Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

Hmt Ltd. Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)BC50

1. HMT Limited (a public sector undertaking) has filed this appeal against judgment dated 20.8.2004 passed by DRT-III, Delhi in O.A.169/2002. The O.A. had been filed by the respondent herein-The Nainital Bank Ltd. (applicant in O.A.) for the recovery of Rs. 1,13,11,593/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 16.5% per annum with half yearly rests as also costs. The DRT allowed the O.A. directing the defendant (appellant herein) to pay the said amount of Rs. 1,13,11,593/- along with costs, pendente lite and future interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 5.8.2002 (date of filing of the O.A.). The appellant/defendant is aggrieved thereby and has lodged this appeal.2. The facts may be stated shortly: A sum of Rs. 50 lakh was invested by the respondent-Bank (applicant in O.A.) in HMT Bonds in New Delhi and a sum of Rs. 49.75 lakh, after adjusting upfront discount of Rs. 25,000/-, was deposited with the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant issued Bond Certificate (Unsecur...

SaIn Processing and Weaving Mills Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25-4-2005 for the assessment year 1999-2000, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised: That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of set off-of unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years to assessment year 1999-2000 from income from "house property" during the year under consideration. 2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not correctly appreciated the provisions of Section 32(2) and the amendment made therein and is not justified in disallowing the claim of set-off of depreciation of earlier years brought forward against the income of the appellant during the relevant previous year. 3. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong in holding that unabsorbed depreciation brought forward up to the assessment year 1997-98 is not liable to be set-off fr...

British Airways Plc. Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)220

1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of learned CIT(A)--XXIX, New Delhi dt. 30th Oct., 2006 whereby be confirmed the following penalties imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c): 2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that the assessee is a company incorporated in United Kingdom and is a tax resident of that country. It is mainly engaged in the airline business and has been operating in various countries including India. During the assessment years under consideration, the assessee company was carrying on its business in India through PEs in the form of its branches located in New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata. The business so carried on in India comprised of (i) operation of aircraft in international traffic for transportation of passengers, goods and mail to and from India and (ii) rendering of engineering and ground handling services to aircrafts operated by other airlines. The profit derived by the assessee compan...

Swaran Singh Vs. Bhupender Kaur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ544

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.CM No. 16024/2007 (exemption)Allowed, subject to just exceptions.FAO(OS) No. 467/2007 and CM No. 16025/2007, 16026/2007 (stay) (LC)1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16th November, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge issuing notice on the application filed by the appellant praying for appointment of a Local Commissioner. The suit is filed seeking for a decree of specific performance and cancellation of the sale deed executed by the defendant No. 1 in favor of the defendant No. 4. It is alleged in the same that the appellant, who is plaintiff, entered into an agreement to sell with the defendant No. 1 and in violation of the said agreement, it is alleged that the defendant No. 1 has sold the property to the defendant No. 4 at a lesser price.2. Along with the plaint, an application seeking for appointment of a Local Commissioner was also filed. The learned Single Judge has issued summons in the suit making the same returnable on 3rd April, 2008 ...

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dharampal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ380

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 2nd January, 2003 of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation awarding an amount of Rs.4,35,288/- in favor of respondent No.1 for having suffered permanent total disability in the course of his employment as driver on a truck owned by respondent No.2.2. The respondent No.1 worked as a driver with respondent No.2 on his truck bearing No.DL-IGB-2809. On 21st July, 2001 he was proceeding on the said truck from Delhi to Baroda. At about 5.30 p.m. on that date, on reaching a place near Dadu, Jaipur (Rajasthan) he parked his truck by the road side and started crossing the road to go to the other side to take refreshment when he was knocked down by a speeding moped resulting into injuries all over his body including head. He was rushed to a government hospital and later removed to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Delhi. On account of head injury he was rendered mentally disabled to work as a driver. Such disability was to the extent of 1...

Mugeem Ahmad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR509(Delhi); 2008(100)DRJ76

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Record of the learned Additional District Judge perused. Record of the arbitrator which forms part of record of the learned ADJ has also been perused. A short question arises for consideration.2. In response to a notice inviting tender issued by the respondent as per tender documents prescribed, appellant submitted the offer.3. The tender specified the quantities to be executed but vide Clause 16 stipulated as under:Clause 16--The Engineer-in-charge shall have power to make such alterations or additions to the original specification, drawing, designs and instructions as may appear to him to be necessary or additional work which the contractor may be so directed to do shall be bound to carry out the work in accordance with any instructions which may be given to him in writing signed by the Engineer-in-charge, and such alterations shall not invalidate the contract, and any additional work which the contractor may be so direct...

Dhawandeep Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs. Star Estate Manag ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ546

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.CM No. 16022/2007 (exemption)Allowed, subject to just exceptions.FAO(OS) No. 466/2007 and CM No. 16023/2007 (delay)1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 20th September, 2007 disposing of the application being CM No. 8134/2006 filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The learned Single Judge has extensively dealt with the provisions of the Delhi Apartments Ownership Act, 1986 and has passed an injunction order in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and its members holding that they need not avail the maintenance service from the respondent/defendant No. 1 - M/s Star Estate Management Limited.3. At the same time, the learned Single Judge was aware that all apartment owners in the building complex known as Dhawan Deep Building are not members of the appellant/plaintiff association as is admitted by the appellant/plaintiff in its pleading. In these circumstances, it has been observed th...

Smita Chaudhary Vs. Uma Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ293

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.9.2006 allowing respondent's application in Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and as a consequence setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.3.2005.2. Respondent contested the suit diligently till 31.5.2004. On said date counsel did not appear and defendant was proceeded ex-parte.3. Suit continued and was finally decreed ex-parte on 18.5.2005. Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed on 24.1.2006.4. Explaining non-appearance and reason for delay it was stated in the application that the counsel concerned Mr. H.N. Bahuguna assured the defendant that he would call the defendant as and when needed. That the defendant lives in village Ghazipur. She is not a resident of Delhi. She felt re-assured that her counsel would prosecute her defence diligently. That her son had been interacting with the counsel. That on 5.12.2006 her son Harish contacted Mr. H.N. Bahuguna who informed that the matter was listed for 6.1.2006. That on sai...

Usha Asthana Vs. Shri Ram Singh Hospital and Heart Institute

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Vide impugned order dated 31st July, 2006, passed by the District Forum, the appellant has been awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000 for the mental agony, harassment and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation besides refund of Rs. 1,800 charged from her on account of having suffered few fractures in the left leg i.e. Tibia and Fibula while coming back from the toilet where the floor was watery and slippery. 2. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. The case of the appellant before the District Forum, in brief, was that she got herself admitted in the hospital of respondent on 12.4.2004 for treatment of CRF and gastroenteritis. She was kept in the ICU unit of the hospital. The appellant asked the maid of ICU unit to bring bed pan to ease herself, but the maid did not bring it on the ground that bed pan is not readily available. She (the maid) asked the appellant to accompany with her. The appellant compla...

Dhanshree Publicity Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(12)SLJ72

1. The appellant, a sole proprietary concern, has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 31.10.2006 upholding the order-in-original, whereby demand of Service Tax of Rs. 1,23,821/- was confirmed with penalty of the like amount under Section 76 of the Act and again a penalty of the like amount under Section 78 of the Act.2. According to the Revenue, the appellant was a commercial concern engaged in providing services connected with making preparation, display and exhibition of advertisements and also providing consultancy in advertisements. During the scrutiny of the records of M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd., it was noticed that, from 01.01.2001 to 30.09.2003 the present appellant had received an amount of Rs. 24,76,417/- on account of advertisement. The amount was paid for rendering services of advertising the products of the said company. The appellant had not obtained registration in respect of the said taxable service, 'Advertising Agency'. In response to the demand, ...