Delhi Court October 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shashi Kumar Goyal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT582; I(2002)DMC316
K.S. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition by Shashi Kumar Goyal is directed against the order dated 3rd June, 2000 passed by an Addl.Session Judge discharging accused/respondents 2 to 6 for the offences under Section 406/498-A/495/376/420/120-B/511 IPC.2. A preliminary objection was raised by Sh. K.B. Andley appearing for respondents 2 to 6 that petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition as he is not the maker of FIR and Ms. Kavita, complainant who has since re-married, presumably is not willing to challenge the impugned order. While controverting the objection, it was contended by Sh. B.K. Sharma for petitioner that petitioner is the brother of complainant and if he could file a complaint for the offence under Section 498-A IPC on her behalf under Section 198-A Cr.P.C., he can also file this petition. As part of submission, it was further contended that even a private party has locus standi to file revision petition. Reliance was placed particularly on the decisions in Kavita ...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ece Industries and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT98
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction arising out of the lease deed dated 24.2.1993 whereby premises was leased for nine years w.e.f. 1.4.1992.2. Clause 12 of the lease deed filed by the plaintiff provided that on the expiry of lease agreement, the lessee will hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the Lesser/Co-Lesser in good condition unless a fresh agreement is entered into or agreed upon between the parties on mutually agreed terms & conditions.3. Admittedly no such agreement has been executed after the expiry of nine years period. The plaintiff has sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to execute the lease deed and has also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from erecting any wall and/or interfering in the peaceful possession and use of the area shown and demarcated in red in the annexed site plan.4. As is apparent from the aforesaid lease deed and as per plaintiff's own reckoni...
Bawa Jagmohan Singh and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Trade Marks and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(24)PTC417(Del)
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. Partnership firm M/s. Bawa Masala Company comprising of petitioner No. 1, respondents 3 to 5 and their father Bawa Sardar Singh as partners was proprietor of certain trade marks registered in their names. Bawa Sardar Singh died in 1993. Form TM-24 was filed for bringing on record the names of petitioner No. 1 and respondents 3 to 5 as registered proprietors of the trade mark. That application remained pending. In the meantime, pursuant to a settlement between petitioner No. 1 on the one hand and respondents 3 to 5 on the other, a MOU was executed by them on 17.8.2000 in accordance with which petitioner No. 1 retired from the partnership concern M/s. Bawa Masala Co. and he was allowed to carry on business of Bawa Masala Co. Pvt. Ltd. Both the partnership firm and the company were using the registered trade marks. Regarding user of trade mark, MOU provided that both the parties will continue to use the same trade mark for their business but the territories were dis...
Chetan Dass Lachhman Dass Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Del)655; [2002]255ITR197(Delhi); [2002]122TAXMAN351(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), 2. The following question has been proposed for adjudication :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the face of regular audited books in which no defect is found the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in making estimate of income from hiring of truck business and in not following the assessment order for 1988-89 ?'3. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1986-87.4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on an erroneous impression that the fact situation is the same as that of the assessment year 1984-85, the Revenue authorities estimated the income from each truck and that was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short 'the CIT (A)') and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'). According to him, for the assessment year 1984-85, regular books of account were not maintained. But, for the ass...
Cit Vs. B.L. Passi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Del)85
D.K. Jain, J.These are three appeals under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arising out of the decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in ITAs No. 2537/Del/90 and 627/Del/93 and 3891/Del/91 (assessment year 1987-88) and ITA No. 1014/Del/91 (assessment year 1988-89).2. The issue involved being common to all the years, this order will govern all the three appeals. Since the issue has been discussed in greater details in Tribunals order for the assessment year 1986-87, we will refer to the facts of that year, as illustrative. The following questions have been posed for adjudication :1. 'Whether the Tribunal is correct in upholding the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in accepting the claim of depreciation by the assessed on the trucks allegedly purchased at the end of the accounting year ?'2. 'Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the transactions made by the assessed did not form part of a ...
international Airports Authority of India Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR657(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat C.J. 1. At the instance of the assessed, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E (for short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 19.89 lakhs was a capital expenditure as it gave the assessed an advantage of enduring nature ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1977-78.3. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows.4. The assessed, a Government Corporation, was formed on April 1, 1972, under an Act of Parliament to take over the airports in metropolitan towns, including Palam Airport at Delhi. During the relevant assessment year the assessed paid Rs. 19.89 lakhs to the Delhi Development Authority (in short 'the DDA') for development of an alternative site for the residence of Mangolpuri villagers who wer...
Mars, Incorporated Vs. A.K. Gera and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT906
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The plaintiff Mars, Incorporated is a company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA having its principal place of business at 6885, Elm Street, Mclean, Virginia 22101-3883, United States of America. Mr. Debjit Gupta is the constituted attorney of he plaintiff duly authorised to sign and verify the plaint and institute the suit on its behalf. 2. The plaintiff is an internationally renowned manufacturer and a world leader inter alias in confectionery items ice-creams and chocolates and is the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'MILKY WAY' in India, the particulars of which are as follows:- MILKY WAY 3686 30 19.8.42 Chocolate &sweetmeatsMILKY; WAY 400610 30 27 400610 30 27 .1.83 Confectionarybiscuits and chocolates 3. The said registrations have been renewed from time to time and are subsisting as of date. In addition, the plaintiff has also applied in Class 30 for registration of the trademark MILKY WAY (word) under application No. 61...
M.S. Pattar Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi133
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The present Public Interest Petition deals with the issue of death of certain beggars who were detained in Lampur (Nerala) Delhi Beggars Home under the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said act'). The petitioner claims himself to be a social worker and is stated to have come to know of the death of these beggars from the article published in the Hindi newspaper 'Rashtriya Sahara' on 17.5.2001. Subsequent articles appeared in 'Dainik Jagran' and 'Hindustan Times'. 2. It is state din the petition that from news item of 23.5.2000 it became clear that deaths of 8 beggars of the arisen from contamination of water and food. The news item also show that a Magisterial enquiry was ordered on 19.5.2000 by the Chief Minister of Delhi. The petitioner prayed for the following directions in the writ petition: i) issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, be directed to be issu...
Sudarshan Khanna Vs. Krishna Kanta Bhasin
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT584; 2002(61)DRJ267
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of tenant has assailed the concurrent findings of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as ARC) and Additional Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as RCT) in favor of the grant of eviction orders under Section 14 (1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The eviction petition was originally filed under Section 14(1)(a) and (e) also; the bona fide needs was given up by the Respondent landlord; and the claim of non-payment of rent was upheld but the protection of Section 14(2) was granted to the tenant. In these proceedings the point for consideration is whether the landlord has succeeded in proving that the tenant (Petitioner before the High Court) was acquired vacant possession of a residence i.e. 1259/4, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, Delhi.2. In the course of the appeal before the Tribunal an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of civil Procedure had been filed by the unsuccessful t...
Asha M. JaIn Vs. the Canara Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT841; 2002(61)DRJ101
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The appellant, who purchased property No. A-27/C, DDA Flat Munirka, New Delhi, on a power of attorney basis is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.10.1990 dismissing the objection filed by the appellant under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the attachment order dated 29.04.1989.2. The appellant is stated to have purchased the aforesaid property in question by an agreement to sell dated 21.5.1984 for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/- stated to have been paid by cheque drawn on State Bank of India. The documents in respect of the property in question, apart from the agreement to sell dated 21.5.1984, are Receipt dated 22.5.1984, affidavit dated 22.5.1984, a registered general power of attorney dated 22.5.1984, a special power of attorney dated 22.5.1984, another general power of attorney dated 22.5.1984 and a registered Will dated 21.5.1984. It is stated that this property was purchased on what is commonly called a power of atto...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »