Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)4SOT825(Delhi)
This appeal by the assessee is against the order passed by the CIT(A) for Block Period 1-4-1995 to 22-8-2001.The facts of the case are that the assessee was holding a free hold plot No. 20/4, situated on Gurgaon Mehrauli Road, Sukhrali Chowk, Gurgaon admeasuring 11 Kanals, 8 Marlas equivalent to 6897 sq. yds. M/s Elite Promoters P. Ltd. being a builder, vide Collaboration Agreement dated 19-5-1997 agreed to construct a multi-storied office-cum-commercial complex, consisting of two basements, Ground and Seven floors (presently known as "Palm Court") as its own cost and expenses, after obtaining all necessary Government's approvals on equal sharing ratio i.e. 50% of saleable area. Accordingly, Plan bearing No.1155ME dated 3-9-1997 for construction of "Palm Court" Project was submitted to Municipal Committee, Gurgaon, Haryana and subsequently vide their certificate bearing No. 2363 dated 11-5-2000 the requisite Completion Certificate was issued to them. Simultaneously other certificates ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)(92)SLJ137CAT
1. By virtue of the present Original Application, applicant, who retired as Vice Chairman from the Central Administrative Tribunal, has assailed respondents' order dated 18.02.2005 whereby his request for payment of gratuity as per Sub clause (ii) of Sub-rule 3 of Rule 17(A) of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 has been turned down despite recommendation by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that condition of service of the High Court Judges ibid is not applicable to the applicant and as the case of the applicant is not covered under clarification letter dated 1,7.2004, he is not entitled for revision of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity.2. Applicant, on completion of 33 years of service in the Indian Administrative Service, on voluntary retirement joined as an Administrative Member in the Central Administrative Tribunal. At the time of voluntary retirement, applicant was holding the post of Member, Board of Revenue and drawing the basi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 146(2008)DLT438; 2008(100)DRJ195
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The plaintiff, claiming to be a Mahant of Kalkaji Mandir, has filed the present suit for declaration, possession and injunction through his attorney Mr.Satish Kumar. The attorney is the natural born brother of the Mahant.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of 50% share of Khasra No. 629 measuring 4 bigha 2 biswa, Khasra No. 630 measuring 18 bigha 9 biswa, Khasra No. 633, 633/1, 633/2 and 633/2/1 measuring 185 bigha and 1 biswa in Village Bahapur. Out of this total land, certain portions of the land were acquired by different awards by the Government of India in all the six khasra numbers. The remaining land after acquisition is stated to be 45 bigha and 10 biswa out of which the share of the plaintiff is stated to be 22 bigha and 15 biswa.3. The plaintiff claims that after demarcation of the land which resulted in Suit No. 342/1991, the plaintiff approached the Director (Lands) DDA and asked him to restore the land occupied a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 46(1992)DLT114b
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) These two suits have been consolidated and directions have been given for recording the proceedings in Suit No. 1113/84. Arguments have been heard in detail and I proceed to the Judgment.(2) Admitted facts of the case, in brief, are that vide two lease-deeds executed on 30/11/1974, defendant No. 1, who is owner of propertyNo. 16, Paschim Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, had let out the main building to Shri K.B. Mathur, plaintiff No. 1, at the rental of Rs. 1,500.00 per mensem and the portion comprising of two garages termed as 'Garage Block' located in the same very property to plaintiff No. 2. Smt. Satbir Mathur, wife of plaintiff No. 1, at the rental of Rs. 300.00per mensem. Defendant No. 1 was at the relevant time employed as Deputy Commissioner of Police in Dap in Delhi while defendant No. 2 is his real brother. Plaintiff No. 1 was working as District Manager of M/s. That Airways International Limited.(3) It is the case of the plaintiffs that till 21/05/1982, ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : II(2004)ACC826; 2005ACJ1187; 112(2004)DLT478; 2004(75)DRJ553
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellants are aggrieved by an Award dated 12th September, 1988 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Suit No. 97/1982.2. Smt. Shakuntala Devi died in an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a vehicle by Respondent No.1. The accident took place on 26th July, 1982 and she died the next day. At the time of her death, she was a housewife aged about 36 years. Her husband and children filed a claim petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act).3. The learned MACT held Respondent No.1 guilty of rash and negligent driving and thereby causing the death of Smt. Shakuntala Devi. As regards the compensation to be awarded, the learned MACT relied upon Bhagwan Dass Bhatia vs. Anand Pal 1986 ACJ 879 wherein a housewife aged about 53-54 years died in an accident in September 1976. A learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court estimated that her contribution to the household co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1985(21)ELT382(Del)
1. The facts giving rise to this revision petition, which is directed against order dated 18th December, 1982 of an Additional Sessions Judge, succinctly are that way back on the night between 13/14th April, 1971 a raid was conducted on premises No. 4698, Gali Umrao Singh, Pahari Dhiraj, by officials of the Customs Department pursuant to some specific secret information. Shri Phool Chand Jain, father of the respondent - Srinivas Jain was present at the house. There was a small room inside a bigger room which was found locked from outsider. The father of the respondent was asked to open the lock but he told the Customs officials that the said room was in possession of a person who was known to his son Srinivas i.e. the respondent. Eventually the lock of the room was broken open and the father of the respondent when told to cooperate with the Customs officials offered to bring out the incriminating goods contained in two steel trunks and one cardboard, etc. Accordingly, he went inside th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IAD(Delhi)449; 71(1998)DLT318; 1998(44)DRJ558; 1998RLR139
ORDERMohd. Shamim, J.1. The petitioner through the present petition see is quashment of the order dated August 2,1989 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of conveniance) whereby permission was granted to respondent No.1 to institute eviction proceedings against M/s Dimple (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner for the sake of brevity).2. Brief facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under: that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the year 1957 in the first floor of the property bearing No.1564, Ishwar Niwas, Bhagirath Place, Chandni Chawk, Delhi (hereinafter referred to us the disputed property) by shri Ishwari Prashad, father of respondent No.1. The said Shri Ishawri Prashad filed a petition, bearing petition No. ESN/5043/85, in the court of the Competent Authority (Slum) for grant of permission to initiate eviction proceedings against th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1987]62CompCas571(Delhi); (1987)63CTR(Del)312; [1987]168ITR341(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. This petition under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), was filed on 4th September, 1984. Earlier, when the petition was filed, the petitioner company was known as M/s. Gedore Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. The name of the company was changed to M/s. Jhalani Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. and this new name was registered under section 23 of the Act. It was stated that the change in the name would not affect any prosecution sought to be launched by any of the respondents. In fact, this is what sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act says. By an order dated 1st December, 1986, on an application (C.A. No. 2518 of 1986), the name of M/s. Jhalani Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. was allowed to be substituted in place of M/s. Gedore Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2. There are 10 petitioners and respondents are 6 in number. Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 6 are Income-tax Officers under the charge of Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak, and Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi VI, New...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002VAD(Delhi)256; [2004]120CompCas223(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT577; 2002(62)DRJ705; [2004]55SCL11(Delhi)
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. The Short question that arises for adjudication in this civil main petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the petitioner Delhi Financial Corporation can resort to both of the remedies available under Section 31 and Section 32(G) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1956 (the Act in short) for recovery of any loan or advance outstanding against the industrial concern. 2. The factual metric of the case as disclosed by the pleadings of the parties are as follows. The petitioner Delhi Financial Corporation (the Corporation) sanctioned a loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- to M/s. Durgesh Copper & Brass Rolling Mills, Delhi, of which Mr. Durgeshwar Parshad Bhatnagar was the sole proprietor, against hypothecation of its property. Mrs. Renu Bhatnagar, w/o Mr. H.P. Bhatnagar and Mr. Harish Chander Gulati, (who is respondent herein) stood sureties for due repayment of the loan advanced. Out of the sanctioned amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- the borrower a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment No2. To be referred to Reporters or not No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest Yes1. I propose to dispose of the captioned suits by a common judgment for the reason that not only are all parties in the captioned suits [except the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA)] members of one family but also that the court, by order dated 05.09.1990 passed in FAO (OS) 280/1989, directed consolidation of the said suits, and the evidence by observing that evidence will be led in suit No. 2996/1988. In addition to this, property being: 17, Ashok Vihar Community Centre, Delhi 110 052 (hereinafter referred to as the Ashok Vihar Property), over which the core dispute centres, is common to the captioned suits. It is perhaps with this background that the court, by order dated 02.07.1996, passed in suit no. 2996/1988 framed common issues.2. The first two suits, that is, suit no. 1099/198...
Tag this Judgment!