Delhi Court April 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.
Romesh Chand Chopra and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)705; 92(2001)DLT78; 2001(59)DRJ688
ORDERVijender Jain. J. 1. Late Nanak Chand father of petitioners 1 to 5 and father-in-law of petitioner no.6 purchased land measuring 9 bighas 10 bids was situated in the revenue estate of village Mehrauli, Delhi in an auction held on 5th day of September, 1959 under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and was declared the purchaser w.e.f. 7th day of October, 1964. A certificate of sale was issued in favor of Nanak Chand dated 1st December, 1964. Similarly Nanak Chand purchased land bearing khasra No. 1573 measuring 1 bigha 17 bids was situated in the revenue estate of Village Mehrauli in an auction held on 27th day of December, 1960 and was declared the purchaser w.e.f. 28th day of September, 1964. A certificate of sale was issued in favor of Nanak Chand dated 29th September, 1964.2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the certificate of sale having been issued Nanak Chand took possession of the aforesaid land. The copies of sale...
M/S Klg Systel Ltd. Vs. M/S Fujitsu Icim Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)58; AIR2001Delhi357; 92(2001)DLT88
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. By this application the Defendant has prayed for the grant of leave to defend the present summary suit filed under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'). It is contended by the Defendant that out of the contracted sale consideration of approximately Rs.25 lakhs the Defendant has already paid approximately Rs.19 lakhs, at which stage it was discovered that the software supplied by the Plaintiff was defective. It is submitted that at this juncture the Plaintiff offered to supply another software programme but by that time the Defendant had already incurred damages stipulated in its contract with the party to whom the software had to be supplied. Each party knew of the other, as well as their respective contractual obligations. It was also argued that Order xxxvII of the C.P.C. was not attracted as no written agreement is available for reliance viz a viz the summary suit. territorial jurisdiction was assailed on the f...
M/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. M/S. Pal Properties (India) Pvt. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: 2001VIIAD(Delhi)131; 63(2001)DLT694b; 2002(62)DRJ623
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this Suit for recovery of possession of the property which is a showroom and bears Municipal No. H-72, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (hereinafter to be called as 'suit property' for short). He has also claimed mesne profits alleging that defendants are in unauthorised occupation of the said property of which it claims to be the owner. In the plaint it is averred that Arya Dharam Sewa Sangh was the owner and landlord of the property in question (of H-Block) including premises No. H-72, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The plaintiff had purchased this property from Arya Dharam Sewa Sangh vide Sale Deed dated 31.3.1994 which is registered with the Sub-Registrar at No 2253 additional Book No. 1, Volume 8223 on pages 1/249 dated 31.3.1994. Defendants 1 to 3 were the tenants of the suit property and a part of the same has been sub-let to defendant no 2. The tenancy of defendants 1 to 3 has been a monthly tenancy which commenced on 26th day of each Eng...
M/S Wee Aar Constructive Builder Vs. Delhi Development Authority and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT744; 2002(63)DRJ616
Held:However in M/s. Wee Aar Constructive Builders it was specifically observed that the DSR for 1997 now recognises straightening and cutting of steel bars as a separate item of work and provides for payment for it. However in the instant case not only this material was before the Arbitrator but the petitioner had also notified and informed the DDA vide Exhibit C-9 that he would be charging extra for the straightening and cutting of the steel.The award is hereby affirmed as it is settled law that where two views are possible and the view taken by the Arbitrator even if erroneous should not be disturbed.The foregoing reasons pursued me to dismiss the objections and make the award rule of the Court. The suit is decreed in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent-DDA Along with pendente lite and future interest @ 72% per cent.J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Pursuant to this petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act the original award dated 17th August, 1996 Along with the arbitration...
Assistant Cit Vs. Gallium Equipment (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(Del)130
1. This is an appeal filed at the instance of the revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 12-11-1993, relevant to assessment year 1989-90.2. The solitary ground projects the grievance of the revenue as under :"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under section 80-I by considering the interest on FDR, miscellaneous receipts and chit dividend as part of business income entitled to deduction despite the fact that these receipts are not industrial activities carried on by the assessed-company."3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessing officer while framing assessment did not consider interest income of Rs. 2,46,045 for the purposes of allowing deduction under section 80-I. It was contended before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessing officer had not considered interest on FDRs amounting to Rs. 76,931 and Rs. 1,69,114...
Godrej Soaps (P) Ltd. Vs. Dora Cosmetics Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)177; 91(2001)DLT504; 2002(1)RAJ371
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff praying for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling or dealing with in any manner under the trade mark GLORY or any other mark similar to the trade mark GLORY or any imitation of the plaintiff's CROWNING GLORY soap cartons or from using the GLORY logo as set out in paragraph 6 of the plaint. The plaintiff further seeks rendition of accounts of profits earned by the defendants through the infringement averred.2. Interim orders were passed on 6th February, 1987 and after hearing Counsel the following issues were framed on 12th August, 1992:(1) Whether the plaintiff's mark GLORY and the related carton have acquired a reputation amongst the purchasing public and the trade? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the copyright in the Crowning Glory carton including the Glory logo? (3) Whether the use by the defendant of the mark Glory and the related carton in respect of vanishing cream is like...
Maya Devi Vs. Nirmal Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)781; 92(2001)DLT43; 2001(59)DRJ460
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The anguish of the Supreme Court articulated in Guru Nanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh and Sons, : [1982]1SCR842 , is as true today as it was so many years ago. D.A. Desai, J. said that:'Interminable, time consuming, complex and expensive Court procedures impelled jurists to search for an alternative Forum, less formal, more effective and speedy for resolution of disputes, avoiding procedural claptrap and this led them to Arbitration Act, 1940 ('Act' for short). However, the way in which the proceedings under the Act are conducted and without exception challenged in Courts, has made Lawyers laugh and legal philosophers weep. Experience shows and law reports bear ample testimony that the proceedings under that Act have become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity, at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Informal Forum chosen by the parties for expeditious disposal of their disputes has by the decisions of the Court been clothed with 'legales...
Pritpal Singh Kohli Vs. Surjit Kaur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)16; AIR2001Delhi363; 91(2001)DLT476; 2001(59)DRJ401
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order X Rule 2 with Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit is at the stage where evidence of the plaintiff is being recorded. Statement of PW-1 was recorded on 24th August, 1998 and that of PW-2 was recorded on 26th August, 1998. Thereafter the plaintiff produced himself as PW-3. His statement was partly recorded on 20th September, 1999. On 21st and 22nd September, 1999 further evidence was not recorded at the request of the plaintiff's Counsel. Fresh dates of trial were fixed for 21st October and 1st November, 1999. Before that, present application was filed and the prayer made in the application is that before recording further evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 be directed to appear in the Court for recording her statement and her defense regarding revocation or cancellation of the General Power of Attorney (Ex. PW-3/1). The reason for moving such an application at this...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri V.D. Jhunjhunwala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)100; 91(2001)DLT496; 2002(1)RAJ364
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. M/s. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co.Ltd the petitioner in this petition is the successor in interest of M/s.Bharat General Reinsurance Ltd. who had filed the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of Arbitrator and for reference of dispute to the Arbitrator for adjudication. In the said petition, petitioner had averred that Agreement dated 4.6.1968 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent as per which respondent agreed to purchase 25000 shares of a company named M/s: Razabuland Sugar Co.Ltd. at the rate of Rs.10/-per share. It was further agreed that the entire sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- would be paid by the respondent to the petitioner company in four yearly Installments of Rs.62,500/- each. The Respondent paid two Installments but failed to pay remaining two Installments which were payable at the end of May, 1971 and May, 1972 respectively. Instead respondent had only made a part payment of Rs.35...
Lt. Col. Kapil Mohan Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN132(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of the assessed, following questions have been referred under section 256(1) (herein after referred to as the Act) 1961 Income Tax Act for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench C:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in adjudicating upon the question that the variation in the income returned by the applicant was not more than Rs. 1 lakh and, accordingly, in holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in setting aside the assessment 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, then, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in not annulling the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer by his order dated 22-12-1978 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77. We need not go into the factual aspects in detail in the light of the accepted position that the Tribunal worked out the variation which was, accordin...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »