Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Living Media India Limited and anr. Vs. Office of the Chief Postmater ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT228; 2007(96)DRJ583

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the communication dated 08.11.2005 from the Department of Posts, Office of the Chief Postmaster General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner was informed that the booklet containing the advertisement of Toyota Motor Corporation in the form of a calendar, was neither a supplement nor part and parcel of the publication of the Reader's Digest magazine's December, 2005 issue. On the basis of this communication, the petitioner was informed that the request for mailing of the December 2005 issue of the Reader's Digest on concessional rates cannot be acceded to. This communication was followed by another communication to the same effect on 21.11.2005. The Department of Posts has denied permission to the Reader's Digest in respect of its December, 2005 issue inasmuch as the Toyota multi-page advertisement was not regarded as part and parcel of the magazine (newspaper). The reason given for the denial of concessional ra...

BiGJO's India Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Del)290; 139(2007)DLT439; [2007]293ITR170(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J. 1. Appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the order dated 20th January, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench A (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in ITA No.4223/Del/2001 for the assessment year 1998-99, whereby the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 7 lacs made on account of repair and maintenance expenses by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).2. The facts in brief are that the assessed is running its business at its retail departmental store situated at New Delhi South Extension Part-II. The assessed claimed deduction of Rs. 15.15 lacs on account of repair and maintenance expenditure. In addition, the assessed claimed deduction amounting to Rs. 2.65 lacs for air-conditioner repair and maintenance. The Assessing Officer noted from the details filed by the assessed that most of the expenses related to supply of building material including timber a...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.M. Aggarwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Del)180; [2007]293ITR43(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J. 1. Revenue has preferred the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred as Act) against the order dated 23rd September, 2005 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in ITA No.116/Del/2001 relating to block period 1st April, 1988 to 21st April, 1998.2. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal has deleted the addition of Rs.26.05 lacs made on account of unexplained loans advanced by the assessed and the interest earned thereon.3. The facts in brief are that the residence of the assessed at K-101, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi, was searched under Section 132 of the Act on 21st April, 1998. During the course of search, certain documents containing details of certain monetary transactions such as advancement of loan of Rs.22.50 lacs by the assessed and also income by way of interest thereof at Rs.3.55 lacs were found. The Assessing Officer vide questionnaire dated 27th January, 2000 required the asses...

ikm Investors Services Ltd. Vs. Kiranpal Kapoor

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ360

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been made by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 17th April, 2006 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate.2. Brief facts are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was fixed on 17th April, 2006 before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate. On that day the counsel for the petitioner, in whose favor 'vakalatnama', was signed by the petitioner did not appear before the Court on the ground that the advocates were on strike. The learned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate initially called the case in the morning, but when none appeared passed over the case. The case was recalled at 2.25 p.m., none appeared even at 2.25 p.m. and the complaint was dismissed in default.3. In the petition, the plea taken by the petitioner's counsel is that the advocates were on strike and the advocate of the petitioner thought that attorney of the petitioner would app...

Morgan Securities Credit Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Blue Coast Hotels and Resorts L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)BC548; 139(2007)DLT479

Gita Mittal, J. 1. This application has been filed by the decree holder under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for issuance of warrants of attachment in terms of column 10 of the execution petition. The decree holder has filed the execution petition pleading that it was entitled to recovery of Rs. 2,10,26,153/- as on 9th December, 2003 plus interest @ 30% with monthly rests.2. In this application, it is averred that warrants of attachment were not pressed by the decree holder inasmuch as the judgment debtor put in an appearance through its counsel and wanted to make payments in installments. According to the decree holder, the judgment debtor has made certain payments. However, after 30th April, 2004, no payments had been made and still a sum of Rs. 57,81,009/- was due and payable on 22nd August, 2005. The applicant submits that the reason that this application has been necessitated was that the judgment debtor had given a cheque dated 28th February, 2005 for Rs...

Dharamveer Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008(116)FLR484]; (2008)IILLJ264Del

Rekha Sharma, J.1. Dharamveer who was employed as temporary Peon-cum-Messenger with Oriental Bank of Commerce has filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the award dated July 27, 2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, in I.D. No. 157/1999.The question which fell for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal was 'whether the action of the Management of the Oriental Bank of Commerce in terminating the services of Dharamveer as temporary Peon-cum-Messenger with effect from December 25, 1997 was just, fair and legal' If not, what relief was he entitled to and from what date?2. The case set up by the workman was that he was employed as a casual labourer/daily rated employee and has worked for more than 240 days, to be precise, 635 days till December 25, 1997. thereforee, it was claimed that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which requires giving of one month's notice before his services were terminate...

J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Aids Control Organisation and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(1)CTLJ497(Del)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the award of tender to M/s Span Diagnostics Ltd. - respondent No. 3, by National Aids Control Organisation 'Respondent No. 1 and M/s Hindustan Latex Ltd.- respondent No. 2.2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner as as under:(a) The petitioner, M/s J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. have challenged the decision of Respondents 1 and 2 in accepting the bid of Respondent No. 3 contrary to their own guidelines Instructions to Bidders (hereinafter referred to as ITB). As per Clause 20.1 of ITB, no bidder was allowed to give an alternate bid. It was also decided in the pre-bid meeting held on the 22nd August 2006 that in case any party made an alternate bid then the bid would be rejected.(b) On 7th September 2006 when the Bids were opened in the presence of the representatives of all the bidders, the petitioner protested against the alternative bid of Respondent No. 3 in violation of the tender terms and was told by the officials that the final ...

National Panasonic India Ltd. Vs. Seevoice Magnetics India (P) Ltd. an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2007)BC328

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for recovery of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The averments made as per the plaint are that the plaintiff is a Group Company of renowned Matsushita Group, Japan, who are the world leaders in consumer electronics and other products being sold under the brand names of National and Panasonic. The plaintiff is, inter alia, marketing and selling its audio, video and T.V. sets, etc., in Indian market. It has wide distributor/stockiest network. The defendant No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act of which the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in that capacity approached the plaintiff in or around July/August, 1995 and requested the plaintiff to appoint the defendant No. 1 as their stockist in respect of Panasonic products manufactured and marketed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to appoint the defendant No. 1 as one of its stockists and Stockist Agreement dated 22.9.1995 was entered into be...

Maitreya V. Doshi Vs. Narender Kaur Chaudhary and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Aforesaid seven appeals arise from the common order dated 12th January, 2007 passed by the District Forum whereby the appellant who happens to be one of the Directors of the Company at the relevant time was directed to appear in person for replying show-cause notice under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. 2. As many as 28 complaints were filed against the company-Pal Peugeot Ltd. for refund of the booking amount of Rs. 25,000 Peugeot 309 car which the company assured to deliver any time. Since the car could not be delivered in time the bookings were cancelled and refund was claimed. On refusal of the refund by the company the complainant approached the District Forum. 3. Vide impugned order dated 17.2.1999 the District Forum directed the appellant-Company to refund the booking amount to each of the complainants along with interest @ 9% p.a. compounded annually from the date of booking till the date of cancellation as identical orders were passed in a...

Ravi Tours and Travels Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STJ39CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Shri Amarjit Singh, Proprietor of M/s Ravi Tour and Travels mentions that, despite this Tribunal's stay order No. S/130/06-ST in Appeal No.87 of 2006, recovery proceedings are being taken by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Noida. Copy of letter dated 09/03/07 of Assistant Commissioner directing payment and threatening coercive action is also being produced, along with copy of their application dated 23/03/07 seeking extension of this Tribunal's stay order.2. Heard learned SDR and seen the copies of papers produced including, our stay order.3. It is seen that the Tribunal had ordered waiver of the payment of the remaining amount (upon deposit of Rs. 3.25 lakhs) "during the pendency of this appeal". The appellant submits that amount of Rs. 3.25 lakhs has been deposited in time.4. In the face of our stay order, clearly, any recovery proceedings is high handed and unwarranted.5. The revenue authorities are, therefore, directed to revert to the position as on the date...