Delhi Court October 2002 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.
Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)84ITD49(Delhi)
1. This Special Bench has been constituted to consider whether expenditure on account of rent and repairs can be disallowed under Section 37(4) which is the case of Revenue or both the items are specifically allowable under Sections 30 and 31, which is the case of the assessee. Admittedly there is a divergence of opinion not only between various Benches of the Tribunal, but also between the Hon'ble High Courts.2. Before we go into the arguments of both the sides we find it necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the IT Act, 1961, with which we are dealing. "In respect of rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance for premises, used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed : (i) as a tenant, the rent paid for such premises, and further if he has undertaken to bear the cost of repairs to the premises, the amount paid on account of such repairs; (ii) otherwise than as a tenant, the amount paid by him on account of current repairs to...
Virajlal Manilal and Co. Vs. Adarsh Bidi Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT143
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is second application of defendant, under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC for varying and setting aside the order of injunction dated 20th January, 1995 and allowing the defendant to carry on his trade of Bidis in the District of Muradabad, Uttar Pradesh under the trade-mark/label '122'.2. Facts in brief are that plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant Adarsh Bidi Company for perpetual injunction, for infringement of copyright, passing off trade-mark and for rendition of accounts etc. pleading therein that plaintiff has been carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing of Bidis for the last more than five decades. The plaintiff has been using trade-mark/labels consisting of numeral '22' on its Bidi products. The numerals '22' are duly registered in the name of the plaintiff under the provision of trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The defendant has no right to adopt or use the impugned trade-mark or label '122' which is deceptively simi...
Synbiotics Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT625
Vijender Jain, J.1. Petitioner is manufacturer of various drugs and pharmaceutical products including streptomycin. The controversy which is the subject matter of this writ petition is whether a manufacturer of bulk drug can be compelled to sell his product only at the pooled price and not at a lower price and whether the manufacturer of bulk drug can be compelled to deposit into the Drugs Prices Equalisation Account excess of the pooled price over the retention price though such excess amount has not been realised as the manufacturer has sold the bulk drug at retention price.2. It was contended before me by Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that by notification issued under and in pursuance of Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1970 which has been issued pursuant to Section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, Central Government fixed from time to time the pooled price as well as retention price at which imported and indigenous streptomycin were to be sold. Some of...
M.G.F. (India) Limited Vs. Sudesh Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 103(2003)DLT4
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 20 of theIndian Arbitration Act, 1940 for reference of disputes tothe Arbitrator named in the hire purchase agreement. 1. The petitioners are occupants of flats constructed in Paschim Vihar in the land of Ashoka CGHS Limited, a group housing society. The construction of the dwelling units is stated to have been completed on 27.11.1986 and the allotment was confirmed on 10.3.1987.2. In May 1999 some public advertisements were issued and the petitioners claim that the pursuance to such public advertisements the petitioners have constructed additional structures and that the same have not been regularised despite the society approaching the respondents. The petitioners were served notices by the DDA on account of this extra construction and have approached this Court for quashing of the said notices and for regularisation of the construction.3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent DDA, it is stated that the aforesaid constru...
M.R. Agnihotri, S/O Late Shri Lahori Ram Agnihotri Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT12; 2003(1)SLJ170(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of respondent No. 2-Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi fixing the pay scale for the post of Chief Administrative Officer-cum-Deputy Controller of Accounts in the office of District and Sessions Judge from 13.9.2000 instead of 25.9.1987. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that one post of Chief Administrative Officer-cum-Deputy Controller of Accounts was created in the District Court in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 w.e.f. 1.3.1994, however, the said post remained vacant from 1.3.1991 to 24.9.1997.3. Respondent No. 2-Delhi High Court appointed the petitioner on 25.9.1997 as Chief Administrative Officer-cum-Deputy Controller of Accounts. In the meanwhile, while implementing the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7625/1994 the Central Government revised the pay scale of Superintendent which was the feeder post for the post of Chief Administrative Officer-cum-Deputy Contr...
Capital Business System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ1098Del
S. Mukerjee, J.1. This is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from holding dharna/ demonstration/ agitation/ strike/ gate meeting/ slogan shouting within the radius of 200 mts. from the office of plaintiffs and residence of its directors.2. Injunction is also prayed from causing obstruction in ingress and egress of directors, staff and suppliers etc who may be wanting to enter premises of plaintiffs.3. The defendants were proceeded against ex parte on 5.4.99. Ex parte evidence has been adduced and documents have been exhibited.4. The plaintiff's case is that since it is employing 174 workers in its Udyog Vihar Unit and that it is covered by Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, and as such cannot retrench any workman without prior permission of the appropriate Government.5. Notwithstanding its hardship on account of drastic reduction of work due to change of government policy, the plaintiff is trying/ looking for appropriate avenues to absorb it's present w...
R.C. Aggarwal Vs. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corpora ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ92
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Short question involved for determination in this application under Section 8 is whether the arbitration clause can be invoked after the expiry of the agreement or contract between the parties or in the absence of renewal of the expired agreement.2. The facts are more or less broadly admitted and are as under:-3. The applicant floated a tender notice on 16th April, 1982 inviting sealed tenders for offer of shop premises for opening of Indian made Foreign liquor (in short IMFL) shops in various areas of Delhi. Pursuant to this notice plaintiff submitted its tender offering the suit premises for sale of IMFL. As a consequence the parties entered into a license agreement dated 15th July, 1982. As per Clause 4 of the said agreement the license was granted for a period of one financial year beginning from April, 1982 and ending on 31st March, 1983. Clause 15 of the said agreement was an arbitration clause which is to the following effect:-'If any dispute of differences ar...
Maharaj Singh and Ors. Vs. Northern Railwaymen's Union and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT767
is No. 5806/2001 and is No. 6893/01 in S. No. 1270/2001 S. Mukerjee, J. 1. This is an application for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, praying for an order restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from declaring the result of election which has allegedly taken place on 9.6.2001. The alternative prayer in the event of results having already been declared, is to restrain the defendants from acting upon the same, or making any appointment to the post of office-bearers on the basis of the said 'election'. 2. The subject matter of the main suit for declaration, is the elections to the Tughlakabad Main Branch of the defendant's Union. It is stated that about 2600 members elect 65 delegates, who in turn elect the Executive Body which conducts the affairs of the defendant's Union. 3. The case of the plaintiff/applicant, is that the previous elections had been held on 26.12.1996 and the term of office of two years, expired on 25.12.1998. As such the process of next election, w...
Mr. Kamal Chugh and ors. Vs. Mr. Narinder Kumar Gulati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi219
S. Mukerjee, J. is 6716/2002 1. There are two separate aspects arising for consideration. The first is regarding the ex parte stay, while the second aspect is in relation to the continuance of the ad-interim stay order already granted, or whether any interim order at all is warranted and if so, to what extent and of what nature. VALIDITY OF THE EX PARTE INJUNCTION GRANTED IN favor OF THE PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF. 2. An interesting question has arisen as to whether in a suit, where there is a Caveator upon whom copies are served but for some reason caveator's counsel does not appear and ex-parte, ad-interim injunction is granted, then whether the compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC is still to be carried out or not. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the defendant is that in this case neither process fee was filed nor dusty summons or dusty orders were got collected, and no affidavit at all has been filed, even though a one page letter of intimation about the stay order, had been recei...
Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)77TTJ(Del)681
ORDERR.M. Mehta, V.P.This Special Bench has been constituted to consider whether expenditure oil account of rent and repairs can be disallowed under section 37(4) which is the case of revenue or both the items are specifically allowable under sections 30 and 31, which is the case of the assessed. Admittedly there is a divergence of opinion not only between various Benches of the Tribunal, but also between the Hon'ble High Courts.2. Before we go into the arguments of both the sides we find it necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with which we are dealing.Section 30 :'In respect of rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance for premises, used for the purpose; of the business or profession, the following deductions shall he allowed :(a) where the premises are occupied by the assessed(i) as a tenant, the rent paid for such premises, and further if he has undertaken to bear the cost of repairs to the premises, the amount paid on account of such repairs;(i...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »