Delhi Court August 2001 Judgments

Bharti Televentures Limited Vs. Bell South International Asia Pacific ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT286; 2001(60)DRJ356

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The Defendant has filed this Review in respect of an Order dated 28th August, 2000 whereby the Plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX was allowed; the Defendant was temporarily restrained from selling or entering into any arrangement/agreement for the sale of its shareholding in SKYCELL with any party other than the Plaintiff.2. In order to appreciate the scope of a Review, Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure 1908 has to be read, but this Section does not even adumbrate the ambit of interference expected of the Court since it merely states that it 'may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.' The parameters are prescribed in Order XLVII of the C.P.C. and for the purposes of this lis, permit the Defendant to press for a rehearing 'on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason.' The former part of the Rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural actio...

Kumari Rekha Tyagi Vs. Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi and ors

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT813; 2001(60)DRJ406

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Doubting correctness of view expressed by a learned Single Judge regarding scope and ambit of Section 39 of the Persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short 'Act'), reference has been made to a Division Bench by another learned Single Judge and that is how the matter is before us.2. The basic issue involved is whether Section 39 deals with reservation of seats in educational institutions or is relatable to service. In Naveen Kumar A. vs. University of Delhi (CWP 4657/00) decided on 24th November 2000, it was held by learned Single Judge that, in terms of Section 39 of the Act, all Government educational institutions and other institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than three per cent seats for persons with disabilities and it was obvious from that Section that educational institution in question is required to reserve not less than three per cent seats for phys...

M/S Modern Radio House Vs. Union of India and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT722; 2001(60)DRJ59

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. The dispute involved in this writ petition relates to the competitive evaluation of two bids submitted by the petitioner and the respondent No.2. The bids were invited for supply of MARANTZ Cassette Recorders for use by All India Radio which is a Unit of Respondent No.1-UOI. The original bid document stated as follows:'Time & Date of opening of tenders : 15.00 hrs on 09.9.97 (Technical Bid) The tenders shall remain open for acceptance till : 09.3.98 S.NO. Description of Stores Qty. (Nos.) 1. Procurement of Professional Portable 645 nos. Cassette Recorder as per sepc. no. SSE-4066 enclosed. NOTE:- Tender is to be submitted on the basis of Two Bid System as explained in para 10 of schedule to Tender. Along with the Technical Bid, copy of Price Bid with Price columns left blank is also required to be enclosed so that configuration of equipment and other optional items, accessories etc. could be examined. Discount offered - NIL Is Sales Tax extra - Yes If so, ind...

S.S. Products of India Vs. Star Plast

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)ECC347

V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. S S Product of India is a partnership concerned. It has filed the present suit for permanent injunction invoking Section 53 of the Designs Act, 1911 besides delivery of infringing material as well as for rendition of accounts. 2. The facts alleged are that plaintiff firm is a reputed manufacturer and trader of all types of air pumps including air pumps for cycle etc. It had developed new design air pumps having distinctive features, design for shape, configuration of air pumps. The plaintiff firm has been getting the designs of air pumps developed and marketed registered under the provisions of Designs Act, 1911. It is the registered owner of the design of air pump i.e. design no.176150 dated 6th April, 1998.3. Assertions of the plaintiff are that the said designed had been so designed first time in India and is original design made by the plaintiff. The design and its registration is still valid. In May 2000 It came to the notice of the plaintiff firm that the def...

Mohan Chand Naliwal Vs. Rakesh Garg and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT808

V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Mahesh Chand Naliwal has filed the present suit under Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for permanent injunction against infringing of the copyright, rendition of accounts and delivery up of goods. The facts alleged are that plaintiff claims that he is software programmer and is doing the said professional work for last more than ten years. He is carrying on the business of developing, installing and maintaining software under the name and style of M/s Excelsior Software as a sole proprietor. Prior to that he was carrying on the business under his own name Mohan Chand Naliwal. Due to his hard labour he developed software useful for purposes of keeping and maintaining the financial accounts. He named the said financial accounting software as Integrated Financial Accounting Package. It was installed in the computers being used by certain other companies. The plaintiff improved, modified and changed and developed his own skills to make useful for maintaining the m...

Friends Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(Del)367

ORDERPramod Kumar, A.M.This appeal, filed by the assessed, is directed against the assessment order dated 29-11-1996, passed by Shri P.C. Mohanty, learned Deputy Commissioner, Special Range 4, New Delhi for the block period ending on 17-11-1995. Although the assessed has listed as many as ten grounds of appeals in the memorandum of appeal, on merits primarily the assessed is aggrieved of assessing officer computing the undisclosed income of Rs. 18,01,600 by making addition on account of (a) unexplained expenditure of Rs. 14,88,754, and (b) holding cash balance of Rs. 3,12,784 as unexplained income of the assessed. Apart from being aggrieved of these additions, the assessed is also aggrieved of levy of surcharge on the tax determined under section 158BA(2)/113 of the Act and also of the very assessment under section 158BC per se.2. Briefly stated, relevant material facts, so far as above grounds of appeal are concerned, are that the assessed is a private limited company engaged in handi...

Director, Enforcement Directorate Vs. Dr. Prakash N. Vaswani

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Adjudicating Order No. ADJ/166/B/DD/RAJ/96 dated 29-11-1996 whereby the adjudication proceedings initiated against the respondent pursuant to Show-Cause Notice No. T-4/56-B/DD/RAJ/96 dated 5-5-1996 were dropped. 2. Shri Gadoo on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the conclusions made by the learned adjudicating officer were wrong. The adjudicating officer erred in accepting the opinion of a private handwriting expert. Instead, Shri Gadoo submitted, he should have referred the matter to a Government examiner for his opinion. Shri Gadoo further submitted that for two out-patients, no doctor would receive foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 6,85,020 towards fee. It is thus clear that the Respondent No. 1 purchased the foreign exchange illegally from the foreign tourist who came to his clinic for treatment. Shri Gadoo further submitted that statement of Respondent No. 1 was in his own handwriting and was made voluntarily and was suffici...

Frick India Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against CIT(A)'s order dated 30-11-2000 passed by the CIT(A) for assessment year 1997-98.2. Ground Nos. 2 to 4 are the effective grounds agitated and argued by the learned counsel for the assessee. Facts giving rise to these grounds are that assessee is a company in which public are substantially interested and was found engaged in the manufacture and sale of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipments and parts thereof within and outside India. The previous year relevant to the assessment year 1997-98 ended on 31-3-1997. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee had filed return of income at a total income of Rs. 2,50,04,520. Assessee-company had claimed to have received a net consideration of Rs. 6.78 crores under the head capital gains which was set off against its claim for exemption under section 54EA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") on the plea that net consideration was received on accoun...

Frick India Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal, preferred by the assesses, is directed against CIT(A)'s order, dt. 30th Nov., 2000 passed by the CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1997-98.2. Ground Nos. 2 to 4 are the effective grounds agitated and argued by the learned counsel for the assessee. Facts giving rise to these grounds are that assessee is a company in which public are substantially interested and was found engaged in the manufacture and sale of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipments and parts thereof within and outside India. The previous year relevant to the asst. yr.1997-98 ended on 31st March, 1997. The AO noted that assessee had filed return of income at a total income of Rs. 2,50,04,520. Assessee-company had claimed to have received a net consideration of Rs. 6.78 crores under the head "Capital gains" which was set off against its claim for exemption under Section 54EA of the IT Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), on the plea that net consideration was received on account of transfer of long-...

Gangeshwar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 97(2002)DLT681; [2002]254ITR589(Delhi)

1. The following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E (in short 'the Tribunal').'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessed was not entitled for weighted deduction1 under section 35C on a sum of Rs. 2,74,201 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessed was not entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35C read with Rule 6A on the expenses for road repairs directly incurred by the assessed amounting to Rs. 1,04,620 and his contribution for construction of new road in sides the five year plan amounting to Rs. 1,25,717 ?' 2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76.3. The point in issue relates to agricultural development allowance under section 35C of the Act. So far as the first questio...