Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1998]231ITR318(Delhi); [1998]97TAXMAN144(Delhi)
..... of west bengal v. subodh gopal bose : [1954]1scr587 .2. kharak singh v. state of u.p. : 1963crilj329 .3. rustom cavasjee cooper v. union of india : [1970]3scr530 .4. maneka gandhi (smt.) v. union of india : [1978]2scr621 .5. state of himachal pradesh v. umed ram sharma : [1986]1scr251 .6. supreme court legal aid committee representing undertrial prisoners v. union of ..... allegations in the counter-affidavit.on march 30, 1995, mr. sanjay gupta filed an affidavit on behalf of the petitioners stating that in respect of property bearing no. 9, kasturba gandhi marg, where the apparent consideration was rs. 7.20 crores and the application in from no. 37-i was filed on november 28, 1994, no objection certificate was granted and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 61(1996)DLT206; 1996(36)DRJ34
..... that any such approach has been made for any particular colony to be regularised on the same pattern as other colonies have been regularised.(217) in case of gandhi grah nirman samili (supra), the supreme court has already held that acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed on the sole ground that the land owners have raised illegal ..... regularised certain unauthorised colonies and there is no reason why the constructions raised by the petitioner in the land in question should not be regularised . in the case of gandhi grah nirman sahkari samiti ltd, vs stale of rajasthan & others, : 1993(66)elt47(sc) , it has been laid down that the constructions raised on the land ..... the provisions of the delhi development act. we need not repeat the reasoning given in this judgment with which we entirely agree.(139) reference may be also made to gandhi gruh nirman sahkari sumiti ltd v. state of rajasthan & others, : 1993(66)elt47(sc) , where provisions of the rajasthan urban improvement act came up for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 62(1996)DLT313
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) I had the advantage of reading the opinion of my learned Brother K. Ramamoorthy. I am in respectful agreement with the conclusions reached by brother Ramamoorthy that all the appeals and writ petitions deserve dismissal. In his judgment Brother Ramamoorthy has dealt with various aspects of the matter in great detail as also the decisions cited before us. Considering, however, the gravity of unauthorised construction and misuse and numerous cases which come up before Courts seeking injunction relating to such constructions, I would notice few salient facts of these cases. (2) The unauthorised construction and unauthorised user of residential building for commercial purposes in Delhi has gained alarming proportions and crossed all limits. At the very outset I may state that these activities are against the interests of the Society at large and need to be dealt with firmly. (3) The common questions of fact and law are involved in these batch of writ petitions and app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IAD(Delhi)749; 1996(36)DRJ558; 1996RLR140
ORDER In partial modification of office order No. 38/Bldg. dated 5. 9. 1977, priorities of demolition of unauthorised construction will be as under: FIRSTPRIORITY; A) Cases of unauthorised construction of commercial nature such asmarkets, offices, godowns which have been dismissed/remanded from the courts. B) Unauthorised construction of commercial nature including, cases. where unauthorised structure was demolished and has beenreconstructed. C) All cases of commercial as well as residential nature where sanction ofbuilding plans is revoked. D) Unauthorised construction of new colonies on green agricultural land/private land. E) Unauthorised construction of residential nature which has been dismissed from the court, including the cases of unauthor is edconstruction which affect rights (light, ventilation, passage etc. ofneighbors) . SECONDPRIORITY A) Cases of unauthorised construction effected by any structure or coming in the right of way of the road. B) Unauthorised constructio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 63(1996)DLT577
C.M. Nayafr, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of three appeals S.A.O- Nos. 202181, 212181 and 13190 as they raise common questions of law The first two appeals arise out of judgment dated September 17, 1979 of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, and judgment dated May 7, 1981 passed by Rent Control Tribunal. (2) The respondent filed eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on August 21, 1978 for eviction of the appellants from one big room, two small rooms, verandah, part of open terrace in front etc. forming part of the tenancy premises on second floor, plot No. 27, House No. 4779, Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The allegations were made that Kishori Lal, since deceased, was tenant under the respondent in respect of the above said premises since July 18, 1953 at rental of Rs. 771- per month, but has neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent within two months from service of notice dated December 18, 1977. The petition f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1997Delhi175; 1996(39)DRJ205
..... has mentioned that article 14 of the constitution ensures equality among equals; which is to protect persons similarly placed against discriminatory treatment.26. in the celebrated case of smt. maneka gandhi v. union of india, : [1978]2scr621 , article 14 has been interpreted in the following manner. 'now, the question immediately arises as to what is the requirement of article 14; what .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IVAD(Delhi)507; 66(1997)DLT660; 1996(39)DRJ609
..... was 131 and his date of enrolment was 25th may,1959 and membership no. of manohar lal chawla was 973 with date of enrolment 30th december, 1960 while nand lal gandhi, bhola nath, satya prabha etc. all were enrolled on 31st december, 1960. it would be evident that bhola nath gogia was much junior in the list. this is in ..... would become amenable to the writ jurisidiction of this court at least under article 226 if not under article 32 read with article 12 of the constitution. (27) since maneka gandhi vs . union of india, : [1978]2scr621 , right to life and personal liberty has gained ever expanding meaning and right to shelter also emanating from article 21 was recognised as ..... .71 was not the seniority but file number. out of 360 plots, 342 plots had been allotted to those who enrolled before 25th may, 1959 were senior to n.l. gandhi. he also filed a waiting list position as on 25th december, 1991(annexure r-1). sh. 0m prakash chugh and sh. kamlesh kumar juneja were senior to him, their .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1997)57TTJ(Del)537
ORDERMISS MOKSH MAHAJAN, A.M. :These two appeals, by the assessee, are directed against the orders passed under ss. 154 and 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) for asst. yr. 1989-90. As both are interconnected, they are disposed of by a single order after consolidating them.2. Shri R. Ganesan appeared on behalf of the assessed and Shri M. S. Syali, standing counsel, represented the Department.3. Briefly put, the facts are that the assessed filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 30,95,450. The return was processed under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act and the income determined was at Rs. 31,14,600. This was after including an amount of Rs. 19,150 the depreciation claimed at hundred per cent on the machinery. Subsequently, the AO modified the income under s. 154 of the Act by restricting deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act to Rs. 13,83,30,602 as against Rs. 15,06,77,328 claimed by the assessee. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. The assessed is aggrieved against ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)66ITD450(Delhi)
1. These two appeals, by the assessee, are directed against the orders passed under ss. 154 and 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') for asst. yr. 1989-90. As both are interconnected, they are disposed of by a single order after consolidating them.2. Shri R. Ganesan appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri M. S.Syali, standing counsel, represented the Department.3. Briefly put, the facts are that the assessee filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 30,95,450. The return was processed under s.143(1)(a) of the Act and the income determined was at Rs. 31,14,600.This was after including an amount of Rs. 19,150 the depreciation claimed at hundred per cent on the machinery. Subsequently, the AO modified the income under s. 154 of the Act by restricting deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act to Rs. 13,83,30,602 as against Rs. 15,06,77,328 claimed by the assessee. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is aggrieved against the order on the ground that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1998Delhi95; [1997]89CompCas438(Delhi)
..... importing it would have the effect of paralysing the administrative process or where the need for promptitude or the urgency of taking action so demands, as pointed out in maneka gandhi's case, : [1978]2scr621 . if legislation and the necessities of a situation can exclude the principles of natural justice including the audi alteram partem rule a fortiori so can a .....
Tag this Judgment!