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.
Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Jamia Cooperative Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Delhi61
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. By this judgment and order, we propose to dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal, which is filed against the impugned judgment and order passed in the writ petition (Civil) No. 3527/2006.2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the appellant herein in respect of the demand letters issued by the respondent -bank. In one of the said demands dated 31st May, 2005, the bank has alleged non-payment of the bank dues amounting to Rs. 87,740/-. The second demand letter was issued by the bank on 31st May, 2005 alleging non-payment of the bank dues amounting to Rs. 1,01,911/-. In the aforesaid writ petition, which was filed by the appellant, there was a prayer that the respondent was under hardship and, thereforee, a direction should be issued to the respondent to accept the payment of dues in Installments.3. The learned Single Judge considered the various prayers raised by the appellant herein as the writ petitioner and thereafter passed the impugned order recording re...
Vinod Kumar Jolly Vs. Sunita Jolly and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: I(2008)DMC371; 2007(97)DRJ205
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Smt. Sunita Jolly was married to Shri Vinod Kumar Jolly on 13.4.1992. It was a second marriage for both of them as they had divorced their respective first spouses. One child Master Karan Jolly was born out of this wedlock who is living with Smt. Sunita Jolly. Unfortunately for both husband and wife this marriage was also not successful. Both are accusing each other for turmoil in their matrimonial life. According to Smt. Sunita Jolly she was forced to leave her matrimonial home in three clothes and meagre articles on 10.9.1992 when she was in advanced stage of pregnancy. She gave birth to Master Karan Jolly thereafter in her father's house. Shri Vinod Kumar Jolly accused his wife for matrimonial discord and filed a divorce petition against Smt. Sunita Jolly on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The said divorce petition is allowed and divorce granted to him. Appeal is pending against the decree of divorce passed by learned ADJ in this High Court being FAO No. 395/96...
Anil Kumar Marwah Vs. Deepak Sunder and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ443
A.K. Sikri, J.1. In order to make thing simple and avoid any confusion while taking note of the facts of this case, we propose to give the same description to the parties as appeared in the suit.2. The plaintiff (the respondent No. 1 herein) filed two suits which were primarily against the defendant No. 1 (the appellant herein). One suit was for possession and mesne profits and prayer made in the other suit was for permanent injunction. The suits related to room Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the First Floor of House No. J-125, Saket, New Delhi. The case of the plaintiff was that Sh. P.R. Mittal/defendant No. 2 was the owner of the suit property. He let out the property to his son Sh. Surender Kumar who was operating a Gust House.under the name and style 'Saket Gust House'. Sh. Surender Kumar died on 4.5.1992 leaving behind his legal heirs who were impleaded as the defendant Nos. 3, 4 & 5. In this Gust House, the defendant No. 1 was inducted as a lodger in room Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 on the First F...
Om Prakash Vs. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ485
Hima Kohli, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying inter alia for directions to the respondents to treat the petitioner as General Manager w.e.f. 1.1.1996, the purported date when the petitioner was entitled to be promoted, or from 17.9.1997 when vacancies arose but the petitioner was not considered and the petitioner claims that he ought to be promoted as General Manager from the date from which his juniors were promoted by the respondents.2. Admittedly, the petitioner retired on 28th February, 2007 and decided to initiate the present writ proceedings after a long period of over of 10 years had elapsed from the date from which he claims entitled to be promoted as General Manager. It is a settled position of law especially with regard to service jurisprudence that state claims should not be entertained by the courts, particularly in matters relating to promotions and seniority since any inference by the courts in such matters after considerable delay would only...
Yad Ram Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR478]
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 31st August, 2005 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner on a complaint dated 12th March, 2005 filed by the petitioner/workman, whereunder it was held that the concerned workmen were not the employees of M/s. Taj Air Caterers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the management') but, on the contrary, wore employees of various contractors and that the said workmen did not fall within the purview of Item 10 of the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore no action could be initiated on the said complaint as the same was not maintainable before the conciliation officer.Facts leading up to the present petition are as follows. The petitioner and 87 other Utility workers had filed a complaint against the officers of the management for indulging in unfair labour practice in conti...
Yad Ram Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ607
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 31st August, 2005 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner on a complaint dated 12th March, 2005 filed by the petitioner/workman, whereunder it was held that the concerned workmen were not the employees of M/s. Taj Air Caterers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the management') but, on the contrary, were employees of various contractors and that the said workmen did not fall within the purview of Item 10 of the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore no action could be initiated on the said complaint as the same was not maintainable before the conciliation officer.2. Facts leading up to the present petition are as follows. The petitioner and 87 other utility workers had filed a complaint against the officers of the management for indulging in unfair labour practice in co...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Guardian Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT644; [2008]306ITR320(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 30th May, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F' in I.T. Appeals No. 4118 and 4119 (Del) of 2001 relevant for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96.2. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), we are concerned only with the assessment year 1994-95.3. The question that has arisen for our consideration is whether the assessed is entitled to depreciation on account of capitalization of engineering service fees paid to a foreign company or whether the assessed is entitled to a deduction under Section 35AB of the Act. According to the Tribunal, the assessed is entitled to depreciation on account of capitalization of engineering service fees and it is this conclusion that has been disputed by the Revenue.4. The broad facts of the case are that the assessed set up a float glass plant in Gujarat on the basis of technical know-how obtained from Guardian Industries Corpora...
Glaxo Smithkline Asia P. Ltd. Vs. Assessing Authority, Sepcial Zone Tr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT353; LC2007(3)94; 2007[8]STR450
Madan B. Lokur, J.Rule D.B.CM No. 8209/20061. The Petitioner in this writ petition had obtained a non trademark Horlicks could give similar licenses to others and also to use the trademark itself. Even the Petitioner could exclusive license to use various Horlicks trademarks for a variety of goods. The fact that a non-exclusive license was granted, itself postulates that the owner of the sub-license its non-exclusive right. Accordingly, it appears that the Petitioner gave a non-exclusive license to SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Limited.2. According to the Revenue, the grant of a license to SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Limited amounts to a transfer of a right to use goods and is, thereforee, taxable under the Delhi Sales Tax on Right to Use Goods Act, 2002.3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there is in fact no transfer of the right to use any goods and this submission has been made without prejudice to his contention that a trademark is not ...
Dev Sareen Vs. D.C.M. Financial Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC291
ORDERS. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceedings filed by the respondent on allegations of commission of offence under Sections 138/141, Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The respondent/complainant initiated the proceedings on 11.1.1999 against M/s. International Agro and Allied and Ors. It was alleged in the complaint that the present petitioner, accused No. 4 along with others was a director in charge of the affairs of the company. According to the complaint, a cheque was issued in favor of the complainant which upon presentation was not honoured. Notice was issued and thereafter a complaint was filed on 11.1.1999. It is contended that the averments in the complaint, particularly para 13 do not measure up to the standard prescribed to attract vicarious liability as provided for under Section 141, so far as the directors are concerned. The said averment reads as follows:That the accused No. 1 is a company/firm and the accused Nos. 2 to 9 were in-charge and...
BadruddIn Bashar Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT448; 2007(96)DRJ526
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2502 of 2006 seeks to challenge the order of detention dated 2.5.2006 bearing No. F. No. 673/14/2005-CUS.VIII, issued by Sh. R.K. Gupta, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) who was satisfied with respect to the person named as Sadruddin Basar Khan, S/o Shri Basar Lal Khan, R/o Parsik Hill, Sector 26, Plot No. 93, Navi Mumbai, that with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods as well as dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods in future, it was necessary in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) to direct that the said Sadruddin Basar Khan be detained and kept in custody in the Mumbai Central Prison, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »