Delhi Court January 2006 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.
M.R. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT284; 2006(87)DRJ301; [2006]145STC211(Delhi)
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In these petitions, seeking a writ of certiorari, the petitioners have called in question the constitutional validity of notification dated 31st March, 2000, issued by the Lt.Governor of NCT of Delhi, under Section 71 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act') to the extent it has introduced Gutka as one of the items in Schedule-I to the Act retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 2000. The petitioners have also assailed the correctness of re-assessment orders made by the Assessing Authority for the periods 2000-2001 & 2001-2002 and the demands raised on the basis thereof. 2. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of Gutka, Pan Masala and chewing tobacco and are registered as dealers under the State & Central Sales Tax enactments. Assessments for the years 2000-2001 & 2001-2002 were reopened in terms of notices dated 16th August, 2005, culminating in re-assessment orders under the State Act as also the Central Act and raising of consequent dema...
Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income T ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Del)433; [2006]281ITR394(Delhi)
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner calls in question the validity of a notice issued to it under Section 148 of the Income-tax, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), proposing to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1998-99 on the ground that income exigible to tax for the said year has escaped assessment. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition may be summarized as under:3. The petitioner-company carries on business as an import agent. For the assessment year 1998-99, it had filed a return under Section 139 of the Act and declared a loss of Rs.2,96,44,790/-. It had, for that year, received interest free advances/trade deposits from its principals to pay the import bills against Letter of Credit opened by the petitioner, at its own cost. These interest free funds could, according to the petitioner, be used for any gainful activity till such time the same were utilised to meet the demand under the import bills. The petitioner claims...
Mathur Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Del)174; 129(2006)DLT188; 2006(87)DRJ181; [2006]281ITR379(Delhi)
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The assessed was engaged in trading of purchase and sale of rice during the accounting period 1.7.1987 to 31.3.1989, relevant for assessment year 1989-90. The entire trading in rice was done by the assessed through M/s.Ram Krishan Dass Narinder Prakash. During the said period, four major sale and purchase transactions took place. Out of these, the assessed showed profits in two transactions and loss in the remaining two. The assessing officer, in order to verify the genuineness of the transactions resulting into loss, examined persons concerned and also made further necessary enquiries. On verification, the assessing officer found that sales and purchase of rice made by M/s.Ram Krishan Dass Narinder Prakash on behalf of the assessed were not genuine and represented a paper transaction only. He, thereforee, disallowed the loss of Rs.86.11 lacs.2. Against disallowance of loss of Rs.86.11 lacs by the assessing officer, the assessed filed an appeal before CIT(A) but w...
B Block Yojana Vihar Resident Welfare Assocication Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT508
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 05.09.2005 by which he has dismissed the writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 3.The facts of the case have been set out in detail in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary. 4. The Appellant is a Resident?(tm)s Welfare Association and it had filed a Writ Petition for a writ of certiorari for quashing the allotment of Nursery School Plot to Respondent to Respondent No. 5. The allegation in the Writ Petition is that the said allotment violates Article 21 of the Constitution, as establishment of the school would cause a nuisance to the residents of the locality, thus adversely affecting the quality of their life. It is alleged in paragraph 5.3 of the Writ Petition that there are already many schools in the surrounding and there were no need of establishing anothe...
S.S. JaIn Sabha Regd. Thr. Its General Secretary Vs. Govt. of Nct of D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT800; 2006(87)DRJ309
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2004.2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 3. By means of the writ petition, the petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction the site plan/proposed plan for the construction of a Community Hall in the plot of land being Site No. 4, NS, B-Block, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi by adopting the norms and conditions applicable to the construction of a Community Hall.4. The petitioner is a charitable Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner applied to the respondent No. 2, D.D.A. for allotment of land for constructing a Community Hall for the purposes of religious and social functions in the vicinity of Ashok Vihar, Delhi-52. The land in question, bearing Site No. NS-4 in B-Block, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi-52, measuring 2447 sq. meters had been earmarked for setting up a Nurs...
Dlf Universal Ltd. Vs. Greater Kailash Ii Welfare Association
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT131; 2006(88)DRJ44
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 18.10.2005 by which he has allowed the writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. The prayers in the writ petition filed by the respondent were as follows:-i)Certiorari quashing the sanction of building plans for additions/alterations in the existing building and for conversion into a multiplex mini cinema-cum-commercial Complex at Savitri Cinema point, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi-110 048 issued in favor of Respondent No. 7;ii)Mandamus restraining Respondent No. 7 from raising construction of multiplex mini cinema-cum-commercial complex in place of the pre-existing Savitra Cinema in Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi-110 048;iii)Certiorari quashing the clearances and permiss...
K.K. Enterprises Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT679
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In WP(C) No.2145/2000 the Petitioner's Bid for Plot No.7, LSC, Pocket H and J, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi in a public auction held on 27.11.1995 had been accepted by the DDA and a part payment was made immediately. Possession of the plot was eventually handed over by the DDA to the Petitioner on 2.5.1996 and the Perpetual Lease Deed for a tenure of 99 years was executed on 6.5.1996; the Building Plans which were submitted on 27.5.1996 were sanctioned on 3.6.1996. However, on 18.3.1996 the Petitioner had already received a Notice under Section 126(4) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from the MCD proposing a Rateable Value (RV) of Rs.7,50,000/- per annum with effect from 1.4.1995 which is the focal point of this litigation. It is stated on behalf of the Respondent that the Petitioner did not avail of an opportunity of being heard and hence the RV was fixed at Rs.7,50,000/- per annum with effect from 1.4.1995 in terms of...
All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. R.K. Upadhyay
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT457
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29.11.1999. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. By means of the writ petition, the petitioner (respondent in this appeal) had prayed for quashing of the adverse entries in his A.C.R. of the years 1990 and 1991 and for a mandamus directing the respondents to convene a review D.P.C. to consider the petitioner for the post of Medical Social Worker, Grade-I without taking into account the A.C.Rs of 1990 and 1991 and to promote him to the said post from the date his other colleagues in the cadre of M.S.W. Grade-II were promoted to the post of M.S.W. Grade-I with all consequential benefits.4. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same, except where necessary.5. The appellant (respondent No.1 in the writ petition), the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (A.I.I....
Shyam Lal Pal Vs. Po Labour Court No. 1 and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT403; [2006(109)FLR404]; (2006)IILLJ565Del
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge 25.3.1997. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The appellant was employed by the respondent MCD w.e.f. 18.2.1987 as a daily wage worker in place of one Ram Sahai Pal and his service was terminated on 1.1.1989. Aggrieved, he raised an industrial dispute against the termination of his service which was referred to the Labour Court No.I, Delhi. By its award, the Labour Court held that termination of his service was valid. The appellant then filed a writ petition which was dismissed and hence this appeal.3. The appellant was appointed as a water cooler chowkidar in place of one Ram Sahai Pal w.e.f. 18.2.1987. Thus, he was a badli worker in place of Ram Sahai Pal.4. The Labour Court held that the appellant was appointed in place of another workman and that means that his term of employment was till the person in whose place he was employed re...
Dcm Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs. O.P. Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT320; 2006(87)DRJ324; (2006)IIILLJ300Del
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.03.2005, by which he has dismissed the Writ Petition. 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and it inter-alia owns the factory, M/s Swatantra Bharat Mills, in which the Respondent No. 1 was working as a Clerk. He was charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet dated 29.10.1990, on account of his refusal to obey the orders of his superior and to perform his assigned duties which amounted to misconduct. His Explanationn was not found satisfactory and hence a domestic enquiry was held in which he was given full opportunity for hearing. The enquiry officer submitted his report finding the employee to be guilty of the charges. True copy of the enquiry report is Annexure P2 to the Writ Petition. The case of the workman was that he was unable to report for duty and his house was far off from th...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »