Delhi Court May 2007 Judgments

Abdul Salam Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ193

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 610 of 2006 and 956 of 2006 seek to challenge the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 51 of 2006 arising out of F.I.R. No. 426 of 1999, registered at Police Station Nangloi, whereby the learned judge vide his judgment and order dated 03.03.2006 has held the appellants, namely, Abdul Salam and Mahavir, guilty for the offence under Section 393/34 IPC and under Section 302/34 IPC. He has also held the appellant Abdul Salam guilty under Section 398 IPC and further held the appellant, Mahavir, guilty under Section 323 IPC. Further by his order dated 7.3.2006, has sentenced the appellants, namely Abdul Salam and Mahavir to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year. As regards offence under Section 393/34 IPC, he has sentenced both the appellants to ...

Bhoj Raj, Amar Singh S/O Shri Puran Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA, applicants impugn action of respondent No. 1 whereby they have not issued a circular/instruction in respect of verification of services of the parcel porters through the concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner, Lucknow for absorption in Railway Department by way of extending them the benefit of Hon'ble Supreme Court in rem in the case of A.I. Railway Parcel and Goods Porters Union v. Union of India and Ors.2. Facts, in brief, are that all three applicants were engaged in year 1994 and are presently working as Parcel Porters at West Central Railway Station Hindaun City in Kota Division. The work which applicants perform includes loading and unloading of luggage, parcels and goods from the railway vans and wagons and carrying the luggage and parcel to the railway vans and wagons from the parcel booking offices and goods sheds etc.3. During the year 1997-98 a number of OAs were filed by Parcel Porters working in the Bikaner and other divisions and all these OAs w...

Mrs. Ranjana Katyal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)113TTJ(Delhi)479

1. The assessee in this appeal is the late S.K. Katyal, who passed away on 1st Sept., 2002. The assessment for the previous year ended on 31st March, 2002 has been framed on his wife Smt. Ranjana Katyal. The assessee filed a return declaring property income, salary from a partnership firm, profit on the sale of shares and income from other sources. While completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, the AO noticed that the assessee had received two gifts of Rs. 2,50,000 each from Sudhir Duggal and Satish Kumar Dhingra. In order to verify the genuineness of the donors, the AO issued summons under Section 131 of the Act. The summons were served on Satish Kumar Dhingra, but he did not appear before the AO. The summons issued to Sudhir Duggal could not be served as he was not available at the given addresses. The AO therefore called upon the assessee to produce these persons, but the assessee could not do so. The AO therefore, took the view that the assessee failed to esta...

Escorts Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of CIT(Appeals) dated 8-2-2003, 17-2-2003 and 8-2-2005 for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2001-02, in the matter of order passed under Sections 154/143(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised: 1. That the impugned appellate order dated 8-2-2003 (sic) passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law and wrong on facts. 2. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in holding that the appellant has claimed credit for TDS for the first time by filing application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act dated 15-5-2004 and before that no claim for credit for TDS has been made at any point of time. 3. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in not allowing credit for tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 2,18,15,062 attributabl...

Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit, Range-1

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These two appeals filed by the assessee against the respective orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad, passed in Appeal Nos.61/2003-04/GZB and 88/2004-05/GZB dated 4-1-2005 were heard together and are being disposed of by this single order for the sake of convenience as many issues involved therein are identical.2. In assessment year 2000-01, the assessee has taken following effective grounds: 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 12,361 being club subscription and club expenses treating these to be in the nature of non-business expenditure ignoring the fact that these expenses are incidental to the business activities of the company and are, therefore, covered under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. (a) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in rejecting the claim of Rs. 1,38,23,156 being the interest on capital borrowed for acquiring the fixed asse...

Prid Foramer S.A. Vs. Asstt Cit, Special Range

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21-2-2003 for the assessment year1998-99, in the matter of order passed under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein following eight grounds of appeal have been raised: 1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law by upholding the order ofthe assessing officer that the assessee is "assessee in default" undersection 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for non-deduction of taxes ofemployees amounting to Rs. 47,60,458 in spite of the fact that no tax waspayable on the remuneration of expatriates who fulfilled all the conditionsof exemption in terms of article XIV(2) of the Double Tax AvoidanceAgreement (DTAA) with France. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law by committing grave juridical impropriety lapse by not following and applying the binding decision of Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in assessees own case of Jean Souleer & Others for the assessment ...

Dr. Homeshwar Tongbram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 141(2007)DLT371

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 31st May, 2004 and in particular the review order dated 12th July, 2004. The facts of the case eloquently speak about the callous attitude of the respondents in dealing with the aspirations of the Scheduled Tribe candidate that too belonging to the North-East State of Manipur. 2. The petitioner's case was as follows:(a) On 21st September, 1951, the Government of Manipur had issued a notification and recognized 26 Tribes as Scheduled Tribes. On 7th August, 1993, the Competent Authority i.e. the Executive Magistrate after making due enquiries came to the conclusion that the petitioner belonged to Smite Scheduled Tribunal Community and accordingly issued a certificate dated 7th August, 1993 in favor of the petitioner. (b) Pursuant to the aforesaid certificate issued by the Competent Authority to the petitioner, the petitioner appeared in interview for selection to the post of Surgeon ...

Lg Electronics Ltd. Vs. Usha (India) Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi231; [2008]144CompCas504(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question touching the extent and reach of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (in short 'the SICA'), namely, whether the security deposit given by the tenant to the company (which is before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction/Appellant Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction) is covered by Section 22 of the SICA and the tenant is precluded from filing the suit/proceedings or the execution petition to recover back this security amount which was given as deposit at the time of taking the company's premises on rent? We may first set down the facts surrounding this question which has arisen for consideration.2. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the decree holder') entered into a lease agreement with the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the JD No. 1) in respect of premises bearing No. A-42, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, a...

Engineering and Industrial Corp. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 141(2007)DLT222; 2007(97)DRJ623

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand raised for damages for unauthorized construction in terms of the letter dated 15.03.2005 issued by the Land and Development Officer. The petitioner had applied for conversion of property No. 8/29, Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi from leasehold to freehold under the conversion policy notified by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, Land and Development Office in 2003. The respondent L&DO; is agreeable to convert the property from leasehold to freehold but on the condition that the petitioner pays damages for unauthorized construction from 07.08.1982 to 14.07.2005, the total of which amounts to roughly Rs. 88,91,932/-. The said letter dated 15.03.2005 also has reference to nominal ground rent and 10% interest on the ground rent from 15.07.1982 till date. The petitioner is agreeable to pay the same and does not dispute these payments. The only dispute is with regard to dam...

izuk Chemical Works Vs. Babu Ram Dharam Prakash

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)8; 2007(35)PTC28(Del)

Gita Mittal, J.1. By this judgment, I propose to decide I.A. No. 2516/2006 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the suit filed by it against the defendant seeking the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from infringement of its registered trademark and copyright and also from passing off its goods as those having an association with the goods of the plaintiff and delivery up of offending material as well as rendition of accounts. 2. The suit is premised on the averments that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use, cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparation as well as soap, perfumery, essential oil, cosmetics, hair dyes and dentifrices since the year 1917. The plaintiff is since conducting its business under the trademark 'MOONSTAR' and has adopted a device of a star in the lap of the moon. The plaintiff has been usin...