Delhi Court May 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.
Dinesh Kumar Patnaik Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: (2008)(1)SLJ134CAT
1. Applicant is an officer of Indian Foreign Service of 1990 batch.While posted in China, he was recalled to the Ministry of External Affairs Headquarters on 26.12.2002 and was served with a Memorandum calling upon him to give his explanation. His candid admission to the basic allegations, resulted into issuance of the memorandum dated 22.1.2003 for initiating minor penalty proceedings. He reiterated admission of his guilt in reply dated 31.1.2003. He did not hear anything further and a period of more than a year and half rolled on; but when he was due for promotion to the post of Director, he received two memos in quick succession: one dated 2109.2004, withdrawing minor penalty proceedings and the other dated 22.9.2004 for initiating major penalty proceedings on the advice of Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as UPSC) and dispensing with inquiry invoking Rule 19(ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1965'). He contested this m...
Mr. Mukesh Bhargava and anr. Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ280
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA 152/2007 (Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC)1. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction. The subject matter of the suit is the immovable property being the first floor of property No. B-97, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). The plaintiffs seek a declaration that they are owners of the suit property and that the defendants, more particularly defendant No. 1 bank, be restrained from selling, alienating, encumbering or creating any third party interest in the suit property.2. The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the suit property from Mrs.Anjana Luthra, defendant No. 2, vide a registered sale deed and to have been put in possession in pursuance thereto. The sale deed, possession letter and receipt were all executed on 28.1.2005. The suit has been instituted through a power of attorney holder. The plaintiffs claim to have paid a sum of Rs. 7.00 lacs to defendant No. 2 while purchasing th...
Nokia Corporation Through Its Authorised Signatory Vs. Director of Inc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Del)48; [2007]292ITR22(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of Finland and is engaged in the business of supplying advanced telecommunication systems and equipment for use in fixed and mobile phone networks. According to the Petitioner, it does not have any permanent establishment in India and, thereforee, being a tax resident of Finland and governed by the provisions of India-Finland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, the income derived by the Petitioner from supply of telecommunication equipments to Indian telecom operators qualifies as 'business profits' and no portion thereof is taxable in India. Accordingly, in respect of the assessment year 2003-04, the Petitioner filed a nil return of income.2. Unfortunately for the Petitioner, the Assessing Officer did not agree with it and, thereforee, assessed its income under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and raised a demand of Rs. 37.47 crores by way of tax and Rs. 14.05 crores by way of interest un...
Rajinder Kumar Madhukar Vs. Kusum Lata
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT432; II(2007)DMC236
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.5.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant's petition HMA No. 255 of 1996 seeking divorce from the Respondent on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. The parties were married on 12.12.1994. According to the appellant Respondent was creating problems soon after the marriage; she often used to run away from the matrimonial home and go away to Aligarh; the brother-in-law of the Respondent used to often visit the matrimonial home which was not liked by the appellant and he also underwent mental agony when the brother-in-law informed him that the appellant could not satisfy the Respondent. He suspected that the brother-in-law was having illicit relations with the respondent. It is alleged that the Respondent falsely told the appellant that she was attending marriage of her friend but later when he found that she had not gone there, he had s...
Mohinder Kumar Vs. Sushil Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ2374
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 22.12.87, deceased Satish Kumar, aged 21 years, died in a road accident involving bus No. HYE 1278. He was survived by his parents, 2 brothers and 2 sisters.2. Parents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 110-A read with Section 92-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 on account of death of the deceased in the said road accident.3. Vide award dated 13.7.1994, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in sum of Rs. 86,400 to the parents of the deceased.4. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal, parents of the deceased have filed the present appeal praying for enhancement of compensation.5. Unfortunately, father of the deceased died during the pendency of the present appeal. His legal heirs were brought on record.6. Since the only issue involved in the appeal relates to the quantum of compensation, I shall be noting such facts as are relevant for adjudication of the said issue.7. Deceased ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Shri Biju Patnaik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: [2008]298ITR91(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. It is rather unfortunate that this petition has remained pending admission for the last more than 20 years. Fortunately, however, the Registry of this Court has woken up and is now in the process of taking stock of the situation and radically improving its functioning.2. The Revenue has filed this petition under Section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 seeking reference of the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), deleting the addition of Rs. 93,50,584/- representing the value of the assets claimed to be owned by 'Kalinga Foundation Trust', which was found by the Wealth Tax Officer to be not genuine and only a benami concern of the assessed? 3. The issue raised is whether Kalinga Foundation Trust was a genuine Trust or was only a benami concern of the assessed.4. The Commissioner of Wealt...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1850
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The 2 captioned appeals arise out of the same accident which took place on 3.3.1979. The insurance company prays that its liability should be held to be limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. Claimants pray that compensation be enhanced.2. As a result of the accident, Prakaram Chand aged 34 years received fatal injuries. He died. He left behind a wife, 4 minor children and mother. His mother died during the pendency of the claim petition.3. After discussing the evidence on record pertaining to the accident and holding the driver of the offending vehicle guilty of rash and negligent driving, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,72,800/- to the claimants. The owner, driver and the insurance company have been held liable to pay under the award.4. Vide FAO No. 209/1994, insurance company has challenged the award in so far it determines that insurance company is liable to satisfy the award.5. A defense was raised by the insurance company that policy in question w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deepak Seth,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: [2008]297ITR397(Delhi)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated August 26, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' in IT(SS)A Nos. 136-138/Delhi/2000 relevant for the block period April 1,1987, to November 6, 1997.2. It appears that a search operation under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted at the residential and business premises of the assessed on November 6,1997. During the search, cash vouchers showing requirement of material, etc., in connection with the construction of a farm house in Rajokari were seized. As per the documents available, the total expenditure on construction of the farm house as on the date of the search amounted to Rs. 4.88 crores. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 3.31 crores was booked in the accounts during the date of search. The balance amount of Rs. 1.56 crores represented the amount for which cash vouchers were found during the search.3. Out of the balance amount of Rs. 1.56 crores, the assessed (Deepak Seth) surrendered an am...
Ge Capital Services India Vs. G. Neuromed Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ74
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this application, filed by defendant Nos. 1 & 2 under Order 37 Rule 3 CPC, they seek leave to defend the present summary suit filed under Order 37 of CPC by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 88,23,687/- from the defendants.2. Defendant No. 1 is a private limited company of which defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the directors. Defendant No. 1 obtained a loan of Rs. 64,22,000/- from the plaintiff upon execution of various documents being : (1) an Equipment Master Security and Loan Agreement dated 17.6.1998 executed by defendant No. 2 in his capacity as the managing director of defendant No. 1 company; (for short the Loan Agreement') (2) Demand Promissory Notes executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 on the same date, i.e., 17th June, 1998 in favor of the plaintiff unconditionally promising to pay the principal amount of Rs. 64,22,000/- with interest thereon @ 23% per annum; (3) Individual guarantees executed by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 on 17th June, 1998 guaranteeing the repayment ...
Yashpal Madan and ors. Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT58; 2007(96)DRJ614
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These 16 petitions raise common issues, thereforee, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The pleadings are complete in Yashpal Madan and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. WP (C) 10048-52/2004. thereforee, the matters have been heard on the basis of the pleadings of this petition.2. The petitioners had to shut down their industrial undertakings/units which were being run in Delhi in non-conforming areas/residential areas pursuant to orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India : AIR1996SC2231 . The Supreme Court had directed the shutting down of industries in the non-conforming/residential areas and had also directed that the same be relocated in industrial areas. The DSIDC was made responsible for devising a scheme for relocation of such non-conforming industries/undertakings which were running prior to 1996. The relocation scheme was introduced in 1996 itself. Thereafter, the respondents invited application...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »