Delhi Court September 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.
R.D. Gupta and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. Perceiving a manifest and irreconcilable conflict in the decisions rendered in LPA No.1262/2007 dated 5th October, 2007, Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Kishan Lal Sehgal and Ors. and DTC vs. Madhu Bhushan Anand, 2010 (172) DLT 668, the Division Bench framed the following question and recommended for delineation by a larger Bench:- "What is the effect of receipt of payment including higher ex-gratia amount and employers share of provident fund to employees who had applied and opted for voluntary retirement under the VRS 1993, though the said employees were entitled to pension as per officer order No.16 dated 27th November, 1992?" 2. Because of the aforesaid reference, the larger Bench has been constituted and the matter has been placed before us. 3. The facts which are imperative to be exposited to answer the said reference are that the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) employees were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The employees of the DTC preferred a writ petit...
Sewa Singh and anr. Vs. Gopi Ram Bansal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(hereinafter called 'the Act') has been filed by the petitioners- landlords against the order dated 02.03.10 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the application filed by the RC.REV. No. 65/2010 Page 1 of 7 respondent herein seeking leave to defend the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for his eviction from one shop on the ground floor of property bearing no. 26, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi was allowed. 2. The petitioners are the owners of a building no. 26, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi which has five shops on the ground floor out which four shops, in respect of which three eviction petitions were filed, had been let out separately to three different tenants. The respondent herein was let out shop no.5. 3. The petitioners-landlords, who are father and son, pleaded in the eviction petitions that their family comprised of ten members comprising of the parents of pet...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Mahesh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. Notice was issued in this Appeal on the following two questions proposed in the Appeal: (i) Whether the ITAT could uphold the deletion of `2,52,021/- unexplained investment in Jewellery? (ii) Whether the ITAT could uphold the deletion of `2,17,100/- and `7,70,000/- on account of unexplained investment in house property at Pitampura and godown at Bakoli respectively? 2. A search and seizure operation was conducted at the premises of the Respondent-Assessee wherein some cash and jewellery was found and seized. The jewellery found was to the extent of `12,12,891/-. The Assessee had submitted his explanation with regard to the jewellery vide letter dated 12 th March, 2007. However, during the course of post search enquiry he stated that there was an excess jewellery to the tune of `2,52,021/-, which may be considered unexplained investment in purchase of jewellery and surrendered that amount. On this ground addition to the extent of `2,52,021/- was made by the Assessing Officer under Se...
Sewa Singh and anr. Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958(hereinafter called 'the Act') has been filed by the petitioners- landlords against the order dated 02.03.10 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the application filed by respondent no.2 herein for leave to contest the eviction petition filed against him and respondent no.1 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for their eviction from two shops on the ground floor of property bearing no. 26, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi, has been allowed. 2. The petitioners are the owners of a double storey building no. 26, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi which has five shops on the ground floor out which four shops, in respect of which three eviction petitions were filed, had been let out separately to three tenants. The respondent no.1 herein was let out two shops bearing nos. 2 and 4. The respondent no.2 was impleaded in the eviction petition as a sub-tenant. 3. The petitioners-landlords, who are father and...
Sanjeev Gupta and ors Vs. Andhra Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 22 nd April, 2010 whereby the suit for recovery was dismissed by the learned Trial Court with cost of `50,000/-. 2. The appellants are the landlord and the respondent is the tenant in respect of the properties bearing No.M-35, M-84 and M-86, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The appellants have paid the Service Tax and are claiming the same from the respondent on the ground that under para 7, the respondent is liable to pay the property tax. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the property tax mentioned in para 7 be interpreted to include the Service Tax. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived in as much as the property tax cannot be interpreted to include the Service Tax. In that view of the matter, the appellant has no right to recover the Service Tax from the respondent. 5. The learned Trial Court has imposed cost of `50,000/- on the appellants out of which the appellants have...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S Bisht Electronics
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. This is an application for early hearing on the ground that the questions of law in issue already stand determined by the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 231 ELT 3. In view of the averments made in the application, the application is allowed. 2. Application stands disposed of. CEAC No. 16/2006 3. The captioned appeal has been filed by the revenue against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short „Tribunal) dated 01.12.2005. The appeal had been admitted on 10.05.2006 by a division bench of this court. By the said order following questions of law were framed for adjudication: (i) Whether CESTAT was right in law in reducing the penalty leviable under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, even when evasion of duty by the unit had been established? (ii) In case answer to question no. (i) is in the affirmative whether the CESTAT was required to give reasons in support of the order of reduct...
Sewa Singh and anr. Vs. Jai Kumar JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958(hereinafter called 'the Act') has been filed by the petitioners- landlords against the order dated 02.03.10 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the application filed by respondent no.2 herein seeking leave to contest the eviction petition filed against him and respondent no.1 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for their eviction from one shop on the ground floor of property bearing no. 26, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi, has been allowed. 2. The petitioners are the owners of building no. 26, Rameshwar Nagar, Azad Pur, Delhi which has five shops on the ground floor out which four shops, in respect of which three eviction petitions were filed against the three tenants as well as against two persons who were impleaded in two petitions as sub-tenants. The respondent no.1 herein was let out shop no.3 and respondent no.2 was impleaded in the eviction petition as a sub-tenant. 3. The petitioners-la...
Sarita Kalucha and ors. Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 8.9.2011 passed by the respondent/MCD rejecting the representation of the husband of petitioner No.2 for regularizing the unauthorized construction existing on the first floor of the property bearing No.S-207, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi, and for paying compounding charges in respect thereof. The petitioners have also sought quashing of the order dated 12.9.2011 issued by the respondent/MCD under Section 345-A of the DMC Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act') directing sealing of the entire premises. Pertinently, while the aforesaid order was signed on 29.8.2011, as is apparent from the date endorsed at the bottom of the said document, the same was dispatched on 12.9.2011, the date endorsed on top of the document. 2. On the first date of hearing, i.e., on 16.9.2011, counsel for the respondent/MCD, who appeared on advance copy, had sought an adjournment to obtain instructions from his cli...
Ram Gopal Sharma Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. The petition impugns the price of `10,88,643.99p demanded by the respondent DDA from the petitioner in the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 25.02.2009-03.03.2009 for an LIG flat No.727, First Floor, Block-B, Pocket-B1 of Loknayak Puram, Delhi. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and vide order dated 22.07.2010 which continues to be in force, the respondent DDA was directed to maintain status quo in respect of the flat in question. Pleadings have been completed. 3. The petitioner was a registrant in the New Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS) of the year 1979 of the respondent DDA. He was in the year 1992 allotted a flat but did not opt for the same and opted for allotment at the tail end and deposited the cancellation charges therefor. It is his case that though the draw for tail end registrants was held on 27.09.2007 but the demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to him only on 25.02.2009- 03.03.2009 and owing whereto the cost of `10,88,643.99p has been demanded from him. It is hi...
Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Commerce Teachers Association
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. The Respondent-Assessee is an Association of Commerce Teachers which is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Assessee claimed itself to be a Welfare Society whose objects are of charitable nature. As per the Memorandum of Association it has 54 objects. The Society applied for grant of registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Director of Income Tax(Exemption) analysed the activities of the Assessee and was satisfied that the Assessee was deserved to be granted registration under Section 12AA of the Act. Accordingly, Order dated 28th September, 2010 was issued by the Director of Income Tax(Exemption) granting such a registration. However, certain conditions were imposed in the said registration. The Respondent-Assessee did not call in question any conditions except Condition No.11 which reads as under: "The society should not charge any fee/amount from the beneficiaries. Also shall not collect any fees on account of talent ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »