Delhi Court August 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.
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: (2007)105ITD679(Delhi)
1. These 12 appeals involved common grounds. The appeals were argued in a consolidated manner by the ld. counsel for the assessee and the ld.DR. Therefore, consolidated order is passed. The ld. counsel for the assessee and the ld. DR referred to the facts in ITA No. 196 / Delhi/ 2003 and, therefore, various issues are dealt with as per facts in this appeal.2. On perusal of the order of ITO Ward 23(2), Delhi (hereinafter called 'the Assessing Officer'), it is found that SAIL filed an application on 1-6-1998 seeking authorization to remit DMs 81,685 (net of taxes), in respect of the payment of fees for supervision as per the contract dated 28-2-1996 with M/s. BMH Claudium Peters AG. Germany (hereinafter called 'the Principal Contractor'), after deduction of tax at the rate of 10 per cent and payment thereof. It was claimed that the payment to the Principal Contractor amounted to the payment of fees for technical services under Article 12 of the Indo-German Agreement for Avoidance of Dou...
Glaxo Group Limited and anr. Vs. Mr. Manjit Patel and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: LC2007(1)223
Anil Kumar, J.1. The judgment shall dispose of the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction for infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of accounts against the defendants for using trade mark `NORTAM' in respect of their antibiotic, antibacterial preparations and substances.2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversy are that the Plaintiff No. 1, Glaxo Group Ltd., is a company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and having its registered office at Glaxo Wellcome House, Berkeley Avenue, Greenford, Middlesex, UB60 ONN UK. The plaintiff No. 2, Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai 400 025. The plaintiffs are members of GlaxoSmithKline Group of companies of which GlaxoSmithKline Plc. (hereinafter referred to as 'GlaxoSmithKline') is the parent company. GlaxoSmithKline was formed following the merger of Glaxo Wellcome Plct and Smit...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Shri Vimal Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: 133(2006)DLT277
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners-Union of India, The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, The Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Commissionerate, Meerut assail in this writ petition the judgment dated 6.5.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal had partly allowed the OA filed by the respondent and set aside the orders passed by the petitioners holding the respondent to be in deemed suspension w.e.f. 1.3.2000. The Tribunal also held the respondent to be entitled to the treatment of the said period for consequential benefits of pay and allowances, as per FR-54.2. Petitioners contend that where order of dismissal or removal of service is set aside by a Court of Law and where enquiry had been dispensed with under the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India and under rule 19(2) CCS (CCA) Rules and a further enquiry is ordered...
Muniraj Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Gugan Ram, Vs. Union of India (UOi) thr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR824]
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:(a) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to instantly refer the dispute to the Industrial Adjudicator; and(b) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus/ prohibition directing the respondent No. 2 to maintain status quo as regards the services of the petitioner workers till the industrial dispute is finally decided by the industrial adjudicator with specific direction to the respondent M/s Petronet LNG Limited not to substitute the services of the petitioners with other workmen even if they want to change the contractor; and(c) in the alternative, the above interim protection as mentioned in prayer (b) be granted till the disposal of the proposed application for stay that the petitioners would file before the Industrial Tribunal after the dispute is referred to the Tribunal so that the reference is not made infructuous...
Sh. Ram Kumar Vs. Lt. Governor, G.N.C.T.D. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ133
Manju Goel, J.1. This writ petition seeks quashing of orders dated 14.9.2000, 7.2.2001 & 6.11.2001 whereby the petitioner was removed from his service with the respondent and his appeal and revision were dismissed by the appellate authority. 2. The petitioner was a muster roll employee on daily wages being appointed on 15.5.1984 by the Chief Engineer (Slum), Delhi Development Authority (in short `DDA'). Subsequently on account of regularization of the employees of the muster roll the petitioner was appointed for the temporary post of work-charged establishment in the pay scale of Rs.800-15-1010-EB-20-1150 with all other service benefits. At the time he was regularized he was required to file essential documents including school leaving certificate etc. The petitioner produced a school leaving certificate issued by the Principal, SGTB Khalsa Boys Senior Secondary School, Dev Nagar, Delhi and a caste certificate issued by the SDM, Karol Bagh. Subsequently it was discovered by respondent ...
Hans Raj Vs. D.D.A. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: 134(2006)DLT690
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 19.4.2004 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition (C) 7522 of 2004 filed by the appellant. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant joined services of the respondent as Grade D employee on 8.8.1978 and was promoted to the post of lower divisional clerk in December, 1984. The Station House Officer, PS Mangol Puri, by a letter dated 8.2.1986 informed the respondent that the appellant had been arrested in criminal case arising out FIR No. 282 dated 29.11.1985 under Sections 302, 307, 342, 325, 323 read with 34 Indian Penal Code along with five other persons. Subsequently by an vide order dated 14.4.1986, the respondent placed the appellant under suspension. The criminal case went to trial and by judgment dated 1.3.2000 of the Trial Court, the appellant was acquitted. Following this acquittal the appellant was reinstated by the respondent by an order dated 5.2.2001. The period of suspension fr...
Hawkins Cookers Limited Vs. Citizen Metal Industries (India)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: 133(2006)DLT281; 2006(33)PTC387(Del)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The facts of the present case are that the present Suit was instituted in this Court when the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court was restricted to Rs. 5 lacs. Several proceedings were held in this Court which at that particular time was the 'competent Court' as envisaged in the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequent on the increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court the case was transferred to that Court by the High Court. Subsequently an application was filed by the Plaintiff for enhancing the valuation of the Suit for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction to Rs. 21 lacs. At the time when the amendment application was moved it was the District Court which was the 'competent Court'. The application was allowed despite the stiff opposition of the Defendant. Thereupon, the District Judge 'sent' the file to this Court.2. LearnedCounsel for the Defendant relies on the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in Vogel Media International GmbH v....
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Omvati Kalshan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR10]; (2008)IILLJ407Del
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19th October, 2005 in Writ Petition (C) No. 879/2005. By the impugned judgment, the DDA was directed to treat Smt. Omvati Kalshan, the writ petitioner (and respondent herein) as eligible for promotion to the next higher grade, subject to her having put in the requisite eligibility period of service and on her being otherwise qualified. It was further directed by the learned Single Judge that the respondent was to be considered for promotion in accordance with the rules on the basis of her seniority in the grade of P.A., and the DDA was required to treat the period spent by her on the lower post as the receptionist, a post served by her on account of her disability, as the period served on the post of P.A. A consequent direction to pay conveyance allowance was also given. 2. The relevant facts have been succinctly set out by the learned Single Judge and are as under:(a) While working for DDA in the ...
Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ703
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. After hearing the counsel for both the parties at length, this application was dismissed vide order dated 11th August 2006 when following brief order was passed:I have heard counsel for both the parties at length. It is 1.21 p.m. After lunch there are Special Bench matters and, thereforee, I would not be in a position to dictate the detailed order today. However, after considering the respective submissions, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve bail at this stage. These applications are dismissed. Reasons to follow.2. I now propose to give the reasons which persuaded me to dismiss the application seeking bail by the petitioner.3. Petitioner/accused No. 1 in FIR No. 192/2002 registered under Section 302/201/364 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has filed this application seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is an accused charged with offence of murder of one Nitish Katara. The petitioner is facing...
Arjun Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT449; 2006(92)DRJ663
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 950 of 2006 has been filed with the prayer for quashing/setting aside detention order No. F/5/7/2005-Home (P-II) dated 12.1.2006 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the COFEPOSA Act').2. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner in the writ petition, are as under:That brief facts of the case are that on 29.7.2005, the petitioner came on is usual trip to Delhi to visit his children in Delhi and also to finalise one property deal during his stay. The petitioner is frequent flier to Delhi and flies between Dubai and Delhi every week or at least once in a fortnight. The petitioner was carrying with himself foreign currencies equivalent to Indian Rs. 86,87,142/- which included Saudi riyals, American Dollars, Pounds, dirham etc. to purchase a property.That on 30.7.05, when the petitioner was returning to Dubai he was arrested by Custom officials...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »