Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments

Malik Bhupinder Singh and ors. Vs. Raj Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ590

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this order I would dispose of the two Applications IA No. 7379/2005 under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing on record the legal representatives of plaintiff No. 2, Col. Prithipal Singh Malik, who died on 29th April, 2003 due to cardiac arrest and IA No. 7380/2005, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing IA No. 7379/2005.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 32,18,800 being the balance sale consideration with interest @ 18% p.a. till realisation, a further relief for the recovery of Rs. 1 lakh on account of damages, and for declaration in relation to property No. 43, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. The plaintiffs along with their father were members of the HUF styled as 'Malik Mukhbain Singh HUF'. In that capacity, they were owners of property No. 43, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, which was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 6th December, 1948. The property ...

indo Polycoats (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Del)27; [2006]152TAXMAN254(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.In IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Dy. CIT : [2004]266ITR521(SC) the Supreme Court was examining whether deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act were allowable on the net or gross income that qualified for such deductions under that chapter. The court held that section 80AB had an overriding effect over all other sections in Chapter VI-A and that all other provisions contained in the said chapter would remain subject to the said provision. The court further declared that the provisions of section 80AB made it clear that' computation of income has to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that any computation in accordance with the provisions of the Act would not only include profits but losses also. The following passage from the said decision sums up the legal position :'Section 80AB is also in Chapter VI-A. It starts with the words 'where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any section of this Chapter'. This would include section 80HH...

Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. Vs. J.K. Jain

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of having forcibly taken possession of the vehicle financed to the respondent by the appellant and also having disposed it of for a price of Rs. 1,25,000 despite the loan amount being Rs. 2,20,000 and payment of Rs. 94,000 having been made by the respondent, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 5.5.2005 directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1,00,000 (one lac) towards compensation and cost of other charges. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has directed this appeal. 3. It is pertinent to mention at the very outset that we have taken serious view of the finance companies and the banks taking law into their own hands by sending their employees to the house of the consumer and taking forcible possession of the vehicle. The financial institutions and banks cannot be permitted to execute the terms of agreement in unlawful manner. We have taken a view that hire purchase agreement is a civil contract and dispute arising from it has to be settled b...

Alfa Spg. Ltd. and Alfa Casting (P) Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are nine appeals filed against the common impugned order. M/s.Alfa Castings and Shri Gurdev Ram, Manager of Alfa Casting filed an appeal against the adjudication order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise whereby demand of Rs. 49,29,844/- was confirmed and imposed the penalty of the same equal amount on the firm and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Gurdev Ram. Alfa Springs Ltd. filed an appeal against the adjudication order whereby demand of Rs. 51,85,611/- was confirmed and penalty of the equal amount is imposed on Alfa Springs Ltd. and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on Shri Gurdev Ram, Manager of Alfa Castings. Revenue also filed five appeals whereby they challenged the same impugned order whereby the proceedings regarding imposition of penalty was dropped against Shri Rakesh Bagla, M.D. of both the firms and Shri Basiq Ansari, Excise Clerk of Alfa Castings and Shri R.P.Singh and Shri Sadiq Ali, Excise Clerk of Alfa Springs.2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Alf...

Balbir Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT543; 2005(85)DRJ523

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Defendant No. 2 has filed this application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') and Section 114 of the Delhi Police Act for rejection of the plaint. Before setting up the grounds on which the applicant wants plaint to be rejected under the aforesaid provisions, it would be necessary to take note of the averments made in the plaint on the basis of which, claimed raised therein is founded.2. The plaintiff is a non-resident Indian settled in England since 1974. He has filed this suit for compensation/recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 1.50 crores with interest @ 12% per annum for his malicious prosecution. It is alleged that the plaintiff boarded the flight of Lufthansa Airlines from Heathrow Airport, London on 23rd June 1999 for New Delhi. At that time he was working/employed with the British Railways, i.e. Thames Trains, London, UK. After boarding the said flight, he landed at Indira Gandhi International Airport in the interveni...

Dabur India Limited Vs. Emami Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT502; 2005(85)DRJ631; 2006(32)PTC125(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.IA Nos. 4581/2004 and 4834/20041. The learned counsel for the applicant states that these applications have become infructuous. Dismissed as such.IA No. 5110/2004This is an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 claiming that the order dated 09.03.2004 passed by this court has been violated by the defendant. By that order, this court had restrained the defendants from exhibiting in its television commercial the bottle of hair oil which is shown with the remark 'Lekin Ek Tail Bechara Kya Kare' as the design of the said bottle was similar / identical to the design of the plaintiff's bottle which is registered. It was further directed by this court that the defendant may, however, change the aforesaid bottle and continue with the T.V. Commercial for publicising its Imami hair oil. The advertisement was aired for the first time on 01.03.2004. This order was passed on 09.03.2004 and, according to the counsel for the defendants, as soon...

A.R. Khanna and Sons Vs. Dda and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(87)DRJ282

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA 4091/2003 ( Under Section 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The petitioner-contractor was awarded the contract for construction of local shopping centre at Mukherji Nagar on 08.03.1984. The work was to commence on 18.03.1984 and the stipulated date for completion was 17.03.1985. The work was delayed beyond the stipulated time and was ultimately receded by the respondents on 28.03.88. Both the parties sought to put blame on each other which resulted in disputes being referred to arbitration in terms of Clause 25 of the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties and the engineer-member DDA vide letter dated 05.01.1990 appointed Sh.V.D.Tiwari (retd) Chief Engineer, CPWD as the sole arbitrator. The sole arbitrator made and published the award on 08.04.2002 and the respondents aggrieved by the same have filed the present objections.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the various grounds set out in the petition-objection, but could ...

Sh. Syed Ashraf Vs. State (Through Cbi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT100; 2006(86)DRJ110

ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dropping/quashing proceedings under Section 417/468/469/471 IPC. The case was registered by CBI and charge has been framed by C.M.M., Delhi. The said order of framing charge was challenged in a criminal revision which has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide a detailed order dated 7.10.2005.2. I have heard Shri H.R. Khan Suhel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Harish Gulati, learned counsel for CBI, on the point of admission, and have gone through the impugned order and copies of the documents placed on the file.3. Briefly the facts are that initially on the basis of source information an FIR was registered under Section 417/468/469 and 471 IPC because some letter dated 26.11.1987 purported to have been written by Shri V.P. Singh, the then Member of the Rajya Sabha on his letter head addressed to the President of India alleging therein the involv...

Usha Anand Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellants is an NRI and is carrying on the business of exports. She obtained Householders Insurance Policy through the respondent company covering all risks in respect of jewellery worth Rs. 18,85,500. In a car accident she lost jewellery of the value of 10,00,000 which she had left in the car, after coming out from the car in panic at the time of accident which involved 5/6 cars and later on realized that bag containing the jewellery was missing. 2. Complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum vide impugned order mainly on the ground that the appellant has not come with clean hands inasmuch as that she stated that she immediately went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint dated 2.8.2001, the endorsement on which was made in the Daily Dairy whereas the Surveyor found from the record that she had visited the Police Station on 23.8.2001. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has directed the appeal. 3. We have closely perused the impu...

Birendra Kumar Singh Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 29.4.2004 wherein the Commissioner(Appeals) after hearing the appellant had reduced the penalty from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs.5000/- 2. The relevant facts for consideration are that Customs authorities on 1.3.2000 intercepted a vehicle which was carrying contraband goods. On further investigation, show cause notices were issued to many persons and current appellant, being one of them. The appellant before me was asked to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 being de facto owner of the vehicle which was used for transporting contraband. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000/- on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the facts and circumstances of the case had reduced the penalty from Rs. 15000/- to Rs.5000/-. This appeal is filed against the imposition of penalty itself.3. Learned Advocate appearin...