Delhi Court December 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 5 of about 69 results (0.009 seconds)Jsrs Udyog Limited and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]313ITR321(Delhi); [2009]180TAXMAN477(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the impugned notice dated 28.03.2008 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') as well as the order passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.11.2008 disposing of the objections to the initiation of re-assessment proceedings preferred by the petitioner/assessee.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The facts are that the original assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the said Act on 05.03.2003. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had raised certain queries, inter alia, with regard to the share application money received by the assessee from Solo-Mio Marketing Pvt Ltd. In response to the queries raised by the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted a reply dated 10.02.2003. A copy of the said reply has been placed as Annexure-4 at page 75 of the present paper book. On going through the said reply...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Kumar Chopra Vs. Virinder Khosla
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT658
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Petitioner/landlord is aggrieved by an order dated 18th August 2006 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller whereby his eviction under Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) on the ground of bonafide requirement was dismissed.2. The respondent herein is the tenant in respect of one bedroom, one drawing room, kitchen WC, independent levatory, bathroom with front courtyard and back verandah on the ground floor of the property bearing number F-26, West Nizamuddin, New Delhi on a month rental of Rs. 500/- since 1973. The petitioner submitted that respondent was now not living in the premises and he was living in Ludhiana and only occasionally used to visit the premises and stay there, otherwise the premises was being kept locked by him. About his bonafide requirements, it was submitted that the accommodation at first floor was with the petitioner. The accommodation consisted of two bedrooms, one store room, one kitchen, bath and latrine. While one bedroom was bein...
Tag this Judgment!Cox and Kings (i) Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar Mittal and anr. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT467
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed orders dated 7th January 2008 and 6th February 2008 passed by the State Commission upholding the orders of District Consumer Forum for payment of compensation to respondent. The petitioner has prayed that this Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, set aside the order passed by the State Commission as the same being perverse, inequitable and unreasonable and in violation and disregard of the settled principles of law.2. The petitioner is a company carrying on business of arranging travels and tours within India as well as abroad. The respondents in these petitions had booked tours with the petitioners. Finding that the petitioner committed multifarious deficiencies due to which their pleasure trip had turned into a misery trip, they made complaints before the District Forum. The District Forum after considering the entire facts and material awarded compen...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bela JaIn W/O Late Shri Mukesh Ja ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2009ACJ1189
V.B. Gupta, J.1. By this common judgment, I shall dispose of the above two appeals filed by the Appellant-Insurance company.2. These two appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as 'Act') against the impugned judgment dated 12th September, 2007 passed by the Dr. T.R. Naval, Judge, MACT (for short as 'Tribunal').3. Brief facts of this case are that on 18th July, 2004 at 1.20 P.M., deceased Mukesh Jain, was driving his two wheeler scooter No. DAI-1835 on which his son namely Master Shashank Jain was pillion rider. When they reached near SDM office, Geeta Colony, Delhi, all of a sudden the offending motorcycle bearing No. DL-7S-G-3282 being driven by its driver respondent Jatin Singh, in a very rash and negligent manner, without blowing any horn, tried to overtake the scooter of the deceased and in that process struck against the scooter of the deceased with a great force due to which the deceased and his son were thrown on the road. The decease...
Tag this Judgment!Shri E. Sreedharan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT390
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus/Certiorari for deleting the words 'Less Rs. 4000/- as pension' in the second line of para (iii) of respondent No. 1's letter dated 18th September, 1992 and for release of all the withheld amounts with interest.2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that the petitioner retired from Indian Railways on 30th June, 1990. After his retirement, through a process of selection by Public Enterprises Selection Board, which was approved by Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, the proposal for the appointment of the petitioner as CMD, Konkan Railway Corporation was approved. According to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, his scale of pay was to be in terms of Schedule 'A' of pay of Rs. 9000-10000 for a period of five years or till the completion of the Konkan Railway Project, whichever was earlier. The D.O. No. 90/E(O)/II/7/22 dated 30th October, 1990 regarding the decision of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet i...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Commissioner Vs. Ramesh Kumari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT133
S. Muralidhar, J.Introduction1. The subject matter of all these petitions is land to an extent of over 40 bighas in Village Kapashera, New Delhi belonging to the Deputy Commissioner (South-West) ('DC'), Government of National Territory of Delhi ('GNCTD'). The DC is the petitioner in the first mentioned writ petition W.P. (C) No. 7687 of 2004 Accordingly, all these petitions, including the two contempt petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.Relevant Facts2. On 17th April 1986 a notification was issued under Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 ('Holdings Act') by the competent authority commencing the process of consolidation of land in the Village Kapashera in New Delhi. Pursuant to the said notification dated 17th April 1986 the Consolidation Officer ('CO') published a draft scheme under Section 19 of the Holdings Act on 19th December 1986. After considering the objections the scheme was confirmed by the Sett...
Tag this Judgment!Central Engineering Service Class I (Dr) Association Through Its Addit ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT300
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The rather limited question for our consideration is: Whether, in exercise of the power of relaxation conferred by statutory rules, the Central Government is entitled to divert vacancies, en bloc, belonging to the quota of direct recruits to the quota of promotees, in order to regularize their promotion' Given the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the legal position, our answer to this question is in the affirmative.2. The aggrieved parties before us are directly recruited Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil), Class I (for short AEEs) whose quota of vacancies for promotion to the grade of Executive Engineer was diverted in favour of Assistant Engineers (for short AEs).Broad facts of the case:3. The statutory rules that we are concerned with are presently called the Central Engineering Service Group 'A' Recruitment Rules, 1954 (for short the 1954 Rules). The power to relax the statutory rules is conferred upon the Central Government by Rule 25 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!National Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Neelam Widow of Late Sh. Jagjit S ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2009ACJ992
V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as 'Act') has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 23rd December, 2006 passed by Shri D.K. Sharma, Judge, MACT, Delhi (for short as 'Tribunal').2. The brief facts of this case are that deceased Shri Jagjit Singh aged about 34 years died in road accident on 8th December, 1996 while driving two wheeler scooter bearing No. DL-4SL-5468. The accident took place as the offending vehicle bearing No. HR-47-3727 was parked on the wrong side with head lights off. The deceased was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead.3. The offending vehicle is owned by Respondent No. 7 whereas, Respondent No. 6 was the driver of the offending vehicle. This vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company.4. Vide impugned judgment the tribunal passed an award for a sum of Rs. 20,50,000/- in favour of claimants and against appellant and respondent No. 6 and 7.5. It has b...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Saha Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi (1) and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)326
ORDER UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 In exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Section 11 of the W. T. Act, 1957, Section 7 of the G. T. Act, 1958 and other powers enabling me in this behalf, I, Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I, New Delhi hereby transfer the case, particulars of which are mentioned hereunder in Col. 2, from Assessing Officer mentioned in Col. 3 therein, to the Assessing Officer mentioned in Col. 4. after considering the objections filed by the assessee in response to show cause notice Under Section 127.S.No. From To1 M/s. Alstonia ACIT Central Circle, MeerutTownship(P) LtdPAN - AAECA 4455AITO Ward 1(3)New Delhi2 Sh. Ashwani Talwar ACIT Central Circle, MeerutPAN - AAAPT 0920EDCIT, Cir.2(1)New Delhi3 Sh. Anil Kumar Saha ACIT Central Circle, MeerutPAN - AMYPS 1829DDCIT, Cir.2(1)New Delhi4 Sh. Geetamber Anand ACIT Central Circle, MeerutPAN - ACHPA 0868 KDCIT, Cir.2(1)New Delhi5 M/s. ATS Infras...
Tag this Judgment!Ats Promoters and Builders P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Chief Commissioner of ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]308ITR65(Delhi); [2009]179TAXMAN41(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. In this batch of writ petitions the order dated October 7, 2008, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I, New Delhi, under Section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is under challenge. By virtue of the said order, the Commissioner of Income-tax has transferred the cases of the petitioners to the Assessing Officer at Meerut, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Meerut. The impugned order, in its entirety, reads as under:Office of the Commissioner of Income-taxDelhi-I, New Delhi F. No. : CIT-I/ITO Hq-I/Centralisation/08-09 7-10-2008Order under Section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Section 11 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, Section 7 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, and other powers enabling me in this behalf, I, Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I, New Delhi, hereby transfer the case, particulars of which are mention...
Tag this Judgment!