Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: delhi Year: 2003 Page 11 of about 266 results (0.027 seconds)

May 01 2003 (HC)

Chawla Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-01-2003

Reported in : 2004(72)DRJ768; 2004(93)ECC175; 2004(175)ELT61(Del)

d.k. jain, j. 1. since the pleadings are complete and we have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, we proceed to dispose of the writ petition at this stage itself.2. challenge in this writ petition is to the final order dated 7 august 2002 passed by the customs and central excise settlement commission (for short the `commission') under section 127c(7) of the customs act, 1962, (for short the 'act').3. the petitioner, a company incorporated under the companies act, 1956 is engaged in the manufacture of wall clocks, table clocks and quartz movements for clocks. for the manufacture of the said goods, falling under chapter 91 of the central excise tariff act, 1985, the petitioner has been importing from time to time certain components/raw materials from various parties including one m/s.wellgain products pvt. ltd., hong kong. for the said imports bills of entry for home consumption were filed from time to time and the same were assessed under section 46 read with section 14(1) of the act.4. it appears that some investigations were undertaken against the petitioner by the director general, directorate of revenue intelligence, respondent no.4 herein. on 14 july 1997 summons under section 108 of the act were issued to the director of the petitioner-company requiring him to appear before the sr. intelligence officer and produce bills of entry, invoices, bills of lading, airway bills of imports from the said wellgain products with effect from 1 january 1997 .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 02 2003 (HC)

Badri Bhagat Jhandewalan Temple Society and ors. Vs. Delhi Development ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-02-2003

Reported in : 2003IVAD(Delhi)299; AIR2003Delhi351; 106(2003)DLT503; 2003(68)DRJ787

j.d. kapoor, j. 1. the applicant-judgment debtor(j.d.) is delhi development authority. it has moved an application under order 9 rule 13 cpc for setting aside an ex parte decree passed on 22nd january,1990 restraining the applicant/jd from interfering with the possession, management and control of the respondent/(decree holder) dh and their tenants/licensees and all others in possession of the suit premises on the premise that the respondent/dh became the owner in possession of the suit properties by purchasing the same from erstwhile various private owners through duly registered sale deeds from 1880 till 1905-06. instead of accepting the decision with grace which stands on the edifice of overwhelming documentary evidence in the form of revenue records/sale dees etc projecting the ownership of the respondent/dh with possession over the suit property since 1880, the applicant-dda has taken upon itself the task of nullifying the ownership and possession of the respondent-dh on the strength of a stray entry of 18-7-98 in the revenue record in which `crown' was shown as the owner but in 1909, the said entry was corrected by mr. white, the then head assistant commissioner as it was found to have been wrongly made. it was again dug up in 1982 and the respondent/dh as branded as licensee and for breach of term of the license, license was revoked. what an irony'. for the sake of clarity, applicant/j.d shall be referred as 'defendant/dda' and respondent/dh as 'plaintiff' hereinafter. .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 02 2003 (HC)

Cit Vs. Suidu Trade Links Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-02-2003

Reported in : [2003]131TAXMAN302(Delhi)

orderthis appeal under section 260a of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') by the revenue is directed against order dated 6-9-2002, passed by the income tax appellate tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') in ita no. 4893 (dei) 1997, pertaining to the assessment year 1995-96.2. the short issue sought to be raised by the revenue in this appeal, is as to whether an assessed, who has leased out the vehicles to a third party for running them on hire, is entitled to depreciation at a higher rate or not.3. a similar issue came up for consideration of this court in cit v. bansal credits ltd. (2003) 259 itr 69 , and it was held that where the vehicles have been leased out by the assessed for running them on hire, he is entitled to a higher rate of depreciation. in view of the said decision, the issue raised by the revenue in the appeal does not survive for our consideration.however, relying on our observations in bansal credits ltd.'s case (supra) to the effect that before granting depreciation at higher rate, it has to be examined whether the leased out vehicles are actually being used in the business of hire or not. mr. sanjeev khanna, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue, would submit that in the present case, without examining the said aspect, the tribunal has directed grant of depreciation at a higher rate only on the ground that the vehicles had been leased out by the assessed.4. we do not agree with learned counsel for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 02 2003 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suidu Trade Links Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-02-2003

Reported in : (2004)189CTR(Del)41

d.k. jain, j.1. this appeal under section 260a of the income-tax act,, 1961 (for short 'the act') by the revenue is directed against order dt, 6th sept., 2002, passed by the income-tax appellate tribunal (for short 'the tribunal') in ita no. 4893 (delhi) 1997, pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1995-96.2. the short issue sought to be raised by the revenue in this appeal, is as to whether an assessed, who has leased out the vehicles to a third party for running them on hire, is entitled to depreciation at a higher rate or not.3. a similar issue came up for consideration of this court in cit v. bansal credits ltd. (2003) 259 itr 69 , and it was held that where the vehicles have been leased out by the assessed for running them on hire, he is entitled to a higher rate of depreciation. in view of the said decision, the issue raised by the revenue in the appeal does not survive for our consideration.however, relying on our observations in bansal credits ltd.'s case (supra) to the effect that before granting depreciation at higher rate, it has to be examined whether the leased out vehicles are actually being used in the business of hire or not. mr. sanjeev khanna, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue, would submit that in the present case, without examining the said aspect, the tribunal has directed grant of depreciation at a higher rate only on the ground that the vehicles had been leased out by the assessed.4. we do not agree with learned counsel for the revenue for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 2003 (HC)

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. Unibros and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-05-2003

Reported in : 2003(2)ARBLR346(Delhi); 105(2003)DLT837; 2003(71)DRJ719; [2003]46SCL18(Delhi)

vikramajit sen, j.1. parliament's resolve of interring the arbitration act, 1940 would be futile if the contention raised in this petition on behalf of the mahanagar telephone nigam ltd. (mtnl for short) is to be accepted. further, the ghost of the repealed statute would have encountered only an unsuccessful exorcism despite the perspicuous judgment of the apex court in thyssen stahlunion gmbj vs . steel authority of india ltd., : air1999sc3923 if these arguments are to be accepted. on 20.9.2002 my learned brother s.k. aggarwal, j. had recorded in the present proceeding that - ' the issue involved here is whether the old arbitration act of 1940 would apply in this case'. it is on this question that arguments have been addressed by learned counsel for the adversaries.2. the annals of the litigation are not in dispute. mtnl had awarded a contract to unibros ltd. (unibros for short) for the construction of a telephone exchange-cum- office building in the cgo complex, lodhi road, new delhi in 1990. on 11.9.1991 unibros invoked the arbitration clause; in response mtnl terminated the contract invoking clause 25 of general conditions of contract (for short gcc). thereafter unibros had filed a suit before this court in 1991 in which the first arbitrator was appointed by orders dated 5.12.1991. an interim award was announced on 13.3.1992 but this award was assailed before this court and was set aside by orders dated 24.5.1999 which read thus:'suit no. 1124-a/1992 'this petition has .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2003 (HC)

Mr. Vijay Kr. Dua Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-06-2003

Reported in : 2003VAD(Delhi)164; 104(2003)DLT984; 2004(1)SLJ44(Delhi); 2003(6)SLR700

vijender jain, j. 1. this petition has been filed by the promotees planning assistants working in the planning department of delhi development authority, inter alias praying that writ of mandamus be issued to the respondent to prepare the seniority list of the planning assistants in dda planning department on the basis of continuous length of service. 2. the basic contention which has been raised before me by the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that although vacancies were to be filled 50 per cent from direct recruitment and 50 per cent from promotion in the ratio of one direct recruit to one promotee officer, however, as per the recruitment rules the same has not been done and quota and rota rule has broken down. thereforee, the petitioners who were appointed in the year 1984 are entitled for their seniority on the basis of continuous length of service. 3. to cut short the controversy both the parties agree to the statement filed by the petitioners along with the writ petition as far as the recruitment made by the respondent/dda from the year 1963 till 1984 in both the categories of promotees as well as direct recruits. the same is at page no. 23 of the paper book.4. in support of his contention counsel for the petitioner has cited the decisions of supreme court in direct recruit class ii engineering officer's association vs . state of maharashtra & ors. : [1990]2scr900 and rudra kumar sain & ors. v. union of india & ors. (2000) 8 scc 25.5. on the other hand it was .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 2003 (HC)

M.F.H. Beg Vs. Registrar of Coop. Societies and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-07-2003

Reported in : 2003IVAD(Delhi)551; AIR2003Delhi445

dalveer bhandari, j.1 both these petitions emanate from the order dated 5.11.2002 passed by the financial commissioner. thereforee, we deem it appropriate to dispose of both these writ petitions by this common order.2 for illustration, we are recapitulating the facts of cw 7892/2002 alone. respondent mohd.omar s/o sher mohd. filed a petition under section 31(7) read with section 80 of the delhi cooperative societies act, 1972 challenging the election of petitioner, m.f.h.beg, to the post of director in the managing committee of jamia cooperative bank in the election held on 26.5.2002. the sole ground of challenge is that the petitioner, m.f.h.beg, is not qualified to become a member of the committee on the ground that his son, mirza zaffar beg, is having a lease agreement with jamia cooperative bank in respect of property no.334-e, batala house, jamia nagar, new delhi. we deem it appropriate to reproduce section 59. section 59 reads as under:rule 59 disqualification for membership of committee: no person shall be eligible for election as a member of the committee, if- (a) .... (b) he has, directly or indirectly, any interest in any contract to which the cooperative society is a party except in transaction made with the cooperative society as a member in accordance with the objects of the society as stated in the bye-laws. 1 it may be pertinent to mention that the facts mentioned in the petition are admitted. it has not been denied by the petitioner that his son is having .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 2003 (HC)

A.N. Gupta Vs. Public Enterprises Selection Board (Pesb) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-08-2003

Reported in : 2003VAD(Delhi)364

s.k. mahajan, j.1. the petitioner was appointed as director (finance) in the housing and urban development corporation limited (in short referred to as `hudco'). this corporation is wholly owned by the government of india and functions under the administrative control of the government. the appointment of the petitioner was initially made on 08th january, 2001 for a period of five years leaving the option with the appointing authority to terminate the services of the petitioner by giving him three months notice or on payment of three months salary in lieu thereof. the appointment was on the terms and conditions as conveyed to the petitioner on 15th october, 2001. clause i of the terms and conditions provided that the period of petitioner's appointment was five years, which may be terminated even during this period by either side on three months' notice or on payment of salary in lieu thereof. it also provided that the performance of the petitioner shall be reviewed after the expiry of the fist year to enable the government to take a view regarding the continuance or otherwise for the balance period of tenure. in terms of the guidelines issued by the government of india on top posts in public enterprises the government should assess the work of the person appointed on a tenure at the end of a year in five years contract and terminate the contract if his performance was found to be not quite satisfactory. the procedure for review of performance or appraisal of work has also .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 2003 (HC)

Shri Sewa Singh and anr. Vs. Shri R.S. Malhotra

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-13-2003

Reported in : 2003VAD(Delhi)484; AIR2004Delhi152

j.d. kapoor, j. 1. this is a suit for specific performance seeking execution and registration of sale deed and delivery of possession and permanent injunction in respect of property bearing plot number b-140, block b, situated at vivek vihar, delhi measuring 300 sq. yards.2. the case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the defendant represented to the plaintiffs through m/s amba property dealers (regd) that he is perpetual lessee of plot no. 140, block b, situated at vivek vihar, delhi measuring 300 sq. yards and offered to sell the same for valuable consideration. after negotiations the total consideration of sale of the plot was settled at rs. 7,72,500/-. at the time of execution of agreement to sell, a sum of rs. 20,000/-(rs. 10,000 by means of cheque and rs. 10,000/- by cash) was paid leaving a balance of rs. 7,52,500/- which was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed in the office of sub-registrar, delhi.3. in order to complete the sale, the defendant was to obtain necessary permissions from various authorities viz. `no objection certificates' from the income tax, delhi development authority, urban land ceiling etc. which the defendant agreed to obtain within a period of 365 days and as such 365 days time was fixed for the performance of the agreement of sale. it was agreed that in case the defendant failed to execute the sale deed and get the same registered within the stipulated period of 365 days, the plaintiffs could get the agreement of sale .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 2003 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ranjit Singh, Budh Ram and Ram Chander

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-14-2003

Reported in : [2004]265ITR680(Delhi)

d.k. jain j.1. in these three references at the instance of the revenue, the income-tax appellate tribunal/ delhi (for short 'the tribunal') has referred under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short 'the act'), the following question for our opinion :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the income-tax act, 1961, are not applicable to the rural area of union territory of delhi ?'2. no one appears for the assessed. we have accordingly heard mr. ajay jha, learned counsel for the revenue, as is evident from the format of the question itself, the issue arising for consideration is as to whether the lands in rural areas of union territory of delhi constitute capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the act and exigible to capital gain tax on its transfer.3. we find from the statement of the case that while deciding the issue in favor of the assessed, the tribunal has relied on some of its earlier decisions, including the one rendered in the case of surjan singh, wherein it was held that the agricultural land in rural areas of the union territory of delhi was outside the scope of capital asset and the aforenoted section was not applicable. the decision of the tribunal in surjan singh's case came up for consideration of this court and vide order dated october 10, 2002, since reported as cit v. surjan singh [2003] 260 itr 351 , it was held .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //