Delhi Court December 2007 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.
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shri B.P. Singhal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ460
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned award dated 27.1.1993 on two grounds. Firstly, that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the three wheeler scooter in which the deceased was traveling. The second contention raised by the appellant is that without there being any evidence on record, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 3,500/- p.m. For better appreciation of the contentions raised by the parties, it would be appropriate to give brief scenario of the facts as under:On 4.10.1981 at about 1.10 p.m., the deceased was traveling in a three wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DHR-5301 and was going towards India Gate on Dr. Zakir Hussain Marg. When the said scooter was at the crossing of the Zakir Hussain Road and Cornwallis Road, suddenly the offending DTC bus bearing registration No. DHP-2996, being driven in a very rash and negligent manner by its driver came from Cornw...
Stresscon Industries Ltd. Vs. Ircon International Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR47(Delhi); 2008(100)DRJ14
Anil Kumar, J.1. This is an application by the petitioner for substitution of an independent arbitrator in place of Mr. Justice O.P. Dwivedi (Retd) who was appointed as an arbitrator by an order dated 12th May, 2006.2. The petitioner had filed an arbitration petition No. 34/2005 under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 where this Court relying on Rite Approach Group Ltd. v. Rosoboron Export : AIR2006SC401 had appointed Mr. Justice O.P. Dwivedi (Retd) Judge as an arbitrator.3. Against the appointment of Mr. Justice O.P. Dwivedi (Retd) as an arbitrator, the respondent had preferred a Special Leave Petition being SLP No. 11907/2006 before the Supreme Court which was dismissed by order dated 31st July, 2006.4. The learned arbitrator, Mr. Justice O.P. Dwivedi (Retd) even after dismissal of the special leave petition did not start the arbitration proceedings and consequently a formal request was made by letter dated 20th March, 2007 and thereafter a reminder dated 23rd Ma...
Krishan Lal and ors. Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ726
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking issue of a writ against the respondents/Municipal Corporation of Delhi from demolition of chajjas/balconies and projections on public road/streets. Our attention is drawn to the notice dated 26th November, 2007 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to the owners/occupiers of various buildings requesting them to remove unauthorized projections and encroachments on public land within three days falling which the said projections shall be removed/demolished by the said Corporation.2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Sections 317 and 318 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and has submitted that mere issuance of notice is not sufficient and in view of Section 317 of the aforesaid Act, projections on public land cannot be regarded as unauthorized. He also relies upon a pamphlet issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, wherein our attention is drawn to column Nos. 33 and 35 und...
Birender Singh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC452
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this common judgment, I shall dispose of these three appeals against the three judgments all dated 8th March, 2007 against the common respondent in complaint cases filed by the three appellants under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short NI Act). All the three appeals have similar facts and give rise to same question of law. In all the three appeals, the complainants/appellants filed complaint against respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of NI Act alleging that respondent No. 2 had issued cheques in discharge of loan liability and all these cheques got dishonoured. No payment was made despite notice under Section 138 of NI Act and hence the complaint was filed. The accused/ respondent No. 2 (hereinafter as respondent) took a common stand in all three cases that he had no privity of contract with any of the complainants at any stage of time. The cheques which were subject matter of the complaint were given to the employee of Mr. Nalin Tokas, who...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Heynon India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: [2009]315ITR281(Delhi)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated September 22, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench H, New Delhi ('the Tribunal') in I.T.A. No. 3187/Del/2003 relevant for the assessment year 1998-99. According to learned Counsel for the Revenue, the tax effect in this case on a notional basis is about Rs. 47.65 lakhs, although she does not deny that the assessee has been assessed at a loss. According to learned Counsel for the Revenue, deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) will be carried forward to the subsequent years and may reduce the taxable income for those years. Therefore, according to her, the appeal may be entertained. Notwithstanding the fact that the tax effect is nil, we have heard the matter on the merits.2. Learned Counsel for the Revenue has urged two issues. The first is with regard to the deletion by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal of an addition of Rs. 54.46 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on acc...
Prakash Decorators Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: (2008)12STJ200CESTATNew(Delhi)
2. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant deposited the tax along with interest. He further submits that the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings, which were revised by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2.1. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that it is sufficient for the waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount. Accordingly, the pre-deposit of the penalty amount is waived till the disposal of the appeal. The stay application is allowed....
Cce Vs. Flex Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC109
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby Commissioner (Appeals) set aside demand on the ground that respondent cleared the same goods after remaking under Rule 173-H of Central Excise Rules.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of polyester chips and cleared certain quantity of chips on payment of duty. Certain quantity of chips was received back from their customer during the period October to December 1998. Thereafter, in the month of January 1999 the returned goods were cleared without payment of duty.Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent demanding duty in respect of clearances made in January 1999 under Rule 173H of rules on the ground that they had cleared polyester chips of different grade then what was received back and the fresh goods have been removed without payment of duty under guise of received goods.3. The contention of the Revenue is that as the respondent cleared chips of fibre grade on payment of duty and the same were recei...
Kamdhenu Ispat Limited Vs. Kamdhenu Metal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(38)PTC267(Del)
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of the above suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of a perpetual injunction restraining passing off the goods by defendants under the mark 'Kamdhenu Metal', rendition of account of profits, delivery up, etc.2. Summons were issued in the prescribed form and were duly served upon the defendant. However, the defendant did not take part in the proceedings and the matter was proceeded ex-parte against him. Ex-parte evidence was led. Documents were exhibited. Arguments advanced and orders reserved.PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS3. The plaintiff company which is duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at A-1114, Riico Industrial Area, Phase III, Bhiwadi, Alwar, Rajasthan and Delhi Office at 5/2, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi is a public limited company. The suit has been filed through Mr. Arvind Gupta, Company Secretary of the plaintiff who has been duly authorized for the said purpose vide a Board...
Ms. Anubha Bhargava Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ353
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner herein is one of those 130 employees, working in different offices of the respondent-Airport Authority of India all over India, whose services were terminated, inter alia, on the ground that all these persons were appointed on ad hoc basis without any advertisement or calling candidates from Employment Exchange or following recruitment rules, which are required for any public appointment. Number of writ petitions came to be filed by all such employees challenging their termination on the plea that their appointments were later regularized after qualifying typing test or other tests and they were treated as regular employees. These writ petitions were heard together by a Division Bench of this Court. During the course of hearing, certain suggestions were mooted to resolve the problem as large number of persons were involved. After long deliberations spread over nearly three to four months, the parties were able to find an amicable solution of the problem ...
Sh. Parminder Singh Son of Sh. Hardev Singh Vs. Sh. G.S. Bhatia, Propr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC501; 2008(100)DRJ166
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 18th January, 2007 passed by Dr. Shahabuddin, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.2. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate in which it was prayed that police be directed to register the FIR and investigate the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.3. The learned Magistrate after examined the record held that:He is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to be sent for police investigation at this stage under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.4. However, he took the cognizance of the offence mentioned in the complaint and adjourned the matter to 27th June, 2007 for recording the pre-summoning evidence of the complainant and his witnesses, under Section 200 Cr.P.C.5. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order, the Magistrate failed to take into consideration the allegations made by the petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »