Delhi Court September 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.
Rambagh Palace Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)87ITD163(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assesses is against the order of CIT under Section 263 withdrawing the claim of the assessee under Section 80HHD pertaining to asst. yr. 1991-92.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are these: The assessee is a company deriving its income from hotel business. In the year under consideration, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 35,12,869 under Section 80HHD as per the certificate of the auditors filed in Form 10CCAD dt. 30th Dec., 1991. Such claim was allowed by the AO while completing the assessment under Section 143(3). Subsequently, the assessment record was examined by the CIT in the course of which it was found that the auditors' report was subject to the following remarks: "Receipts in convertible foreign exchange from the provision of the services to foreign tourists is as certified by the management and not verified by us".In view of the above remarks, the CIT was of the view that the receipts in convertible foreign exchange had not been verified by...
Biologic and Psychotropic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Triton Health Care Pvt. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC180(Del)
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining passing off the pharmaceutical products of the defendant as that of the plaintiff under the offending trade mark TRIFLU PLUS or any other identical with and/or deceptively similar trade mark and also restraining infringement of the copy right in the trade mark TRIFLU PLUS in respect of pharmaceutical products and also for damages. 2. The plaintiff has stated that it had purchased the right in respect of pharmaceuticals by way of assignment deed dated 8th May, 2001 and that its applications for registration of its trade mark TRIFLU PLUS and other trade marks are pending consideration by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The said applications have been proved as EX. PW-1/12 to PW-1/23. It is also stated that the plaintiff company has been manufacturing and marketing various pharmaceutical products included in Class-5 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 since the...
Assoc. of East Pakistan Displaced Person Vs. Dda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ652
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the non-allotment of surplus plots to certain persons under the EPDP Rehabilitation Scheme of the Government of India and have impugned the action of the respondents in auctioning said surplus plots which are claimed to be meant for allotment to declared eligible persons.2. Petitioner No.1 is an association claiming to represent the interest of various persons who are seeking allotment. Petitioner No.1, association, was founded by persons who were displaced from East Pakistan and for whose benefit Rehabilitation Scheme was formulated by respondent No.2. In terms of the scheme, on 25th February, 1997, land was placed at the disposal of respondent No.1, D.D.A. at Chittranjan Park, New Delhi for development of 714 plots for allotment to eligible displaced persons. It is stated that the allotment was to be carried out by respondent No.1 during 1989-93. It is further stated that about 16-18 plots remained surplus which had to be dea...
R.K. Goenka Vs. Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ646; 100(2002)DLT420; 2003(152)ELT54(Del)
O.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of four petitions being CRL. R.157/2002 titled Sh. Subhash Chander Wadhwa v. Neeraj Gar; CRL. R. 271/2002 titled Parvesh Kumar Gujral v. Neeraj Garg; Deepak Kaushal v. Neeraj Garg titled 272/2002 and CRLM(M) 1132/2000 titled R.K.Goenka v. Collector of Customs and Anr., as all raise a common question of consideration namely whether the prosecution launched by the department against the petitioners under Section 132 and 135(1) (a) of the Customs Act and Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 can/ should continue even after they have been exonerated by the department in adjudication proceedings.2. Briefly narrated the facts leading to petition No. CRLM(M) 1132/2002 are that the petitioner No.1 Mr. R.K.Goenka as proprietor of M/s Mirah Decore had imported a consignment of decorative paper for laminate in 1987 from Singapore. They had filed yellow bill of entry dated 1.8.87 at ICD New Delhi for clearance of goods i.e. decora...
Partap Singh Yadav Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT595
Manmohan Sarin, J. Rule.1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.The petitioner by the present writ petition seeks a writ or direction to the respondent/State to issue an arms license to the petitioner as applied for. Petitioner impugns the order dated 6.12.2000, passed by the Lt. Governor, who is the Appellate Authority in the appeal preferred under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appeal had been preferred against the rejection by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, Delhi of the application for grant of an arms license.2. Petitioner claims to be a person of status. He states that he owns properties in Delhi, U.P. and Haryana worth over Rs. 5 Crores. He has residential lands and is engaged in farming. Petitioner claims to be a family person having two sons and a daughter who is married.Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Qazim, assails the non grant of license. He submits that the non grant of license on the ground that peti...
Prateesh @ Ravi Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: 101(2001)DLT10
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. On 10.11.1998 Sanjay Kumar Sharma, the complainant who was running a travel agency, lodged a complaint that one Ravi called him on telephone that his (complainant's) travel agency had provided a car to him in Manali with one driver Bittoo and he requested for providing a Tata Sumo car. The complainant sent it on 30.10.1998 with driver Jagdev. The driver informed him that they were moving about in Delhi and on the next day they would go to Rajasthan. But nothing was heard for next 4/5 day. On inquiry he also found that no person by the name of Ravi was living in Preet Vihar address which was given on telephone. He suspected that the driver had run away with the vehicle. Case was registered at P.S. Samaipur Badli. On 01.9.2000 Satish Kumar and Abhishek Babu were arrested by a police officer in a case registered at P.S. Seelampur on the secret information that they wanted to sell stolen motorcycle. During interrogation they disclosed that they had committed theft of...
Ashoka Industries Vs. Tobu Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(65)DRJ281
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The facts in the present case are that three purchase orders were placed by the respondent-company ('the company') which were as Follows:P.O. No.DateItemQty.136425-3-1996Tube Oil Bottle33,000 Nos. Plate ButtAssembly33,000 Nos.6852-2-1997Tube Oil Bottle5,500 Nos. Plate Butt Assembly5,500 Nos.115-9-1997Tube Oil Bottle20,000 Nos. Plate Butt Assembly20,000 Nos.Deliveries were duly made and subsequent thereto 15 (Fifteen) Bills were raised covering the three consignments. The company had made part payments from time to time leaving a balance of Rs. 4,16,261, being the amount of the last three bills less a sum of Rs. 75,000 received on 18-2-1999. After the issuance of a legal notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') 'Central Sales Tax Declaration Forms C, were forwarded to the petitioner by the company, but the outstanding notified sum of Rs. 4,16,261 was not cleared. Under cover of the company's letter dated 13-1-2000 a statement of accounts was f...
Darshan Lal Dhooper Vs. Motia Rani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT792
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. The grievance raised in the present civil original petition is with regard to the entry relating to the registered trade mark No. 374796 on the ground that the same was obtained by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in violation of the principles of natural justice and by fraud and misrepresentation. The petitioner in this civil original petition has prayed for a direction to the respondent No. 4 to remove/cancel the registered trade mark No. 374796 in Class 3 and to rectify the register of trade marks accordingly.2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Plaza Chemical Industries. It is stated that M/s. Indra Perfumery Co. was the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'PLAZA' registered under No. 140336 in Class 3 as of 7th September, 1949 registered in the name of Nanak Chand, Hari Ram and Darshan Lal trading as M/s. Indra Perfumery Co., Sadar Bazar, Delhi, in respect of goods including those in Class 3 particularly nail poli...
Nagender Singh Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1023; 101(2002)DLT134; 2003(67)DRJ195
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the order of an Additional Sessions Judge dated 6.5.2002 whereby he had dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner against an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 2.4.2002. The Magistrate had declined to release the machinery seized from the possession of the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings.2. Briefly stated the facts are that in a complaint filed by a music company the policy registered this case for offence under Section 63, 65 & 68A of the copyright Act and raised the printing press premises of the complainant. The fake inlay card printed by the petitioner on the machines which had infringed the copy rights of the music company complainant were recovered. The police seized 2700 sheets of fake inlay cards of the film Haan Maine Bhi Pyar Kiya, Tumse Achcha Kaun Hai, Tips and Venus music company etc, 500 infringed inlay cards in di...
R.M.L. Hospital Vs. Wellingdon Hospital Workers' Union
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR406]; (2002)IIILLJ911Del
Suit No. 1348/2002 1. Plaint be registered as a Suit.Issue summons to the defendants on filing of process fee by ordinary process as well as by registered AD post, returnable on October 28, 2002.2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that he would like to make a prayer for mandatory injunction and undertakes to pay separate Court fee for the said relief and that the word 'mandatory' may be read as also incorporated in the plaint wherever the word 'Permanent' is mentioned, oral prayer for amendment allowed. Permission granted to file an amended plaint within a period of one week.Li No. 7678/2002 (U/S 149 CPC)3. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Court fee be affixed within a period of two weeks.4. Application stands disposed of.is No. 7677/2002 (U/S 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC)5. In the meanwhile, in view of the Division Bench pronouncement dated May 20, 2002 passed in CW No. 5166/2001 and the averments made by the plaintiff/ applicant, I am satisfied that in case ex p...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›