Delhi Court November 2001 Judgments

Smt. Lakshmi Devi and Etc. Vs. State of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi147

ORDER1. These are two probate petitions. One probate petition has been filed on the basis of Will dated 11-12-1968 executed by petitioners' mother Smt. Lakhmi Devi, who admittedly was the absolute owner of the property bequeathed by her. Another probate has been filed on the basis of Will executed by their father on 28-11-1978 on the assumption that after the death of Smt. Lakhmi Devi, he had become the absolute owner by virtue of Para 5 of the Will.2. Admittedly, Gulshan Kumar, petitioner in probate No. 58/79 did not challenge the execution of the Will by Smt. Lakhmi Devi. Rather he accepted the same having been validly and legally executed by Smt. Lakhmi Devi. The relevant paras of the Will executed by Smt. Lakhmi Devi are as under :--'4. That I am the exclusive owner of these properties and by virtue of the Will, I divide the said properties amongst my sons. As long as I am alive no one has any right in the said properties.5. That after my death, my husband Sri Boota Mal will be own...

Smt. Sujata Grover Vs. Deputy Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(Del)347

ORDERR.S. Syal, A.M.This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order passed by Commissioner under section 263 on 27-2-2001, in relation to assessment year 1994-95.2. The grievance of the assessed as projected in grounds of appeal is as under:(i) The learned Commissioner, Delhi VII, has erred in law and on facts in invoking the provision of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the facts of the present case.(ii) Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in holding that the foreign exchange difference was to be excluded to the extent of 90 per cent from the profit of business in terms of clause (baa) to the Explanationn to section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.(iii) In any case, he erred in law in failing to note and give effect to the provision of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 80HHC.3. The factual matrix of the case : The assessing officer while framing assessment under section 143(3) varied the amount...

Chinar Roadlines (Regd.) Delhi Vs. Ashok Goyal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 16.2.2001, passed by District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1341/2000 entitled Shri Ashok Goyal v. M/s. Chinar Roadlines (Regd.) Delhi. 2. The factual matrix of the case, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, may be stated thus. The respondent Shri Ashok Goyal, in his capacity as partner of M/s. Goyal Brothers Prakashan, 11/1903, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring that the respondent had entrusted a consignment, containing printed books, valued at Rs. 48,626/- to the appellant for carriage and safe delivery at Srinagar vide C. No. 558664 dated 21.8.1999. The grievance of the respondent, in the complaint, in nutshell, was that the said consignment, entrusted to the appella...

Harsh Mendiratta Vs. Maharaj Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002CriLJ1894; 95(2002)DLT78; 2002(61)DRJ123

1. The plaintiff, Smt. Harsh Mendiratta, has filed this suit for the recovery of Rs. 10 lacs on account of damages and compensation for defamation of her husband by the defendants and thereby causing her mental torture, pain and agony. 2. Briefly narrated the averments made in the plaint are that plaintiff's husband Sh. Arjun Lal Mendiratta was a permanent staff member of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and was holding a permanent status with FAO/UN. It is alleged that by a telex message received from the Director of Personal, FAO, Rome. Arjun Lal Mendiratta was directed to report to defendant No. 1 Dr. Maharaj Singh to work as Assistant to Project Director. Accordingly, Arjun Lal Mendiratta reported for duty to the defendant No.1 on 5th December, 1986. Arjun Lal Mendiratta expected that he would be given duties which were being performed by V. Kumar, as Administrative Officer of the project at that time. Defendant No. 1 was not at all prepared to give charg...

Harish Kumar Sahni Vs. Jyoti

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT231; I(2002)DMC185; 2002(61)DRJ580

R.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 27-9-1999 by which a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (i)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion has ben allowed and the counter claim of the husband made on the similar grounds has been dismissed and the marriage of the parties has been dissolved by a decree of divorce.2. The wife has filed the petition for divorce with the averments and allegations that the parties were married on 11-3-1992 and lived together for a short duration i.e. till 24-6-1993 an also for one day on 6-7-1993 and even during her short stay at the matrimonial home she was treated like a maid-servant; was made to do all household chores like cooking, washing for the entire family and she was called by names, abused in filthy language and even not properly fed. Certain deman...

Manmohan Singh Dhaliwal Vs. Gurbax Singh Arora and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT820; 2002(61)DRJ801

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Through is No. 4726/2000 moved under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant/plaintiff has sought recall or setting aside of the order dated 18th April, 2000 whereby the suit filed by him was purportedly withdrawn in terms of the application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC moved by t he attorney of the applicant and the respondents jointly.2. Order 23 Rule 3 CPC is invoked where the parties settle their disputes by themselves. There are certain legal and factual aspects the Court is required to satisfy itself while dealing with the suit under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. These are-(i) That the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise and signed by the parties.(ii) That such an agreement or settlement has been recorded to the satisfaction of the Court irrespective of the fact whether or not the subject matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject matter of the suit.3. Any agreement or compromis...

Stp Limited Vs. Shalimar Tar Products P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT885

O.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. By this order I propose to dispose of application being IA.No. 73/2001, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff. The defendants has opposed the application. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing plaintiff's registered trade mark 'Shalimar Tar' and from passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff. A decree for rendition of the profit earned by the defendants by misuse of the trade mark of the plaintiff is also claimed besides a decree for delivery of all products an materials, commercial literature, stationery etc. for destruction. Para 28 of the plaint which deals with valuation of the suit for court fee reads as under:- 'The plaintiff values the Suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as under:- (a) for infringement of plaintiff's registered trade mark, which is valued for purposes of Court fees and...

Vijay Kumar Ahuja Vs. Lalita Ahuja

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT3

O.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. By this order I propose to dispose of I.A. No. 6269/2001 (Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC) filed by the plaintiff and I.A. 5461/2001 (0.39 R. 4 CPC) filed by the defendant. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to these applications are as follows:- 3. Plaintiff Mr. Vijay Kumar Ahuja has filed this suit against his brother's wife Mrs. Lalita Ahuja seeking ad interim injunction restraining her from dealing in luggage items and other allied and cognate goods under the trade mark MISTER, defense, ARUN and ML or any other identical and/or deceptively similar mark thereby amounting to passing off the defendant's goods for those of the plaintiff and also from infringement of copyright. It is alleged in the plaint that plaintiff is carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing of various kinds of luggage items under the name and style of Vijay Industries. The plaintiff has been using its trade marks namely MINISTER, defense, ARJUN AND ML in respect of different types of lugga...

Parminder Singh and anr. Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT410; I(2002)DMC191; 2002(61)DRJ336

S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. In this petition under Sections 438 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C. '), petitioners have sought directions that they be not arrested pending final disposal of their application for grant of anticipatory bail, by the Court of Additional Session Judge, New Delhi in the case FIR No. 218/2001, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, P.S. Nariana. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this application are: that on 5th September, 2001, Ms. Jasmine Nagpal sent a report sent a report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Against Women (Cell), alleging that on 26th November, 2000, she was married to Sarabjit Singh; after the marriage, she was harassed, treated with cruelty and humiliation by her husband and his relations and that when she reached her matrimonial home, her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Nandoi) and sister-in-law (Nand) started saying that the complainant's father did not marry her according to their status; o...

Saipem S.P.A. Vs. Dcit (Asstt.) Spl. Range-i

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The only issue arising out of this appeal is whether the sum of 9,50,000 US $ received by the assessee in Indian currency can be included in the total receipt while computing the income under Section 44BB.2. The assessee is a non resident company having its registered office at Milano Corso, Venezia-16. It carried on the business in the field of exploration of mineral oils etc. It entered into an agreement with ONGC in 1984 for offering one land drilling rig on charter hire for exploratory drilling in the Krishna Godawari Bassein area. Under the agreement, the assessee was to receive a fixed sum of 9,50,000 US $ towards mobilisation and transportation of the drilling rig from Sharjehan, UAE to Vishakhapatnam Port. It was claimed before the AO that the amount received was in the nature of reimbursement charges which were not taxable in view of Section 5 read with Section 9. This contention of the assessee was rejected by the AO since in his view Section 44BB covered all payments whe...