consisting of ground, first, and barsati floors. The portion in question which was let out by the petitioner namely Shri K.K.Sapra to the tenant namely Dr. B.K. Dawesar has been built by covering the pillars by half brick walls, thus making one big hall which has been divided into four room...
Tag this Judgment!Shri S.M. Wahi and ors. Vs. Ms. Reeta Wahi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT257; 2005(83)DRJ519
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. In this application for interim relief under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the `CPC'), the plaintiffs have prayed that the defendants be restrained from leasing out or creating third party interest and rights and also in respect of the suit property and also be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property situated at 13, Kautilya Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to the as the `suit property').2. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the suit property is situated at 13, Kautilya Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi. The defendant No.1, Ms. Reeta Wahi is the niece of the plaintiff No.1, S.M. Wahi and the entire case is based on the plea of the plaintiff No.1 that the defendant No.1 was a nominee of the plaintiff No.1 and the sale deeds were got executed in favor of the defendant No.1 only as a nominee and the properties were held by the defendant as a nominee. T...
Tag this Judgment!