Delhi Court October 2006 Judgments

Rama Associates Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Delhi)448

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT dt. 30th March, 2005 for the asst. yr. 1999-2000, passed under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 wherein following grounds have been raised by the assessee: 1. That the order under Section 263 dt. 30th March, 2005 as passed by the learned CIT, Delhi is arbitrary, unjust and illegal on various factual and legal grounds including the following: (a) The learned CIT had no jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 because the learned AO had passed the assessment order under Section 143(3)/147 dt. 28th March, 2003 after proper application of mind. (b) The learned CIT is incorrect in holding that the AO had not decided upon the issues raised by her in her notice under Section 263 clearly and that the view taken by the AO in the assessment order dt. 28th March, 2003 was in violation of the law. (c) The observations of the learned CIT in last para at p. 2 of her impugned order regarding the insurance claim are ...

Shri Raghav Bahl Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)111ITD174(Delhi)

1. This appeal arises out of the order of the CIT(Appeals)-II, New Delhi, passed on 03.02.2006. The corresponding order of assessment was passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -III, New Delhi (hereinafter called the Assessing Officer) under the provisions of Section 15 8BC read with Section 15 8BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The assessee has taken up four substantive grounds of appeal, the fifth being residuary in nature. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are against the findings of the learned CIT(Appeals) in which he confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by which a sum of Rs. 1,50,30,137/- was determined as the undisclosed income (hereinafter called the UDI), when the aforesaid income was disclosed in the return of income. Therefore, it was mentioned that the action of the Assessing Officer was bad in law and against the facts of the case. Ground No. 3 is against the findings of the learned CIT(A)m which he confirmed an addition of Rs. 1,78,204/-, made by the Assess...

S.Oliver Bernd Freier Gmbh and Co. Kg. Vs. Karni Enterprises and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(1)28; 2006(33)PTC574(Del)

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This application under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 21 and Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the defendants for return of the plaint to the plaintiff on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff is one for the relief of injunction, delivery up and rendition of accounts of profits for infringement of trademark and copyright.3. The plaintiff is a company duly organized under the laws of Germany and is engaged in the business of manufacture and trade of a wide range of fashion and lifestyle products, which principally include clothing and ready-made garments of all kinds. The plaintiff's trademark 's.Oliver' is duly registered in favor of the plaintiff in India under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 vide Trademark Registration No. 522064 in Class 25 in relation to articles of clothing included in class 25 as of 29th December, 1989. The user claimed is that of 01.09.1975. Along with the p...

Plaza Cables Electric Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Kamal Khurana

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC254; 2006(92)DRJ438

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is aggrieved by an order dated 13.01.2006 passed by Mr. Manoj Kumar, MM, Rohini Court, New Delhi in Criminal Complaint No. 216/2003 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 dismissing the said complaint in default for non-prosecution.2. On the date the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed in default for non-prosecution, it was listed for arguments on charge. Before the date the said complaint was dismissed in default, the said complaint was pending in Tis Hazari court where the last date was 13.05.2005. On establishment of a new court complex of the District Court at Rohini, the aforementioned complaint was transferred from Tis Hazari to Rohini court and was to be taken up for hearing there on 13.01.2006. The lawyers were agitated by establishment of new court complex at Rohini and at that time the lawyers remained on strike for a long time. Consequent upon transfer of complaint case of the...

Ajay Enterprises Ltd. Vs. the Secretary (Labour) Govt. of Nct of Delhi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(112)FLR981]

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of orders of Respondent No. 1 dated 6.1.1997 whereby an alleged dispute between petitioner and respondent No. 3 was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal and an order prohibiting continuance of lock-out was passed.2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was running a restaurant in the name of M/s Americano Restaurant at Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden. One employee of the restaurant viz. Prem Singh, committed misconduct and management issued a charge-sheet cum suspension letter dated 24.9.1996 on him. Prem Singh, instead of replying to the charge-sheet, sought support of other workmen and some employees of the restaurant supported him and went on sudden strike from 7.00 p.m. on 30.9.1996 and demanded that the charge-sheet issued to Prem Singh be withdrawn. They also sat on 'dharna' at the main gate and obstructed willing employees as well as the the customers from entering t...

News Paper Centre Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Through Its Secretary, ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)ILLJ276Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the award dated 25.8.2003 whereby the respondent No. 2 was directed to be reinstated by the petitioner with full back wages. The Petitioner Counsel emphasized that the grant of full back wages was contrary to law. It was the respondent who had not joined the service despite letters written by the petitioner.2. A perusal of the award would show that the learned Tribunal has not given reasons, whatsoever, for granting full back wages. The learned Tribunal considered as if grant of full wages was natural consequence of reinstatement. It is now settled law that back wages are to be granted to an employee keeping in view all facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of employment, whether it was temporary, permanent, what was the nature of work, whether such work was easily available outside, what was the period of service put in and whether workman was unemployed during the penden...

Desh Deepak Kapoor S/O Shri Kaura Lal Kapoor Vs. the State (Delhi Admi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ440

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 5th April, 1997 delivered in Sessions Case No. 21/96, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted him for an offence under Section 302 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as the IPC).2. Subsequently, the Appellant was heard on the question of sentence and by an order dated 9th April, 1997, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. It was directed that the sentences shall run concurrently.3. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the case against the Appellant included an allegation of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC involving his father and his mother. However, by the impugned judgment and order, the Appellant's father was acquitted of both the charges framed against him while the Appellant's mother died during the cours...

Arifa Nauman Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ25

Manju Goel, J.1. Admit.2. These are two writ petitions preferred by Mrs. Arifa Nauman and Ms. Chitra Srivastava, who have been working as Steno-Typists in the organization of respondent No. 3, namely, Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories, which was registered as a Waqf with the Sunni Majlis-e-Auqaf, Delhi under the Delhi Muslims Waqf Act, 1943 and later in the year 1964 with the Delhi Waqf Board i.e. the respondent No. 2 under the Waqf Act, 1954. Vide an order dated 1.11.2003 the respondent No. 3, the employer of the petitioners, transferred the petitioners from Delhi to Aurangabad and Bhopal respectively. The prayer in the writ petition is for a mandamus to direct the respondent No. 3 not to give effect to the orders dated 1.11.2003.3. The principal ground to challenge the order is malafides. It is contended that the husband of the petitioner (Arifa Nauman) is an ex employee of respondent No. 3 and is presently the Joint Secretary of the Hamdard Employees and Workers' Union and he in such capa...

Capt. Atul Kumar Singh Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2007)BC392; (2008)149PLR8

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The respondent No. 2 has filed complaint against the petitioner herein alleging that she had given Rs. 7 lacs in cash to the petitioner. In order to discharge this liability of loan, the petitioner had issued a cheque which got dishonoured on presentation and money was not paid even after notice of demand and, thereforee, complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. The petitioner is summoned in the said complaint. Notice is also framed and the matter is at the stage of evidence. The complainant has completed her evidence. The petitioner (accused in the said complaint) moved application dated 15.5.2004 for summoning the record of the Income Tax Department relating to the complainant. In this application, it was averred that in her cross-examination conducted on 10.10.2002 the complainant had alleged that she had filed the income tax return and disclosed the amount of Rs. 7 lacs in her income tax record and, thereforee, income tax record was...

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sudha Jain

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The respondent has appeared on his own and argued the matter and as such appeal is being decided on merit. 2. Vide impugned order dated 25.4.2006 the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 45,50,000 towards insurance amount of the insured and Rs. 10,000 as cost and compensation by holding that the claim of the LRs. of the insured was wrongly repudiated on the ground that the insured had concealed the factum of being suffering from diabetes while obtaining the policy covering risk of life. 3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. Broad facts are more or less admitted. On the basis of the proposal form dated 31.3.2004 which was under written by the appellant on 15.4.2004, the risk on the life of late Sh. Dinesh Kumar Jain was accepted and the first premium-cum-acceptance letter was issued by the appellant against premium of Rs. 14,336. In the process the deceased was medically examined by the panel doctors of the appellant and nothing wa...