Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1987Delhi172; 1987LabIC843
B.D. Sharma, Prehlad Dayal and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.(1) The challenge in this writ petition under Article 22 of the Constitution of India is to the findings and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the District Court Martial, as confirmed by respondent No, 3 who was the Convening Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. (2) The petitioner was posted as a Sergeant at the Air Force Station at Sambra in the State of Karnataka in the year 1960. On 31st August, 1973 an incident occurred wherein it was alleged that the petitioner slapped and abused one Shri Milap who was holding a higher rank than the petitioner, A Court of Inquiry was ordered to go into the said incident. The said Court completed its proceedings and gave its report to the Authorities. (3) On the basis of the aforesaid report of the Court of Inquiry, two charges were framed against the petitioner by his Commanding Officer (respondent No. 5). Summary of evidence was thereafter recorded on 14th and 15th September, 1973. The said ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2010]321ITR105(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. In both these appeals, the identical question of law was framed, which relates to charging of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). For answering this questions, we can take note of the facts of ITA No. 119 of 2002.2. The respondent assessee was incorporated on 19.10.1988 to manufacture and import and export silco and donatives thereof. It filed its return for the first time on 31.12.1990 which related to the assessment year 1990-91 declaring 'Nil' income. In this return the aggregate interest of Rs. 6,48,190/- received by the assessee on certain deposits was set off against interest paid on deferred payment facility amounting to Rs. 12,03,993/-. The Assessing Officer refused to allow this set off in his assessment order dated 26.2.1992. His view was that the interest income earned by the assessee during the period of construction is chargeable to tax under the head 'Income from other sources'. The interest paid, on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1995)52TTJ(Del)345
ORDERSMT MOKSH MAHAJAN A.M. :The orders of the learned CIT(A) for asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84 were challenged by the assessed raising various grounds. As common issues are involved in these appeals, they are disposed of by a common order.2. The first ground of appeal pressed relating to asst. yr. 1982-83 is in respect of addition of Rs. 60,000 made to the trading account. Explaining the circumstances in which the addition came to be made, it is submitted by Shri Sapra, the learned authorised representative that the assessed derives income from manufacture and sale of woollen yarn from rags. For asst. yr. 1982-83, it declared gross profit rate of 25.8% on total sales of Rs. 53,95,132. After finding that the addition was made in the earlier assessment year, the addition of Rs. 60,000 was made in the trading account. This was for the various reasons as summarised by the learned CIT(A) in his order. To put it briefly the manufacturing register and raw material register showed that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1991Delhi1; ILR1990Delhi220
ORDERP. N. Nag, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of ,mandamus directing the respondents to deliver the possession of Flat No. G-2, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, presently in occupation of respondent No. 6, to them and also for quashing the proceedings pending before the Estate Officer, Shri B. Chakravarty, respondent No. 5, and the appeal pending before Shri S. M. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Delhi, respondent No. 7.2. The facts, in brief, are that the Flat No- G-2 (now Flat No. G-73), Connaught Circus, New Delhi consisting of four rooms, one kitchen, one bath-room, verandah and court-yard on the first floor, which are stated to belong to the petitioners, was requisitioned 'by the Collector in 1948 when it was in possession of Sangeet Bharati Authority. It was further requisitioned by the Government under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1952 Act) vide order of the Deputy Commis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1990Delhi186; II(1992)BC546; [1992]73CompCas630(Delhi)
ORDER1. Industrial Finance Corporation of India, (IFCI for short), a statutory body established under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), advances medium and long term credits, amongst others, to industrial concerns in India, particularly in circumstances where normal banking accommodation is inappropriate or recourse to capital issue methods is impracticable. It is empowered under the Act, inter alia, to grant loans or advances to industrial concerns on the security of mortgage, pledge, hypothecation etc. of moveable and immoveable properties of such industrial concerns.2. The IFCI, as petitioner 1, sets out following facts, which have necessitated a petition to this Court, invoking provisions of S. 30 of the Act:M/s. Century Metals Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Company), with its registered office at 86/ 87, Model Basti New Delhi, respondent I herein, is an industrial concern w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1986]158ITR439(Delhi)
Sachar, J.1. All these petitions were heard together and they will be disposed of by this order as they raise the same point excepting for an extra point in C.W. No. 308 of 1979 which we shall discuss separately. 2. These petitions have arisen out of notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. C.W. No. 308 of 1979 deals with a notice issued for reassessment for the year 1970-71 and for the deduction allowed for the provision for gratuity to be paid to the employees. C.W. No. 377 of 1979 is directed against an ex parte assessment made for the year 1970-71. C.W. No. 1566 of 1982 and C. W. No. 1568 of 1982 challenge the notices for reassessment issued for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. 3. Petitioner No. 1, Coca Cola Export Corporation, is a company incorporated in the United States of America and having its branch office in New Delhi. The petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Coca Cola company which is also incorporated in the USA (referred to as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1983LC91D(Delhi); 1983(12)ELT292(Del)
Sachar, J. 1. This batch of petitions was heard together and will be decided by the common judgment. The counsel for the petitioners were agreed that the judgment in this petition will cover the other cases also. There are some extra points in the petitions i.e., C.W. 1108 and 1109/1982 relating to the import of Aluminum scrap and we shall deal with that separately later in the judgment. 2. These petitions challenge the levy of duty of customs and additional duty of Customs, under the Customs Act, 1962 (to be called Customs Act) and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (to be called Tariff Act) respectively. 3. The petitioners import brass scrap. Duty means a duty of Custom livable under the Act vide Section 2(15) of the Customs Act. Section 12 of the Customs Act provides that duty of Customs shall be levied at such rate as may be specified in Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or any other law for the time being in force for the goods imported or exported. Section 2 of the Tariff Act lays down that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1980]50CompCas456(Delhi); ILR1981Delhi249
Sachar, J.(1) Is the Central Government under a legal obligation to give a hearing to the undertaking before making a reference under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (to be called the Act) to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (to be called the Commission) for an enquiry and report is one of the main questions that calls for decision in these three Writ Petitions namely C.W. 782/74, C.W. 547/74 and C.W. 1309/73, which were heard together. Another question of law that arises relates to the scope and extent of power of the Central Government and the Commission respectively and the areas that are carved out to each of them which reference is made under section 31 of the Act. The main restions of law being common to all the petitions will bo disposed of by this order. There were certain special facts relating to each petition which were argued by their counsel in their respective petitions and we shall deal with tho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : I(1985)ACC121; ILR1985Delhi746
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) On 18/08/1964between 5 and 6 in the evening two brothers Suresh Chander(the deceased) and Ramesh Chander were going on a scooter from their office to their residence. They passed through AlipurRoad beyond Kashmere Gate. The deceased was driving the scooter and Ramesh was a pillion passenger. When they reached20, Alipur Road, known as Sant Permanand Blind Relief Mission Building, opposite Rai Sahib Bhola Ram Petrol Pump, a branch of the neem tree standing there fell on the deceased. His head was crushed. He was rushed to Irwin Hospital where he died the following morning at about 11 a.m. inspire of a surgical operation. A piece of wood was found in his brain.(2) The deceased left behind a widow, three minor sons and a minor daughter besides his mother. All six of them brought a suit for damages claiming Rs. 3,00,000 from the defendants,namely, (1) Municipal .Corporation of Delhi, (2) Union ofIndia, and (3) Delhi Administration. The suit was partially decreed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1988(15)DRJ393; 1989LabIC974
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) In this Letters Patent Appeal the main questions, among others, which have arisen are : (1) Whether the appropriate government can, in exercise of its power under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in view of various decisions of the Supreme Court refuse to make a reference of an industrial dispute for reasons which purport to decide merits of the dispute ; and (2) whether the scope of that power has been altered by .Section Iia inserted in the Act with effect from 15th December, 1971.(2) Several workmen-employed by the appellant were chargesheeted for misconduct. Domestic inquiry was held against them. Charges against the six concerned workmen were found to have been substanfiated. Consequently, they were dismissed from service. The workmen, through their union, approached the Conciliation Officer and submitted two identical statements of claim, one in respect of five workmen and the o...
Tag this Judgment!