Delhi Court October 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 3 of about 139 results (0.020 seconds)Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Allied Construction
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Delhi)616
1. These two appeals have been preferred by the Department for the asst. yr.1996-97. Income-tax Appeal No. 3009 being the quantum appeal is being taken up first. (1) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,540 and Rs. 50,000 being insurance expenses and depreciation on car and jeep respectively, ignoring the facts, detailed reasons discussed by the AO in assessment order. Therefore the learned CIT(A) is not justified in allowing the above relief to the assessee on the facts and circumstances of the case. (2) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 97,635 on account of labour expenses ignoring the facts, detailed reasons discussed by the AO in assessment order. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) is not justified in allowing the above relief to the assessee on the facts and circumstances of the case. (3) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to adopt the same basis as has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Hbl Nife Power Systems Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ97
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 5.10.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge. We have perused the the impugned judgment and record and have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner had prayed for mandamus directing the respondents to issue RFP (Request For Proposal) to the petitioners in respect of Submarine Batteries Type 1, Type II & Type III which has been developed by the petitioner.3. Petitioner is a company incorporated in India. All its shareholders and Directors are citizens of India. The petitioner company was established in 1977 and is engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing and supplying advanced technology batteries used in military applications. The current turnover of the company is around Rs. 350 crores. In para I of the writ petition the writ petitioner has referred to various technologies developed by it for the Indian Armed Forces. In recognition of the petitioner's infr...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat Ram Trehan and Sons Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT786
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. IA 6749/1997 (U/Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act)1. The respondent-DDA awarded a contract to the petitioner for construction of 416 houses in category II along with garages under SFS scheme at Alaknanda under the agreement No 15/HD XXI/A/82-83. Disputes arose between the parties and in view of the arbitration clause 25 between the parties, Engineer-Member-DDA appointed Sh K D Bali as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties.2. At the inception of the hearing of the objections, it was put to the learned counsel for the respondent that his submissions must be confined to the parameters of section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In this behalf it has to be appreciated that this court does not sit as a court of appeal against the award of an arbitrator and merely because this court may come to a different view on appreciation of evidence, would be no ground to interfere with an award. The arbitration remedy was provided as an al...
Tag this Judgment!ism Airport Techniques Vs. Airport Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR495(Delhi); 125(2005)DLT100; 2005(85)DRJ151
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. An agreement was entered into on 27.03.1989 whereby the petitioner was awarded the contract for extension of Cargo Handling System at the Cargo Complex, IGI Airport, New Delhi. Disputes arose between the parties and in terms of clause No. 4.23 being the arbitration clause of the agreement between the parties, the Member Engineering of the respondent appointed their nominee Arbitrator. The petitioner also appointed its Arbitrator.2. A unanimous Award was made by the Arbitrators on 10.09.1992. A corrigendum to the Award was issued on 08.12.1992 in terms whereof the payment for certain claims was to be made in Deutche Mark (DM) and some part in Rupees.3. A perusal of the Award shows that the same is based on the appreciation of evidence.4. Learned counsel for the respondent states that all the claims relate to deductions made by the respondent on various accounts and it is the submission of the respondent that these deductions were rightly made. The Arbitrators, h...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Chandra Goyal and Co.and anr. Vs. Dda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT255
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. IA 9130/1993 (under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act)1. The petitioner was awarded the contract relating to the work of water supply lines to be laid in sectors B, C and D in Vasant Kunj vide agreement no.3/HDXI/A/86087. Disputes arose between the parties and in view of clause 25 of the agreement between the parties containing the arbitration clause, the Engineer-Member, DDA appointed Sh. A.P. Paracer, Addl. Director General(Retd.),CPWD as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator made and published his award dated 27.05.93 and thereafter the objections have been filed.2. At the inception of the hearing of the objections, it was put to the learned counsel for the respondent that his submissions must be confined to the parameters of section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In this behalf it has to be appreciated that this court does not sit as a court of appeal against the award of an arbitrator and merely because a different view has to be taken, this co...
Tag this Judgment!Jaivir Tyagi and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT270; 2006(3)SLJ95(Delhi)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the narrow controversy requiring determination is in respect of the date from which 'in situ' promotion, as per the Assured Promotion Scheme has to be made effective.2. The petitioners are scientists working in the National Institute of Hydrology ('The Institute') a registered society controlled by the Union Ministry of Water Resources. Clause 29 of the Bye-laws of the Institute provides that till such time separate regulations concerning its employees are framed, the concerned rules and orders applicable to Government employees would govern its officials, subject to modifications effected by the Governing Body of the Institute. All powers are reserved with the Governing Body of the Institute, which is also authorized to resolve any doubts.3. The Institute had its own assessment promotion scheme (APS) in 1987. Pursuant to a letter of the Central Ministry of Water Resources, the Institute revised...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Srivastava Vs. Delhi Jal Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT676
S. Ravindra Bhat, J 1. Issue Rule. With consent of parties, the petition was heard finally.2. The petitioner, in these proceedings, claims that he has been ignored and overlooked by the respondent DJB while issuing an order dated 22.11.2004 entrusting current duty charge in the post of Executive Engineer (E and M) on a temporary basis. It is alleged that his juniors were given that benefit.3. The petitioner was appointed by DJB on 28.01.1983 as Assistant Engineer. The seniority list for the post was circulated on 10.04.1987. As per the seniority list, the petitioner was placed at Seriall No.65 whereas the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were below imp at Seriall No. 66 and 68.4. The DJB revised the pay scale for the post of Assistant Engineer in August 1999 and subsequently, the petitioner was also granted the Assured Career Progression benefit on 26.06.2003.5. In this background, it is averred that while placing officials in current duty charge, the petitioner could not have been ignored and ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Surinder Kaur and ors. Vs. S. Rajdev Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 128(2006)DLT460; 2006(86)DRJ80
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this order I would dispose of three applications being is NO. 3144/2005, is NO. 3145/2005 and is NO. 4475/2005. The first two are the applications filed by defendant No. 3 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for rejection of the plaint and consequent dismissal of the suit, while is NO. 4475/2005 has been filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, rendition of accounts, specific performance and mesne profits. The suit is between the family members in relation to carrying on of business and running of a five-star hotel under the name and style of Hotel Imperial. Plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 are the sisters of defendant No. 1, while defendants No. 2 and 3 are the sons of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 5 is a partnership concern comprising of the plaintiffs and defendants No...
Tag this Judgment!Rieter India (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Del)190
ORDERBy the CourtIn this petition for a writ of mandamus, the petitioner-company has prayed for a direction against the respondents for refund of the amount deposited by it towards tax deducted at source from the salaries of its expatriate employees. The controversy arises in the following circumstance :The petitioner-company is engaged in the business of providing marketing support, installation and after-sale services of textile machinery manufactured by Rieter group. In order to support the business activities of the latter in India, its parent company appears to have deputed four employees from Switzerland to serve in India. These employees commenced their service in India with the petitioner- company in the year 1995 and in one case in January, 1996.As per the employment agreements entered into between the petitioner and the aforementioned expatriate employees, the petitioner appears to have deducted the tax payable under the Indian laws from the salaries of the expatriates. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Rieter India (P) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2006]283ITR322(Delhi)
ORDER1. In this petition for a writ of mandamus, the petitioner-company has prayed for a direction against the respondents for refund of the amount deposited by it towards tax deducted at source from the salaries of its expatriate employees. The controversy arises in the following circumstance :The petitioner company is engaged in the business of providing marketing support, installation and after-sale services of textile machinery manufactured by Rieter group. In order to support the business activities of the latter in India, its parent company appears to have deputed four employees from Switzerland to serve in India. These employees commenced their service in India with the petitioner-company in. the year 1995 and in one case in January, 1996.As per the employment agreements entered into between the petitioner and the aforementioned expatriate employees, the petitioner appears to have deducted the tax payable under the Indian laws from the salaries of the expatriates. The amount so ...
Tag this Judgment!