Delhi Court May 2011 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.
Mep-ideal Toll Consortium Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2011
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records of the instant tender matter from the respondents and for setting aside the decision of the respondent no. 1 conveyed to the petitioner by a letter dated 23.04.2011 whereby the Technical Evaluation Committee of the respondent no. 1 has declared the petitioner no. 1 consortium as having failed in the technical evaluation. A writ of Mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to consider the Financial Bid submitted by the petitioner in relation to the Request For Proposal Document dated 01.03.2001 calling for bids for „Engagement of the Contractor by the MCD for Toll Collection at border points from specified commercial vehicles entering Delhi. 2. The impugned letter dated 23.04.2011 reads as under:- "MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI TOLL TAX DEPARTMENT 14th Floor, „E Block, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, New Delhi- 110002 (Tel:011-...
GeofIn Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner Geofin Investment (P) Limited, submits that the tribunal had erred in dismissing the application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) as the tribunal in its order dated 13th October, 2010, had referred to and relied upon decision of another ITAT Bench which had not not been cited at the time of hearing. He submits that the order passed by the tribunal dated 13th October, 2010 under Section 254(1) of the Act, should have been recalled. 2. We do not find any merit in the said contention. Under Section 254(2), a mistake apparent from the record can be rectified. The power is circumscribed and limited. There should be mistake which is apparent before the power can be exercised. This is a mandatory pre- condition. The Tribunal in its order dated 13th October, 2011, referred to the controversy in question relating to disallowance made on account of short term capital loss and long term capital loss. The entire issue was exami...
Cit Vs. M/S. J.K. Synthetics
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. The captioned reference pertains to the assessment year 1982-83. The reference has been made at the behest of the revenue. By virtue of the captioned reference we have been called upon to adjudicate upon the following questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that expenditure of `1,86,348/- incurred by the assessee on making gifts of articles like suit lengths, shirts, tape recorders, etc. to persons with whom it had business dealings was not of the nature of entertainment and was not disallowable under Section 37 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that expenditure of `60,897/- incurred by the assessee on providing board and lodging to its customers was not in the nature of entertainment and was allowable as deduction? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding th...
Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. M/S. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. The captioned reference pertains to assessment year 1982- 1983. By virtue of the said reference, we have been called upon to adjudicate upon the following questions of law which have been raised on behalf of the revenue :- "(i). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in respect of sums totaling Rs.1,15,030/-, the assessees liability had not ceased and these amounts were not taxable under Sections 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled for deduction of Rs.1,86,49,403/- in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research under Section 35(i)(iv) even though the capital assets were acquired in the previous year relevant to A.Y. 1981-82? (iii). Whether the ITAT was right in holding that expenditure incurred by the assessee on providing food and beverages to employees in a guest house was not exp...
Dr. Shiva Ditta Juneja Vs. Director of Education and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. The petitioner having joined the respondent no.2 Sant Nirankari Senior Secondary School, Pahar Ganj, Delhi 110 055, a Government aided school, as a Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) on 16th March, 1981 was on 7th March, 2008 promoted as the Principal of the said school, due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st March, 2011 of 60 years as prescribed in Rule 110 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The petitioner relies on Notification No.F.30-3(28)/III/Coord/07(Part file)/3426-3439 dated 31st December, 2007 of the respondent no.1 Directorate of Education (DOE) of Govt. of NCT of Delhi to claim automatic re-employment till he attains the age of 62 years. The said Notification is as under:- "Notification The Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to allow the automatic re- employment of all retiring teachers in Government Aided schools upto PGT level, subject to fitness and vigilance clearance, till they attain the age of 6...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Jai Pal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. Delhi Transport Corporation has filed the present writ petition impugning order dated 23rd December, 2010, allowing O.A. No. 765/2010 filed by the respondent, Jai Pal Singh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the disciplinary authority had rightly imposed punishment of stoppage of next two annual increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 11th July, 2002, which was affirmed by the appellate authority by their orders dated 5th September, 2002 and 19th November, 2009 and, therefore, the Central Administrative Tribunal should not have interfered. 3. The respondent is a driver with the petitioner and was served with the chargesheet dated 21st June, 2001 in which it was alleged that while driving a bus from Amritsar to Delhi, he had caused a fatal accident near Rajpura. 4. The aforesaid accident had resulted in registration of FIR No. 406/2000 under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code. It is admitted position that the trial court acquitted the responden...
Dlf Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. The petition impugns the demand by the respondent Bank of "pre-payment charges" without there being a provision therefor in the Loan Agreement. Notice of the petition was issued and vide interim order dated 21st December, 2010, the respondent Bank was restrained from downgrading the loan account of the petitioner and/or reporting the default alleged of the petitioner in payment of pre-payment charges to the Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (CIBIL) or to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The petitioner thereafter applied for release of the security deposited with the respondent Bank averring that while the security was furnished to secure the loan of `1,000 crores which stands pre-paid and the demand now remaining and impugned is only of pre-payment charges of `20 crores only. Certain proposals for amicable interim arrangement to the said effect were discussed between the parties but without any success. During the course thereof, on suggestion of the senior counsels for the ...
Bharat Prakartik Chikitsa Mission (Regd.). Vs. Delhi Development Autho ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2011
CM No. 10651/2011 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of accordingly. LPA No. 498/2011 The appellant, Bharat Prakritik Chikitsa Mission, by the present letters patent appeal, has assailed the order dated 19th January, 2011 dismissing their Writ PetitionNo.551/2009. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had complied with the terms and conditions of the letter dated 10th November, 1981 and, therefore, they were the allottees and a lessee of the plot admeasuring 1.18 acre in A-1 Block, Janakpuri, Opp. Dholi Piao, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi 110058. It is submitted that the said plot cannot be acquired or taken over by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation ('DMRC', for short), without taking recourse to Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is submitted that the action of the respondents amounts to trespass and violation of the Rule of law. He has submitted that the appellants are entitled to relief in view of th...
Satpal Vs. Sahi Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2011
ORDER 1. This revision petition under Section 25 B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act has been filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 20th October, 2009 passed by the Rent Controller (South)whereby the application filed by the petitioner-tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction petition filed against him by his landlord, the respondent herein, under Section 14(1)(e) has been dismissed. 2. The respondent had let out one shop in his property no. 378, Hanuman Market, Munirka, New Delhi to the petitioner's deceased father Shri Hari Chand about thirty years back. In June, 2008 the respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner, being the legal heir of his deceased father, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 alleging that he was 80 years old and was unable to undertake any work to earn livelihood for himself and his family comprising of twelve persons who were dependent upon him. His two married sons were unemployed and so they wanted to s...
M/S. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. By way of the captioned reference, we have been called upon to adjudicate the following questions of law :- (i). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,65,000/- under the provisions of Section 40(C) in respect of the payments made to five directors of the company in excess to the limit of Rs.72,000/- prescribed by the provisions of the said Section? (ii). Whether the ITAT was justified in not allowing deduction of Rs.79,935/- from chargeable income being sundry credit balance written back in respect of four parties holding that the assessee had received benefit in respect of the amount and also that there was no cessation of liability? (iii). Whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs.77,405/- out of the building repairs being expenses of Holiday Home known as Kamla Castle at Mussorie for the benefit of the employees going on holidays there? (iv). Whether the ITAT wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »