Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: delhi Year: 2003 Page 7 of about 266 results (0.027 seconds)

Mar 13 2003 (HC)

Darbar Exports and ors. Vs. Bank of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-13-2003

Reported in : 2003IIIAD(Delhi)190; 104(2003)DLT174; 2003(68)DRJ1

r.c. chopra, j.1. this petition under section 482 of the code of cril. procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the code' only) is directed against an order dated 31.5.2002 passed by learned addl. sessions judge, new delhi by which an application of the petitioners for recall of the summons issued under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') was declined and notice under section 251 of the code was ordered to be served upon the petitioners. 2. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. i have gone through the records. 3. the petitioner no. 1 a partnership firm and its partners petitioners no. 2 and 3 are being proceeded against under section 138 of the act on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent no. 1. the petitioners moved an application for recall of the summoning order mainly on the ground that no notice under section 138(b) of the act was served upon the petitioners; that there was no cause of action in favor of respondent-complainant and the petitioner no. 3 was only a sleeping partner and in the complaint there were no allegations against her to render her liable in terms of section 141 of the act. the learned trial judge vide the impugned order rejected the pleas raised by the petitioners. 4. coming to the plea that there was no cause of action in favor of respondent-complainant as no notice under section 138(b) of the act was served upon the petitioners, this court finds .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2003 (HC)

Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Jhalani Tools Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-18-2003

Reported in : 2003IIIAD(Delhi)547; 104(2003)DLT834; 2003(69)DRJ592; [2003]47SCL757(Delhi)

..... the agreement by the petitioner company. in this respect, i am not taking into account the letter dated 23rd february, 1998, cited by the petitioner which was issued by a mediator between the parties as it was private correspondence and was termed as personal and confidential. 13. the explanationn given in respect of the acknowledgment given by shri y.c. jhalani .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2003 (HC)

Gurnam Singh @ Herjit Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-18-2003

Reported in : 2003CriLJ3198; 103(2003)DLT758; 2003(68)DRJ326; 2003(87)ECC586; 2003(1)JCC599

r.s. sodhi, j.1. by this criminal writ petition no. 933 of 2002 under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner seeks to challenge the detention order bearing no. f. no. 801/29/200-pitndps dated 2.3.2002 passed by joint secretary to the government of india, ministry of finance, department of revenue, new delhi, under section 3(1) of the prevention of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1988 (for short the 'pitndps' act), served on the petitioner on 2.4.2002 together with relevant material. 2. the facts of the case are that the petitioner, paramjit singh and co-accused, tahel singh, were arrested pursuant to a recovery of 9.66 kg. brown powder from maruti zen car no. hr-01-f-8143 on 5.10.2001. on 11.3.2002 the petitioner moved an application for bail before the learned special judge pitndps act, new delhi who vide order dated 27.3.2002 admitted the petitioner and co-accused to bail. on 2.4.2002 a complaint under sections 21 and 29 pitndps act was filed before the court of special judge, ndps act, new delhi and cognizance taken thereon. on the same day, an order under section 3(1) of the pitndps act was passed and served on the petitioner while he was yet confined in jail. it is alleged that on 3.5.2002, the petitioner made a representation to the joint secretary, government of india and on 10.5.2002 made a representation to the advisory board. on 11.6.2002, the detaining authority rejected the representation dated 10.5.2002 made to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 2003 (HC)

Ravinder Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-20-2003

Reported in : 2003IIIAD(Delhi)627; 104(2003)DLT41; 2003(71)DRJ515

sanjay kishan kaul, j. 1. the father of the petitioner was allotted a tehbazari space/site no. 34, kishore market between shop no. 33 stall no. 53 measuring 10 x 15 ft. in wadhwa market in delhi who established the business of sale and repair of cycles. it is stated that the site is a public read which vests with the respondent no. 3 municipal corporation of delhi. the petitioner's father was asked to vacate the site and he filed a suit for permanent injunction. this litigation was fought till supreme court. the grievance of the father of the petitioner, inter alia, was that the petitioner was sought to be dispossessed without even issuance of a show cause notice. the petitioner succeeded in the suit and the appeals but the supreme court in terms of its order dated 27th september, 1991 held as under: 'the course spelled out in the judgment under appeal was that the appellant should issue notice to the respondent intimating him that it was proposed to cancel his license and then take such steps thereafter as were known to law. almost twelve years have passed thereafter. we assume that in the absence of stay of the judgment the appellant has treaded that path. thus due to the efflux of time, we dismiss this appeal and leave the question of law undecided and hence open. no costs.' 2. it is stated in the petition that the entire colony of kingsway camp was sought to be redeveloped and originally the scheme for redevelopment of the colony was transferred from the municipal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2003 (TRI)

New Holland Tractors (India) (P) Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Decided on : Mar-21-2003

Reported in : (2004)83TTJ(Delhi)628

1. this is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dt. 18th nov., 2002, of cit(a)-xvi, new delhi, pertaining to 1996-97 assessment year.2. the sole issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal pertains to the penalty imposed and upheld under section 271(1)(c) of the act, various grounds have been raised by the assessee praying for the quashing of penalty imposed to the tune of rupees five crores fifty lakhs odd.2.1 the relevant facts of the case are that the assessee-company was incorporated on 9th may, 1995, and this is the first year of operation of the company. its return was filed on 30th nov., 1996, declaring a taxable income of rs. 2,14,50,340 and assessment under section 143(3) was completed on a total income of rs. 14,10,55,490. the total income of the assessee comprised of the business income received as technical fee from escorts ltd., and income from other sources as interest income. in the year under consideration, the assessee entered in an agreement on 14th july, 1995, with escorts ltd., and as per this agreement, the assessee-company assigned the right to use its technical know-how for a period of three years to escorts ltd. for a lump sum consideration of 50 lakhs us $. the same was to be received in indian rupees under a tripartite agreement dt. 14th july, 1995. the assessee, as such, received an amount of rs. 15,68,50,000 which was treated by the assessee as advance in its books of accounts and only a sum of rs. 3,72,44,848 was credited to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2003 (HC)

ito Vs. Smt Sheetal Kumari

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-21-2003

Reported in : (2004)91TTJ(Del)1097

orderr.m. mehta, vice presidentall these appeals have been filed by the revenue and having been heard together, are disposed of by means of a consolidated order. at the time of hearing, both the parties agreed and stated that the tribunal be pleased to take up initially three appeals, which arose out of a consolidated order passed by the commissioner (appeals) for assessment years 1990-91, 1992-93 and 1994-96, and these were ita nos. 1828, 1829 and 1830/del/2002. the common ground raised by the revenue in all these three appeals runs as under :'on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned commissioner (appeals)-xxvi, new delhi, erred in deleting the addition by holding the recurring compensation as agricultural income exempt from tax, although the same is nothing but additional compensation chargeable under section 45(5) of the income tax act.'2. coming to the facts of the case, these are identical for assessment years 1990-91 and 1992-93 inasmuch as proceedings were originally initiated under section 147/148 and in response to the notices issued, the respondent filed returns showing nil income. the assessments came to be completed under section 143(3)/148 bringing to tax the compensation on accrual basis as disclosed by the assessed in a 'note' given in the statement of income attached with the returns.3. on appeal to the commissioner (appeals), jodhpur, the assessments were set aside and the assessing officer was asked to decide as to who was the actual owner of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2003 (HC)

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Late M.K. Swami Through L/H S.K. Santha ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-21-2003

Reported in : (2003)185CTR(Del)457

d.k. jain, j.1. the matter has been placed before the court for appropriate orders as the revenue, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books, despite various opportunities. since the issue raised in this reference is 150 longer rest integra, we dispense with the filing of the paper books and proceed to answer the question referred,2. the income-tax appellate tribunal, delhi bench-e; new delhi (for short the tribunal), has referred under section 27(1) of the wt act, 1957, 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 assets comprising of the balance with canara bank amounting to rs. 3,72,552, shares with m/s goetz (india) ltd. amounting to rs. 75,350, commission receivable amounting to rs. 13,313 and dividend receivable amounting to rs. 4,220 were to be assessed in the hands of the huf of which the assessed was the 'karta' and not in his assessment as an assessed in his individual capacity ?'3. there is no appearance on behalf of the assessed. accordingly we have heard mr. r.d. jolly, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue.4. from the statement of the case we find that it was conceded before the tribunal that a similar issue, in the case of the assessed himself, in respect of asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 had been referred to this court. references pertaining to the said assessment years as also to asst. yrs, 1968-69 to 1970-71 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2003 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. JaIn Tube Company Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-21-2003

Reported in : (2003)185CTR(Del)458

d.k. jain, j. 1. the matter has been placed before us for appropriate orders as the revenue, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books despite various opportunities. since answer to the question referred stands concluded by the decision of this court, we dispense with the filing of the paper books and proceed to dispose of the reference at this stage itself.2. the income-tax appellate tribunal, delhi bench-b, new delhi (for short the tribunal) has referred under section 256(1) of the it act, 1961 the following question for our opinion:'whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in deleting the addition of rs. 40,000 by holding that allowable limit under section 40a(5)(a) in case of employee directors was of rs. 72,000 and head-wise limits in section 40a(5)(c) did not apply ?'3. there is no appearance on behalf of the assessed. accordingly we have heard mr. r.d. jolly, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue.4. a similar question came up for consideration of this court in cit v. siya ram kumar engineering works (p) ltd. : [2002]254itr358(delhi) and it was held that section 40a(5)(c) applies to persons other than directors whereas section 40a(5)(a) relates to the directors.5. in view of the said decision, no fault can be found with the view taken by the, tribunal. the question referred is accordingly answered in the affirmative i.e. in favor of (he assessed and against the revenue.6. the reference .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2003 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sam Orie

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-21-2003

Reported in : [2004]266ITR630(Delhi)

d.k. jain j.1. at the instance of the revenue, the income-tax appellate tribunal, delhi bench-d, new delhi (for short 'the tribunal'), has referred under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, the following question for our opinion :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was right in law in holding that the living allowance paid to foreign employees is exempt under section 10(14) of the act ?'2. there is no appearance on behalf of the assessed. accordingly, we have heard ms. prem lata bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue.3. as is apparent from the format of the question, the issue arising for consideration is as to whether the living allowance received by a foreign technician is exempt under section 10(14) of the act. since the issue is purely legal, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts.4. the answer to the question referred stands concluded by the decision of the apex court in cit v. goslino mario : [2000]241itr312(sc) , wherein it has been held that the rupee payment taken in india in the shape of daily allowances for the foreign technician is exempt under section 10(14) of the act. in view of the said authoritative pronouncement, our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative, i.e., in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.5. the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2003 (HC)

Delhi Jal Board Vs. Surendra P. Malik

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-24-2003

Reported in : 2003IIIAD(Delhi)419; 104(2003)DLT151; 2003(68)DRJ284

khan, j.1. whether impugned judgment and decree for recovery of possession of flat nos. 12 & 11 at connaught place, new delhi could have been passed under order 12 rule 6 cpc is the question. 2. the suit premises was taken on rent by appellant from predecessor in interest of respondent (m/s. raghubir saran charitable trust) vide lease deed dated 30.7.1965 for two years on a monthly rent of rs. 3,790/-. the lease was to commence from 27.5.1965 and expire on 30.3.1967. appellant, however, continued to remain in possession after the expiry of lease on 30.3.1967 also. meanwhile, pursuant to an amendment in the delhi rent control act, the suit premises fell out of its ambit and the trust filed a suit no. 191/98 for recovery of possession and damages and mesne profits. the trust was later substituted by respondent who had purchased the suit property meanwhile. 3. appellant filed its written statement raising the preliminary objection that the suit suffered from lack of cause of action and that no notice was served on the board under section 478 of dmc act. on merits, it claimed that it was continuing in the premises as a tenant without any dispute for 23 years as was evident from the pre-receipted bills of rent raised by the trust and the present respondent and the rent received by them. it accordingly denied that tenancy had expired by efflux of time and also disputed that any notice was served on it under section 106 of the transfer of property act to terminate it. 4. as many as .....

Tag this Judgment!


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