Delhi Court August 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.
M/S Ruby Knitting Industries and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India and an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas584(Delhi); 93(2001)DLT829; 2001(60)DRJ266
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. Mr. Vashisht has contended that the suit at this stage cannot be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal as the suit has been instituted prior in time and there is no jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal to deal with the relief as prayed for in the suit. The suit which has been filed by the plaintiff is prior to the suit filed by the bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It has been contended by Mr. Vashisht that this suit was filed in the year 1993 with the prayer for Prohibitory, Mandatory injunction and also for damages. The respondent bank has filed the proceedings for recovery before the Debt Recovery Tribunal earlier at Jaipur which was subsequently transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal Chandigarh. Mr.Vashist further contended that in terms of Section 19 of the Act suit which has been instituted by the plaintiff prior to the filing of the proceedings by defendant cannot be transferred. He has contended that it is only after an application f...
Tejinder Kaur Vs. Manjula Chakarvarty and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT87; 2001(60)DRJ75
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. In this revision petition filed under sections 397 / 407 Cr. P.C. the prayer clause which is material, reads thus:-'It is, thereforee, prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to revise the impugned order of the Hon'ble Trial court dated 22.12.2000 passed by Shri Vinod Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, by:-a) setting aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2000 passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court in the above stated matter.b) directing the trial court to issue summons to all the 5 accused in the above stated matter under section 204, after this Hon'ble court holds that prima facie there exist enough evidence on record in the complaint and the accompanying documents indicating commission of offence by the accused persons in terms of the test to be applied in such cases after conclusion of the pre-summoning arguments.c) passing any other order(s) that the Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of jus...
Smt. Shukla Malhotra and ors. Vs. M/S Dee Pee Kagajudyog Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT724; 2001(60)DRJ725
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is an application on behalf of the defendants, whose defense has already been struck off, for cross-examination of witnesses whose affidavits have been filed by the Plaintiff by way of evidence. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the defendant that in spite of striking off defense, the defendant is still entitled to represented its case and cross-examine the witnesses. No doubt such a right still survives but to the limited extent involving legal objections for instance, whether the suit is barred by limitation or court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and likewise as defense when struck off wipes off every defense against decree except legal defenses and patent falsehood of the case of the plaintiffs. 3. However, legal position in respect of aforesaid proposition of law has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in Modula India Vs . Kamakshya Singh Deo : AIR1989SC162 . It was held that where defense is struck off, the defendant wo...
Castrol Limited and anr. Vs. Shankarlal Nagwani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT142
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. The present suit has been filed by M/s Castrol Ltd and M/s Castrol India Ltd. hereinafter described as the plaintiffs, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants (M/s Shankarlal Nagwani) from infringing the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs and to restrain the defendants from manufacturing and selling tin containers, caps and plastic caps under the trade mark Castrol and Castrol logo or selling the same in the market. Damages also in this regard have been claimed.2. The facts alleged are that plaintiff no. 1 Castrol Ltd is stated to be a company under the law of England. Plaintiff no. 2 Castrol India Ltd is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at White House, 91 Walkeshwar Road, Bombay. Plaintiff no. 2 carries on business on a large and extensive scale in processing and trading in high grade automotive and industrial lubricants. Plaintiff no. 1 is an internationally renowned company having operations i...
Sohan Singh Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Del)215
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.These three reference applications involve identical issues and, thereforee, we dispose of them by this common judgment.At the instance of assessed, following questions have been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Benches B and E (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) :For assessment year 1979-80'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the addition of Rs. 26,000 as income of the assessed under section 2(24)(iv) of the Act ?'For the assessment year 1978-79 & 1980-81'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income of Rs. 24,750 and Rs. 5,000 were assessable under the provisions of section 2(24)(iv) and 17(2)(iii) in the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, respectively ?'Dispute relates to the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980...
Bharat Battery Mfg. Co. (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ697; 2002(1)RAJ581
Vijender Jain, J.1. It is application for appointment of Arbitrator. It is contended by counsel for the respondent that the Arbitrator resigned on account of the conduct of the claimant. It is also contended by counsel for the respondent that the proceedings before the Arbitrator were almost complete. He has further contended that the direction may be issued to respondent to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of arbitration Clause between the parties.2. 1 have given my careful considerations to arguments advanced by counsel for the parties.3. The law regarding appointment of an Arbitration and supply of vacancy is we settled. Once the Arbitrator has resigned which in this case, the petitioner has filed letter dated 19th April, 1999 at page 25 of the paper book pursuant to which the arbitrator resigned to act further in the matter. After the Arbitrator resigned, petitioner wrote to the respondent in terms of the arbitration clause for supplying the vacancy by appointment of a new Arbitrator...
Cit Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN482(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. Following questions have been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the interpretation of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 33 of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal was justified to hold that the assessed-company is entitled to the carry-forward of development rebate, having remained outstanding in the hands of HEIL which amalgamated with the assessed-company with effect from 1-1-1974 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 19,429 incurred by the assessed on serving tea, coffee and light refreshments to the representatives of the customers was not in the nature of entertainment and was allowable as a business expenditure ?'Dispute relates to the assessment year 1974-75.2...
Eicher Goodearth Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]121TAXMAN42(Delhi)
ORDERAdmit.2. The following questions of law shall be adjudicated upon :'1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that assessed appellant was entitled to deduction under section 80M of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of net dividend and not gross dividend 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that assessed's shares were stock-in-trade and not investment shares ?3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was not linked to earning of dividend income ?'3. The appellant shall file within three months ten copies of the cyclostyled paper books, containing all documents on which reliance was placed before the Tribunal, including any order/orders, either in the case of the assessed itself or in case of any other assessed, which has been followed by the Tribunal.4. The appeal be listed for hearing in the regular course....
Commissioner of Incom-tax Vs. Delhi Public College
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Del)281; [2002]254ITR441(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN769(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Both the income-tax reference and the income-tax appeal are interlinked and are, thereforee, taken up together for disposal and these will be governed by this common judgment. In the income-tax reference, pursuant to the direction given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that there was no evidence on record to establish or to draw a reasonable inference that the amount of Rs. 35 lakhs was received by the assessed 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that only the amount which is submitted to have been actually received by the assessed during...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-vii, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Delhi Pu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT268
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Both the Income Tax Reference and Income Tax Appeal are inter-linked and are, thereforee, taken up together for disposal and these will be governed by this common judgment. In the Income Tax Reference, pursuant to the direction given by this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act'), following questions have been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' Delhi ( in short, the 'Tribunal') :-'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law in holding that there was no evidence on record to establish or to draw a reasonable inference that the amount of Rs. 35 lakhs was received by the assessed? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law in holding that only the amount which is submitted to have been actually received by the assessed during the year can be considered without dou...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »