Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments

Chopra Hospital (P) Ltd. Through Its Directors and ors. Vs. Usha Chopr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)3CompLJ86(Del); [2007]79SCL299(Delhi)

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present Appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) has been filed by Dr. Ashok Mohan Dwarkadas Motiwala, Dr. (Mrs.) Nirmala Dwarkadas and Mrs. Smita Motiwala (hereinafter referred to as the appellants). The appellants claim to be representing M/s Chopra Hospital Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the hospital). The respondent in the present Appeal is one Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Chopra.2. The respondent herein had filed a petition under Sections 397-398 of the Act against the appellants herein, the hospital and some others. The said petition was allowed by the Company Law Board by its order dated 2nd March, 2005 with the conclusion that alleged appointment of Dr. Ashish Gupta and Dr. Anil Agarwal as Directors on 14th May, 1999 was void and illegal and accordingly appointments of other directors made by them would also fail. The appointment of directors was also faulted for want of notice to the respondent ...

A.M. Handicraft Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(212)ELT315(Del)

ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15th September, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein against the order dated 17th November, 2005 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade rejecting the appeal of the appellant for non-fulfillment of export obligation and non-submission of DEEC books (import and export) duly logged by the customs authorities.2. The appellants were granted license on 24th May, 1996 for import of 19.88 metric tonnes of brass scrap for a CIF value of Rs. 9,48,318/- (US$ 28308) with a condition that the appellants would export 18.5 metric tonnes of Brass Art wares for a FOB value of Rs. 16,12,187/- (US$ 48125) within 18 months from the date of issue of the said license. The appellants imported the said brass scrap but even after the expiry of the export period against the said license, they did not submit any proof of fulfillment of export obligation. The export period expi...

Eicher Goodearth Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are cross appeals for the assessment year 1996-97. The assessee is a public limited ' company engaged in publishing and selling city maps for Delhi and surrounding towns and' also1 denves income byway of licence fee dividend, etc.2. In the return filed 'for 'the assessment year under appeal the assessee claimed 100 per cent depreciation on a structure on the ground that it was a temporary structure' While completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had spent Rs. 17.71 lakh on the boundary wall and Rs. 25,200 as cost of bricks and held that having regard to the quantum of expenditure incurred the structure cannot be called at temporary one and further that at any rate a boundary wall cannot be called a temporary structure. He accordingly restricted the claim of depreciation to 10per cent as against 100 per cent claimed. The disallowance made on this basis was Rs. 16,17,030.3. While completing the assessment, the...

H. and R Johnson (India) Limited Vs. Designated Authority, Ministry

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC225

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned Notification No.06/2006 dated 13.2.2006, withdrawing anti-dumping duty on the imports into India of the subject goods (vitrified and porcelain tiles other than vitrified industrial tiles) falling under Chapter 69 of the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act produced by Southern Building Materials and Sanitary Co. Ltd. (SBMS) Qingyuan City, People's Republic of China and exported by New Zhong Yuan Ceramic Importer and Export Co.Ltd., (NZYC) Guangdong, People's Republic of China, by amending the principal Notification No. 73/2003-Cus. dated 1.5.2003 as amended on 28.7.2004.2. The impugned notification has been issued on the basis of the final findings and recommendations of the Designated Authority reached pursuant to the New Shipper review as per the Notification dated 29.12.2005 issued under Rule 18 of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Inju...

income Tax Officer Vs. Shri Mool Chand Gupta

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)110ITD89(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department for assessment year 2001-02 against the order dated 01.3.2005 passed by Ld. CIT (A), Meerut whereby the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty of Rs. 2,60,364/- imposed on the assessee under Section 271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act.2. The facts are that the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had filed a return declaring total income of Rs. 1,76,880/-, on which a refund of Rs. 90,915/- was claimed. This return was processed and total refund of Rs. 93,415/- was issued, which included interest on the refund also. In the return, it was found that the assessee had claimed housing loan interest of Rs. 2,62,000/-. However, as per Form No. 16, this interest was only Rs. 5, 715/-. The Assessing Officer found it strange that the assessee had not made this claim before his employer.He further noted that the assessee had enclosed the certificate, which showed total housing loan interest of Rs. 1,50,000/-. For the rest of Rs. 1,12,000/-, no evidence had...

Schneider Electric India Private Limited Vs. Government of Nct of Delh ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT35; 2007(94)DRJ441; (2007)7VST79(Delhi)

1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the prayer is for the issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order staying the recovery of the entire demand of the impugned tax till the disposal of the Petitioner's Appeal pending before the Additional Commissioner-IV, Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of Delhi.2. The facts in brief are that for Assessment Year (AY) 2003-04, vide Assessment Order dated 30.3.2005 a Demand of Rs. 5,80,09,272/- under the Local Act and Rs. 9,88,41,922/- under the Central Act stood assessed. After a Review, the Demand was reduced to Rs. 4,30,19,815/- under the Local Act and Rs. 2,79,43,711/- under the Central Act. The Review Order was appealed against before the First Appellate Authority who passed an Order under Section 43(5) of the repealed Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for the sake of brevity 'DST Act') directing the Appellant/Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 4.20 crores under the DST Act and Rs. 14.78 lacs under the Centr...

Astrazeneca Uk Limited and anr. Vs. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceutica ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(2)1; 2007(34)PTC469(Del)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The appellants/plaintiffs have come up in this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 16th May, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in is Nos. 8078 & 8561/2005 in CS (OS) No. 1421/2005, vacating the interim injunction which was granted on 6th October, 2005 and thereby allowing the application filed by the defendant-respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC and dismissing the application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 2. The appellants as plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid Suit praying for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from using the registered trade mark 'Meromer' alleged to be deceptively similar to 'Meronem', the trade mark of the appellant/plaintiffs. In the Suit, an application was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC praying for temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from using the aforesaid trademark 'Meromer'. The l...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dhan Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT425; 2007(95)DRJ95

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the award dated 5th August, 2002 passed by Industrial Tribunal-III( in short 'the Tribunal'), Delhi whereby the the Tribunal held that the respondent shall be treated as Catering Supervisor from 8th January, 1986 in the proper pay scale with all usual allowances and benefits and he should be paid arrears of salary within 60 days. 2. The respondent was working as Kitchen Bearer with the petitioner. Vide order dated 8th January, 1986, he was asked to work as Catering Supervisor on ad hoc basis till a regular appointment was made. He was reverted back as Kitchen Bearer on 14th December, 1989. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Tribunal in following terms:Whether Sh. Dhan Singh Kitchen bearer has worked as a Catering Supervisor from 8.1.1986 to 14.12.89 and if so, whether he is entitled to be promoted as Catering Supervisor by virtue of services rendered as Catering Supervisor ...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Meena Kumari and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ554

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The 2 captioned appeals arise out of the same accident involving a bus No. DEP-4480 in which the deceased was traveling as a passenger. 2. Deceased, Shri Jai Kishan, who was traveling as a passenger in the bus No. DEP-4480 died when the bus met with a road accident on 1.12.1988. 3. Dependants of the deceased filed a claim petition before the MACT seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased in the said road accident. 4. defense raised by the insurance company was that the policy issued in respect of bus was a statutory policy and as per Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as deceased was a passenger in the bus at the time of the accident, its liability under the policy was limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- only.5. After considering the evidence on record pertaining to the accident and holding that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus No. DEP-4480, learned Tribunal awarded a compe...

S.M. Wahi and anr. Vs. Reeta Wahi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ516

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife respectively. The defendant No. 1 is the niece of the plaintiff No. 1 (daughter of his brother). Initially, she was alone imp leaded as the defendant. However, thereafter, on an application moved by the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos. 2 & 3 were also imp leaded. The plaintiffs have filed CS (OS) No. 690/2004 for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction and cancellation of the sale deeds. Declaration was sought to the effect that the plaintiffs were the owners of property bearing No. 13, Kautilaya Marg, New Delhi. Decree for permanent injunction, which was prayed, was that the defendants be restrained from leasing out portion of the said property or from selling, transferring, alienating this property to third party or dispossessing the plaintiffs from the said property. Cancellation of the sale deeds dated 16.5.1997, 19.5.1997 and 30.6.1997 was also prayed for. 2. It is not necessary to go into the averments in the ...