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.
income Tax Officer Vs. Maruti Countrywide Auto
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)676
1. This appeal by the Revenue for asst. yr. 2001-02 arises out of the Order of learned CIT (A)-IX, New Delhi.The only issue for consideration relates to deleting the addition on account of provisions for doubtful debts of Rs. 32, 43,895. The facts of the case stated in brief are that assessment under Section 143(3) for the year under consideration was made on 17th March, 2004 accepting the returned income filed by the assessee. The AO issued notice under Section 154 to disallow the provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to P&L a/c claimed by the assessee based on RBI guidelines for Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC). During the course of rectification proceedings under Section 154, it was pleaded by the assessee that the assessee being a Non-Banking Financial Company was bound by NBFC Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998 issued by the RBI vide notification dt. 31st Jan., 1998 and accordingly made provision on account of bad and doubtful debts following these gu...
Smt. Sandhya Verma Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)933
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dt. 20th Jan., 2006 passed by the CIT(A), Ghaziabad confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) the Act for asst. yr. 2001-02.2. Briefly stated facts are that during the assessment proceedings it was noticed by the AO that the assessee had shown gift of Rs. 5 lacs from Shri Sunil Jain. The AO made inquiries about the genuineness and to examine the creditworthiness and other components of the gift of the donor, the assessee was asked to produce the donor, but the assessee failed to produce the donor on one pretext or the other in spite of affording several opportunities to her. Therefore, the assessee was afforded final opportunity. The assessee vide her letter dt. 7th Jan., 2004 surrendered an amount of Rs. 5 lacs in order to buy peace and to avoid litigation subject to the condition of no penalty. Accordingly, the AO made an addition of Rs. 5 lacs treating the same as income from undisclosed sources. On appeal, th...
Bharat Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ721
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner by way of a public interest litigation questioning the action of the Union of India in procurement of wheat from outside source. The petitioner who is an advocate and believes in upholding the majesty of law appears to be concerned with the aforesaid procurement of wheat by the Government of India which, according to him, is being done at an unreasonable and arbitrary price causing huge loss to the public exchequer.2. An advance copy was served on the respondent No. 1 Union of India upon which the said Union of India entered appearance and represented by the Addl. Solicitor General of India. At the subsequent stage, State Trading Corporation of India also entered appearance. Although no notice was issued, the parties filed their pleadings by way of counter affidavits and rejoinders. The very filing of the writ petition in this Court is challenged by the respondents on various grounds including raising of pre...
Traco Cable Co. Ltd. Vs. Elkey International Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Delhi78; 147(2008)DLT193; 2008(100)DRJ564
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This Regular First Appeal is preferred by the appellant M/s. Traco Cable Co. Ltd. against the judgment and decree dated 18.1.2007 by which the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was decreed for Rs. 3,56,000/- with costs and pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum. The appellant also assails the dismissal of the application, moved under Section 148 CPC, vide order dated 20.1.2007 by which the appellant had sought extension of time up to 20.12.2006 for filing of the written statement. The application had been dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/- holding the same to be not maintainable after the passing of the judgment and decree.2. The facts culminating in passing of the judgment and decree on 18.1.2007 under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC may be briefly noted.(i) The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,56,000/- being Civil Suit No. 242/2006, against the appellant-defendant, who is based in Cochin. The suit was filed in August, 2006.(ii) The responde...
Mrs. Nisha Raj and anr. Vs. Mr. Pratap K. Kaula and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: 151(2008)DLT402
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiffs 'the purchasers' have filed the present suit for specific performance of Agreement to sell dated 30-09-1986 (Ex. PW1/2 ) of the property situated at A-2, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi admeasuring 698.60 sq. yds (hereinafter referred to as the said property). The defendant Nos. 1-4 in the present case are the legal heirs of Smt. Vijay Malini Kaula, the seller, of the said property.2. A perpetual sub-lease (Ex. P1), duly registered, dated 05-02-1973 was executed in favor of the said seller by the President of India as the Lesser and the Kashmir Cooperative House Building society Ltd. as the lessee for a consideration of Rs. 13,105 towards development charges.3. The said seller constructed a residential house with a covered area of 3723.08 sq. ft. at the cost of Rs. 2,48,000 on the said property (being a residential plot of land) for which an occupancy certificate was issued by the DDA on 29-12-1984. Later the seller decided to permanently settle in Ni...
Krishan Kumar Vs. Secretary, Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ733
ORDERNew Delhi, the 20th April, 1998.S.O. 332 (E). In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and Clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution read with Rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and in supersession of paragraph 2 of the notification of the Government of India in the Deptt. Of Personnel and Administrative Reforms No. S.O. 5041 dated 11.11.1975 as amended by the notification of Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension (Deptt. Of Personnel and Training) number SO 1752 dated 30th June, 1987, and after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in relation to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Deptt. the President hereby directs that with effect from the date of publication of this order in the Official Gazette, all civil posts under the Union shall be classified as follows:Sl. Description of Posts Classification of PostsNo.1. A Central Civil post carrying a pay ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Budhi Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: 147(2008)DLT14; 2008(100)DRJ607
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of the present appeal the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned award mainly on three grounds that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 17 years by ignoring the age of the parents of the deceased and has taken into consideration the age of the deceased. The next contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has wrongly taken into consideration future prospects of the deceased when no such future prospects were proved by the respondents/ claimants on record. Thirdly, the appellant is aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal, granting 1/3rd personal expenses out of the income of the deceased, although the deceased being of 26 years of age at the time of accident would have soon got married and thereafter the personal expenses were bound to be increased. Before adverting to deal with the said contentions of the counsel for the appellant it would be desirable to set out the brief facts of the case, which are as under:On 15.8...
Guru Nanak Mechanical Works and ors. Vs. Shri. R.K. Dutta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: 147(2008)DLT19; 2008(100)DRJ611
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Appellant has preferred this Regular First Appeal against the order dated 9.12.2006 passed by the Mr. D.C. Anand, Additional District Judge, Delhi by which the suit filed by the respondent was decreed under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC on the failure of the appellant to file the written statement. Learned judge proceeded on the ground that no written statement can be placed on record after 90 days of service of summons on the defendant. In the present case defendant/appellant was served on 6.5.2006. Permission of the court was taken while filing the written statement on 25.8.2006 which is the mandate of law in case the written statement is to be taken on record on record beyond the period of 90 days.2. As a short question is involved, with the consent of parties the appeal is taken up for disposal. Brief Facts of the case are:i) Appellant had quoted for the supply of a High Speed Power Press Line of 150 ton capacity along with a Grippen Feeder and Combined...
Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Jitender Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: 147(2008)DLT278
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner, Directorate General of Home Guards and Civil defense, Government of NCT of Delhi, had invited applications for the post of Chowkidar. For this purpose, advertisement was issued and the candidates desirous of being appointed were required to fill up the attestation/application form for the said post. The respondent herein also gave the application in the prescribed form. In column 12 of this application form, following information was sought:12(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/found convicted by a court of law or any offence or debarred/disqualified by any public service commission from appearing at the examination/selection or debarred from any examination rusticated by the University of any other Educational Authority/Institution at the time of filling up the attestation form.(b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, university or any other education authority/institution at the time of filli...
Crocodile Int. Pte Ltd. and anr. Vs. Lacoste S.A. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ547
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In cases involving a challenge to the validity of an interlocutory order, the question of maintainability of an appeal often becomes the subject matter of a forensic debate. The present appeal is no exception and, in our opinion, rightly so because the order under challenge before us is neither a decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor is the same appealable under Order 43 of the Code. An appeal may even then be maintainable provided the order is 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 10 of the Letters Patent read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act. As to what would amount to a 'judgment' under the said two provisions, is not easy to answer. In the absence of any precise definition of what would constitute a 'judgment', judicial pronouncements alone remain a guiding factor. These pronouncements have stopped short of drawing an exhaustive list of what would and what would not constitute a 'judgment' under Clause 10 of the Let...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »