Delhi Court December 2001 Judgments

Rupali Grover and anr. Vs. Rajesh Grover and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT463

V.S. Aggarwal. J. 1. On 11th July, 2001 as agreed at the bar, anorder was passed that for petitioner no. 1 interimmaintenance may be fixed at Rs. 4000/- per month.Keeping in view thee said fact interim maintenance forthe minor daughter of the plaintiff Rupali Grover wasfixed at Rs. 4000/- per month.2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff had urged thatinterim maintenance of plaintiff no. 2 should also befixed. The plaintiff no. 2 is stated to be the wife ofthe defendant. He contends that she has no moveableor immovable property nor any source of incomewhatsoever. She has no money to take care of her dayto day living expenses. Defendant no.1 is alleged tobe belonging to an affluent business family whichamongst another is carrying on business in the name andstyle of Ram Lal Grover & Sons which is the stockistof ACC Dumping unit. They have a retail outlets atLoha Mandi. The monthly income of defendant no. 1 wasstated to be not less than Rs. 2 lakhs per month.Defendant no. 1 is alleged to be ...

Jayashree G. Naik Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT591; 2002(62)DRJ681; 2003(1)SLJ44(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for quashing of the show causenotice issued by respondents 3 & 4 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why she should notbe reverted back to the clerical cadre. In thewrit petition, the petitioner also seeks forquashing and setting aside the proceedingsinitiated and concluded by the Tehsildar,respondent No. 2 whereby the Scheduled Tribecertificate issued to the petitioner was cancelled.2. The petitioner joined the clerical cadre int herespondents 3 & 4 bank on 30.12.75. It is allegedthat the petitioner married a Scheduled Tribe on9.10.1978 and thereafter she was accepted sone ofthe members of the said community and, thereforee,laid a claim that she has for all intent andpurpose has become a member of the scheduled tribe.The father-in-law of the petitioner filed anaffidavit on 11.3.1983 to the effect that the petitioner is a member of the schedule tribecommunity and on the basis of the aforesaidaffidavi...

Surinder Pahwa Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ791

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for quashing of the circular dt. 1.12.95 by which the respondent-corporation published the final seniority list of Assistant Director (Community Service) as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also seeks for a further direction to the respondent-corporation to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director with all consequential benefits.2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Community Organiser on 16.5.66.The petitioner was thereafter regularised in the said post w.e.f. 1.11.82 by an orderpassed by the respondent-corporation on 13.11.82. It is stated in the petition thatrespondents 3 to 5, who belong to the reserved category, were appointed asCommunity Organisers after the petitioner was so appointed on 1.11.82. Therecords also disclose that the petitioner was promoted to the post of AssistantDirector on 24.8.92 on ad hoc basis whereas respondents 3 to 5 were promotedto the said post on 31....

Subhash Vs. Delhi Pollution Control Committee and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT650

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to respondent No. 4 to stop the spreading/emitting of pollution and also directing respondents 1 to 3, 5 & 6 to take appropriate and effective steps to curb/check the pollution and seal the polluting unit in accordance with law. It is further prayed that respondent No. 4's activity of repairing, manufacturing of generator/industrial activities in a residential area be stopped.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a prayer for being permitted to file rejoinder. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have taken the inspection report handed over by respondent No. 1 on record. I see no need for rejoinder.3. Mr. Ravinder Chadha counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that an inspection h as been carried out by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee and they have found that the shop in question is a very small shop having an area of 8 sq. yds. It is further stated that on inspection only a portable g...

Kuber Mutual Benefit Ltd Vs. Raj Verma 83 Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Saberwal, Member: 1. Since the above mentioned petitions, filed by the petitioner, under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), have common facts and raise common questions for consideration and are directed against a common order dated 22.1.2001 passed by South District Forum (District Forum No. II), the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner Company, namely M/s. Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd., which is a Nidhi Company was registered under Section 620-A of the Companies Act, 1956, whose object inter alia was to enable the members to save money, to invest their savings and to secure loans at favourable rates of interest. The Company invited the people to make deposits and to give excellent returns. In pursuance of the scheme of deposit, respondents had deposited their money in Fixed Deposits whi...

Saipem S.P.A. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. Since there is difference of opinion between the Members in the captioned appeal, the following question is referred to the Hon'ble President of the Tribunal Under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "Whether on facts and in law, the mobilisation charges, received by the assessee outside India, attributable to the transporation of rigs outside territorial waters of India are chargeable to tax Under Section 44BB read with Section 5(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"...

Ericsson Communication Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)81ITD77(Delhi)

1. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 4494 is against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the action of AO under Section 201(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (Act in short) demanding the tax which ought to have been deducted at source by the assessee under Section 195. ITA No. 4495 is against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act.2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are these. The assessee is a 100 per cent subsidiary company of M/s Telefonaktiebolaget L.M.Ericssion, Sweden (LME in short) which was incorporated in India in pursuance of the approval dt. 5th Feb., 1996, granted by Ministry of Industry, Government of India. It is engaged in the business of setting up/installation and commissioning of telecom projects and setting up of information technology system relating thereto. It entered into a Corporate Visual Identity Agreement with LME on 1st Jan...

Surinder Pal Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003ACJ1205; AIR2002Delhi208; 95(2002)DLT591

V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Surinder Pal has filed the present suit against the defendant No. 1 for recovery of Rs. 6,50,000/-.2. The facts alleged are that the plaintiff purchased truck TATA 1612 bearing registration No. HR-10GA-0030 model 1997. The said vehicle was insured with defendant No. 1 which is a subsidiary of defendant No. 2. The total cost of the vehicle was Rs. 5,12,295/-. The petitioner had paid Rs. 1,13,000/- and remaining Rs. 4 lakh was financed by defendant No. 2. The finance amount was payable in 36 Installments of Rs. 4688/- per month during the period 1st December, 1997 to 1st October, 2000. The petitioner entered into a hire purchase agreement with defendant No. 2 and requisite documents to this effect had been executed. Thereafter the truck was given in the possession of the plaintiff through defendant No. 2 from the original purchaser on 20th November, 1999. It was only a chassis and the body was to be built thereon. The plaintiff got a body built through a body builder...

George Lillington and Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Prestige Paints and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT753

V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit against M/s Prestige Paints and another seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their servants, agents, stockists and all other persons on their behalf from infringing the plaintiffs registered copyright Nos. A-32770/81, A-32765/81, A-32766/81, A-32875/81 and A-32765/81 by using the offending lay out, design, colour scheme on the packings with the one used by the plaintiffs. It also seeks an injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants, agents or stockists from using the mark SUPER SNWOCEM which is an infringement of the plaintiffs trade mark SNOWCEM registered under No. 89847. It also seeks to restrain them from using the impugned label/mark with the mark SUPER SNWOCEM so as to pass off and enable others to pass off their SUPER SNWOCEM as that of the plaintiffs.2. Relief is also claimed for delivery by defendants to the plaintiffs all the packings like sacks and other material containing the said...

Som Datt Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Labels International Pvt. Ltd. a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)415; 96(2002)DLT361; 2002(62)DRJ45

S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. By this application under Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'), the plaintiff is seeking rectification of order dated 17th October, 2000, directions for registration of suit under Order 37 CPC and for issuance of summons in the suit in Form 4 in Appendix 'B' CPC. 2. Learned Senior Advocate for plaintiff/applicant submits that this suit was filed under Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs. 65,39,163/- and the interest thereon. The plaint contained specific the averment to that effect and fulfilled other requirements of the order. On 17th October, 2000 when it came up for hearing was no argument as to the maintainability of the suit under Order 37 CPC. The averments made in the plaint were accepted and summons were ordered to be issued to the defendants. As there was no specific order that the summons should be issued in Form No. 4 in Appendix B, the defendants were served with summons on the ordinary format and that there is an apparent error. In f...