Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Delhi)565
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to the asst. yr. 1992-93 for which the previous year ended on 31st March, 1992.2. The assessee is a public sector undertaking engaged in the manufacture of power generating equipments and other heavy industrial items. The assessee-company carries out projects for various State Governments and other public sector undertakings and is also involved in the setting up of power plants in India as well as abroad.3. The assessee has obtained the permission of the COD to pursue the appeal and a copy of the approval of the COD has been placed on record vide order-sheet entry dt. 28th Aug., 2002.4. We shall proceed to dispose of the appeal ground-wise. The first ground which relates to the disallowance of provision for non-moving stock, is in two parts. The first part relates to the provision of Rs. 50.66 crores which is the total amount claimed, and second part relates to the provision of Rs. 211.24 lakhs. Both the provisions relate to the non-moving stock...
Devinder Prakash Kalra Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Delhi)372
1. The ground being common in these appeals by the assessees and the leading order of the learned CIT(A) being that in the case of Smt.Anuradha Kalra, we will deal with the facts as in ITA No.3923/Del/2003.2. The grievance of assessee is that the application filed under Section 154 of the Act was wrongly rejected; that the admissible relief under the proviso to Section 112(1) of the IT Act ought to have been allowed; that wrong calculation of tax on capital gain by the AO amounted to a mistake of law, which deserved to be rectified; and that while levying tax on capital gains as declared by the assessee in her return, the proviso to Section 112(1) of the Act could not be ignored.3. The assessee filed her return of income declaring income from long-term capital gains on sale of shares. The tax on long-term capital gains was worked out according to Section 48 of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee moved an application under Secti...
Springer Verlag Gmbh Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Delhi)269
1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the combined order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 26th Nov., 2004 for asst. yrs. 1999-00, 2000-01 and 2001-02. As common issues are involved in all the three appeals, they are being disposed of together by this combined order for the sake of convenience. Besides raising certain issues on merits, the assessee has also challenged the validity of the notices issued under Section 143(2) and Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act). We first take up the issue relating to the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.2. The assessee-company is a pioneer in publishing scientific, technical, medical books and journals. It has appointed several distributors for selling its books in India and has also opened a liaison office on 1st Feb., 1998, after obtaining approval from the RBI. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18th Dec., 2002 in response to which the assessee filed its return of income declaring nil income on 14th Feb....
Daljit Singh Narula Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT366; 2005(83)DRJ28
R.S. Sodhi, J.1.This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 17th April, 2004, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in CR No. 290/03, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the complaint holding that the summoning order is bad.2.The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are as under:'That a complaint case for the offences under Section 500 IPC was filed by Respondent Daljit Singh Narula against the revisionists Mohinder Singh Chhabra, Mohinder Kaur, Amandeep Kaur, Bhupinder Singh @ Inderjeet Singh and after the pre summoning evidence, led by the complainant/respondent Daljit Singh Narula, the Ld.Trial Court was pleased to take cognizance against the revisionists under Section 500 IPC. Vide impugned order, the Ld.Trial court directed for framing of the notice against the revisionists for the offence under Section 500 IPC. 3. It is contended by Counsel for the Petitioner that the learned Judge at a stage prior to fr...
Vimla Devi and ors. Vs. Chander Krishan Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT392; 2005(83)DRJ29
Anil Kumar, J.1. This order will dispose of Appellant's appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act against the impugned order dated 8th April, 2002 passed by learned Single Judge in S.No.127/1980 appointing a local commissioner for taking necessary steps to sell the suit property on plot No.16-B, Block -I, 38, Ratendon Road, New Delhi after preliminary decree for partition so that the sale proceeds be divided among the four co-owners.2. In a suit for partition between the parties, a preliminary decree was passed on 8th May, 1980. The preliminary decree was passed after the parties agreed regarding their shares as:- Sh.Chander Krishan Gupta, plaintiff, 1/4th ; Sh.Brij Krishan Gupta, Defendant No.1, 1/4th ; Avtar Krishan Gupta, Defendant No.2, 1/4th ; Balraj Krishan Gupta, Defendant No.3, 1/8th ; Kumari Anjali Gupta, Defendant No.4, 1/8th share.3. Pursuant to the preliminary decree passed by the learned Single Judge, a local commissioner Sh.S.R.Tikekar was appointed to suggest t...
Smt. Renu Bali Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: 128(2006)DLT204
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. Right to live with dignity is a recognised basic human right which is guaranteed by all the civilized societies of the world. The said right encompasses within its ambit the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter Although right to shelter is not explicitly recognised as a Fundamental Right under the Constitution of India, yet our Courts have proclaimed that the same is embedded in the provisions of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Narsimhamurti reported in : AIR1996SC90 , it was declared by the Supreme Court that the right to shelter is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. In Chameli Singh and Ors. etc. v. State of U.P. And Anr. : AIR1996SC1051 , it was declared as follows in paragraph 7 of the judgment:'The right to shelter, thereforee, does not mean a mere right to a roof over one's head but right to all the infrastructure necessary t...
Raghuvir Goswami Vs. Nirmal Thakur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)43; 122(2005)DLT350; 2005(83)DRJ15
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition seeks to challenge the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi dated 11.02.2002, whereby the learned Judge has allowed revision petition against the summoning order dated 24.02.2001 on the ground that in the pre-summoning statement of the complainant he had mentioned that he had issued two notices.2. The court on the basis of of the second notice being time barred has allowed the revision petition and dismissed the complaint. The facts of the case as noted by the Additional Sessions Judge are as follows:-'.....2. That the accused approached the complainant to the tune of Rs.2 lacs to the revisionist who executed a pronote on 26.01.1997. After one month accused/revisionist gave him Rs.1,10,000/- in cash and a cheque amounting to Rs.90,000/- was issued in his favor. The same cheque 31.03.1997 name was dischonoured by the bankers of accused with remarks 'Stop Payment'. He issued him a legal notice and accused/revisionist met him and reques...
Ex.-const. Driver Bhagirath Singh, S/O Sri Budhi Ram Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT134; 2005(83)DRJ37
Anil Kumar, J.1. Whether petitioner's dismissal from service for not taking food and water while undergoing rigorous imprisonment was disproportionate is the point for consideration in this petition.2. The petitioner joined Border Security Force as Constable on 1st March, 1990 at BSF, STC Jodhpur. He was posted at SHQ BSF, Siliguri with effect from 1st April, 1992. While posted at Siliguri, petitioner received information from his home on 2nd May, 1997 about serious illness of his wife. With permission to contact his wife, he contacted her and came to know that she was hospitalized in a serious condition. On the request of the petitioner for leave, the Company Commander on compassionate grounds sent the petitioner to battalion head quarter to enable him to proceed on leave and also handed over some dak from the company to be handed over at battalion head quarter. On reaching Battalion Head quarter, petitioner reported to MTO and handed over dak to him. However, MTO at battalion head qu...
Mic Eelctronic Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTLJ243(Del); 123(2005)DLT698; 2005(83)DRJ9
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The present writ petition pertains to the notice inviting tender (NIT) issued by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), the Respondent No.2 herein on 15.7.2004. The Tender No. was MM/SW/072004/000277 and by virtue of the said NIT sealed tenders were invited for supply of MSC BASED WLL-CDMA EQUIPMENTS with EMBG (Ernest Money Bank Guarantee) for the packages as given below:-1. WLL CDMA 2000 IX (PACKAGE-1): 10.5 LAKH LINES Rs.2,00,000,00/-2. WLL CDMA 2000 IX INTEGRATED FWTs (PACKAGE-II): 10.5LAKHS Rs.2,00,000,00-The petitioner also submitted its bids. However, when the bids were opened on 14.10.2004, the petitioner's representative was asked to take back the bids submitted by it in original on the ground that the bids submitted by the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for submission of bid security of requisite value i.e. Rs. 2 crores.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by this and has approached this Court, inter alia, for the issuance of a writ, d...
Ashok Hotel Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: 123(2005)DLT384; 2005(83)DRJ706; [2005(107)FLR808]; (2006)ILLJ317Del
B.C. Patel, C.J. CM No. 10102/2005Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.LPA No. 1619/20051. Admit.2. At the request of the learned counsel, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.3. Learned counsel for the respondent waives service. This appeal is preferred against the order made by learned Single Judge under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). On 11th April, 2005 in CM No. 7340/2005, the Court after considering the application on merits held that the workman is entitled to relief and that he shall be paid arrears of wages last drawn by him or the minimum wages whichever is higher from the date of award and such payments will be continued to be made month to month.4. It is against this direction the present appeal is filed.5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ employer has contended that in view of language of Section 17-B of the said Act the workman is entitled at the most to get last drawn wages from the date o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »