Delhi Court May 2006 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Alfa Laval (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR363(Delhi)
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. This appeal under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.11.1999. Vide impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act filed by the appellant against the arbitral award.2. The facts of the case are that on 26.11.1977, the appellant had awarded a contract to the respondent for supply of 2856 containers Milk aluminum at Rs. 189/- per piece plus excise duty and sales tax. The supply was to be made as per specifications mentioned in the contract. It is stated that the respondent failed to supply the goods within the time stipulated in the contract. The supply was not made even though time for delivery was extended by the appellant. Because of non-supply of goods by the respondent the appellant resorted to risk purchase of the goods in question which it had to purchase at Rs. 250/- per piece of Milk...
Savitri Sahni Vs. Lt. Governor, Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2006
Reported in: 130(2006)DLT287
T.S. Thakur, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby a writ petition filed by the appellant for a writ of mandamus seeking parity in emoluments with those working in Government schools has been dismissed.2. The appellant retired as Principal of a Government school after attaining the age of superannuation way back in the year 1984. She appears to have approached Respondent No. 5 school and offered to render voluntary service which request the school accepted and the appellant allowed to join on a mutually agreed honorarium payable to her on a monthly basis. She continued working for the school for nearly 9 years in that capacity during which period the honorarium payable to her was revised from time to time to take the same to Rs. 5,500/- per month on the date she stopped associating with the school in July, 1994. More than 7 years later, she filed a writ petition in this Court inter alias for a mandamus directing Re...
Ramesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Yashpal Batra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi286; 2006(89)DRJ689
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 7463/2004 (Order -VII, Rule -11 CPC by Defendant No. 1)1. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession, recovery of damages, mesne profits and permanent injunction.2. The plaint states that the three plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Shri Amar Dass being his sons. The suit has been filed in respect of the immovable property bearing No. 399-400 (Old No. 204), Khari Baoli, Delhi whereby the plaintiffs claim that they have become absolute and lawful owners in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs also seek recovery of possession against defendant No. 1 apart from the relief of recovery of damages / mesne profits and permanent injunction. Defendant No. 2 has been imp leaded as a party in the suit on the ground that he is a tenant in occupation of a part of the suit property in pursuance of a Rent Note dated 12.10.1964 and is also the real younger brother of late Shri Amar Dass, the father of the plaintif...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prakash Anthony
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2006
Reported in: 130(2006)DLT6; (2006)144PLR35
T.S. Thakur, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent against an order of his removal from service as a measure of punishment has been allowed and the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities quashed.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition have been set out in detail in the order passed by the learned single Judge. The same need not, thereforee, be recalled over again. All that need be mentioned is that the respondent had been appointed as an Assistant Typist way back in the year 1987 against a vacancy reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate. Five years later, the respondent applied for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Administrative Officer which claim was rejected on the ground that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe community. He was, at the same time, called upon to show cause why action be not taken against him for having...
Crack Detectives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri P.S. Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT584
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Admit.2. Following substantial question of law is formulated for decision of the appeal:Whether documents Ex.PW-1/3 and/or Ex.PW-1/5 answer the description of a notice contemplated under Section 8 of the Rent Act, to effect increase in rent?3. The appellant, M/s. Crack Detectives Private Limited, is in appeal against an order dated 4.4.2005 of learned Additional District Judge setting aside the judgment/order dated 13.8.2003 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, and remanding the case with a direction to decide the suit on merits.4. The respondent filed a suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits in respect of property No. 17, 18/23/B-2 Market, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, against the appellant.5. The appellant was a tenant under the respondent on the first floor of the aforesaid premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/-, excluding electricity and water charges since 1st of April, 1988. According to the respondent he had an agreeme...
State (Government of Nct of Delhi) Vs. Dr. Anil Khetrapal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2006
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT507; 2006(98)DRJ235
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 30.11.2005. This application has been moved on behalf of the State. Mr Pawan Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for the State, took me through the impugned order dated 30.11.2005 and submitted that the accused (Dr Anil Khetrapal) had been granted anticipatory bail by virtue of the said order despite the fact that he had been refused anticipatory bail by an earlier order dated 26.09.2005 which was also a detailed order indicating the circumstances for the non-grant of the pre-arrest bail.2. It is the contention of Mr Sharma that the impugned order is liable to be cancelled because there is a complete non-application of mind by the learned Additional Sessions Judge because he has not considered the earlier order dated 26.09.2005 in its proper perspective. Secondly, it is submitted by Mr Sharma that there are no changed circumstanc...
Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Satinder Kumar Rana and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2006
Reported in: [2007]3STJ503(Delhi)
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.6.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1776/98 directing the petitioners to consider the request of the respondents herein for their regularisation against the vacant posts of teachers after holding suitable selection test within three months filed this writ petition on 30.7.2004. Along with the writ petition they also moved an application for stay of the operation of the aforesaid order of the CAT. On 9.8.2004 when the writ petition was taken up for admission while issuing notice thereof to the respondents operation of the impugned order of the CAT was stayed by an ex parte order and now after notice to the respondents that application is being disposed of by this order as well as the application filed by respondent No. 1 for vacation of the said ex parte stay.2. The relevant facts are that the respondents were engaged as part time teachers in the Adult Education Schools by the Director...
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Mohan Exports India Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: (2006)101ITD478(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue on 30.3.2000 against the order of the learned CIT(Appeals)-II, New Delhi dated 17.12.1999 in the case of the assessee in relation to intimation under Section 143(1)(d) made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 1997-98. In this appeal revenue has disputed the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in determining tax liability under the provisions of Section 115JA and in charging consequential interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C. According to the learned CIT (Appeals) the Assessing Officer has no powers to make such adjustments while making an order of intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.2. During the course of hearing before us the learned DR pointed out that the relevant provisions of Section 143(1)(a) as applicable to assessment year 1997-98 are as under: 143(1)(a) Where a return has been made under Section 139, or in response to a notice under Sub-section (1) of Se...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: (2006)101ITD129(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue on 8th March, 2000 against the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) - XIX, New Delhi, dated 2-12-1999 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for assessment year 1996-97.2. First ground in this appeal is directed against the learned CIT (Appeals) not proportionately attributing the interest towards earning of dividend and thereby allowing full claim of deduction under Section 80M as claimed by the assessee. Facts of the case leading to this ground of appeal briefly are that the assessee received during the year dividend income of Rs. 1,37,75,850 and claimed deduction under Section 80M of Rs. 1,31,82,228. According to the learned Assessing Officer, the proportionate amount of bank charges and interest as allocable to the earning of dividend was required to be reduced in accordance with the provisions of Section 57(1) from the dividend income declared by the assessee and deduction under Section 80M could...
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Steri Sheets Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Delhi)460
1. These two appeals preferred by the Revenue against two separate orders of learned CIT(A)-III, New Delhi, dt. 24th Nov., 1999 and 30th Nov., 1999 for asst. yr. 1995-96 and 1996-97, respectivply involve some common issues and the same, therefore, are being disposed of by this single consolidated order along with cross-objection filed by the assessee.2. The first common issue raised by the Revenue in ground Nos. 1 and 2 of its appeal for asst. yr. 1995-96 as well as by the assessee-company in its cross-objection relates to the computation of capital gain on sale of manufacturing division of the assessee.3. The facts which are relevant and material to decide this issue are as follows : As per the agreement entered into with Kelvinator of India Ltd. on 30th Aug., 1994, the assessee-company agreed to sell its entire undertaking as a going concern which included immovable properties, plant and machinery, equipment, furniture, inventories of raw materials, finished products, work in progre...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »