Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

The Motor and General Finance Ltd. Vs. Singh Construction Co. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR505(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The respondent No. 1 has filed objections in respect of the Award dated 03.09.1996 passed by the sole arbitrator. The Award is a non-speaking Award. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 (Singh Construction Company) firstly contended that this matter cannot be proceeded with because the respondent No. 2 died during the pendency of these proceedings. The learned Counsel for the claimant (Motor & General Finance Ltd.) immediately stated that the Award made by the learned arbitrator in favor of the claimant was made against the respondents coextensively and they were jointly and severely liable. She also stated that the respondent No. 2 was the guarantor and she does not propose to proceed any further against the legal representatives / heirs of the said respondent No. 2. In these circumstances the first point raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 would be of no consequence.2. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 then raised the iss...

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]311ITR299(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. In this reference relevant for the assessment year 1980-81, the following three questions of law have been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act'], by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ['Tribunal'] for our opinion:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that for disallowance under Section 40A(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961:a) Taxable part of the House rent allowance paid to the employees of the assessed be treated as salary and not the total HRA paid in cash.b) Conveyance allowance which is not exempt under Section 10(14) of the I.T. Act would only form part of the salary and not the total conveyance allowance.c) Car perquisite should not be a determined in accordance with Rule 3 of the I.T. Rules, 1962.2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the following expenses do not qualify for weighted deduction unde...

Seema Bhatia Vs. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR552(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A Dealer Sales Agreement ('DSA' for short) was entered into on 1.11.1996 between Escorts Yamaha Motors Limited (claim to be the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant) and the plaintiff for sale and service of Escorts Yamaha Motors Limited products. The agreement was operated and apparently some disputes arose between the parties inasmuch as the plaintiff owed amounts to Escorts Yahama Motors Limited.2. On 8.12.2000, an agreement/Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU' for short)was entered into by exchange of letters. The matter did not get resolved even thereafter with the result that a legal notice was served by the plaintiff on the defendant dated 2.8.2004 pointing out the alleged failures of the defendant in complying with the terms of the MOU dated 8.12.2000. In view of these disputes, the defendant invoked the arbitration clause in the DSA dated 1.11.1996 being Clause 'L', which is as under:L. ARBITRATION: 1. The PARTIES agree that any dispute arising out o...

Golden Insulation and Engg. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)466; [2008]305ITR427(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. Relevant to the Assessment Year 1979-80, the following question has been referred for our opinion by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ['Tribunal'] under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act']:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the change in the method of valuation adopted by the assessed was neither for any valid reasons nor bona fide and in consequentially sustaining an addition of Rs. 51,136/- to the total income2. Till the assessment year 1978-79, the assessed was valuing its closing stock at 'estimated realisable value' or at market value of the stocks. Even on 31st March, 1978, the assessed had valued its closing stock at the market value. The opening stock was again valued on 1st April, 1978 at the market value.3. The assessed initially filed its return for the year ending 31st March, 1979 valuing the closing stock at the market value. Subsequently, the assessed file...

Nakodar Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC170

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby demand was confirmed under Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules in respect of old and used capital goods cleared by the appellants. The contention of appellant is that the capital goods i.e. old brass tubes after long use, were cleared as a scrap without payment of duty as the appellant has not availed credit in respect of these brass tubes. The contention is that the provision of Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 is applicable in case of input/capital goods were removed as such. The contention is that when inputs and capital goods are removed as such, the assessee has to reverse the credit. In the present case, the brass tubes were cleared as scrap after long use, therefore, it cannot be said that capital goods are cleared as such. The contention is also that there was no provision under the Cenvat Credit Rules during the period in dispute from 2001 to 2003 in...

H.C. Durgesh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Durgesh Kumar, the applicant herein, was appointed as Constable in Delhi Police on 3.10.1988 and was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 10.6.1990. He has since already undergone training essentially required for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (in short, ASI) and was awaiting promotion to the said rank when pursuant to show cause notice dated 22.2.2006, vide order dated 16.6.2006 he has been reverted to the post of Constable. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, reversion of the applicant to the post of Constable after 16 years of his promotion to the post of Head Constable, awaiting promotion to the next higher post of ASI is justified, is the question. In order to determine the controversy, it would be necessary to give the backdrop of the events culminating into filing of the present Application.2. Applicant was appointed as Constable on 3.10.1980 as an OBC candidate. The positive case of the applicant is that while submitting the applicati...

Supervisors Welfare Association Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Supervisors Welfare Association, joined by Smt. Arun Lata Pathak, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 taking exception to filling up the posts of Child Development Project Officer (hereinafter to be referred as CDPO) by resorting to direct recruitment to the post even though on contractual basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 12,000/- for a period of six months, vide advertisement dated 17.8.2007 (Annexure A-1). It is the case of the applicants that no direct recruitment to the post under contention can be made as that would negate the right of the members of the Association for promotion. The method of resorting to direct recruitment in preference to promotion is stated to be against the statutory rules and thus, illegal and arbitrary. The applicants would also seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to amend the recruitment rules for the post of CDPO suitably and consider the case of the applicant...

Bharat Nidhi Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]141CompCas817(Delhi); [2008]84SCL64(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. A short point arises for consideration. Whether on the allegations made in the complaint an actionable cause has been disclosed2. Complaint has been filed under Section 205-A(8) of the Companies Act 1956 as it existed in the year 1988, the year in which the complaint was filed.3. Agreementof the allegation is as averred in para 3 of the complaint. The same reads as under:3. Though the default of the Provisions of Section 205-A came to the notice during the course of inspection under Section 209-A by an officer of the Company Law Board, Department of Company Affairs. It was observed during the course of inspection that the company had declared dividend but did not transfer the amount of dividend to Special Dividend Account in respect of those dividends/warrants which had been posted within the stipulated time i.e. 42 days but had not been encased due to some reason or the other. Thus by not transferring the amount pertaining to such dividends/warrants to a specia...

Qrg Enterprises and anr. Vs. Surendra Electricals and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ499; LC2007(3)368

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the Order of the learned Single Judge passed on 26.4.2005 whereby the application of the Plaintiffs'/Appellants for interim relief had been rejected. The Suit had been filed by the Appellants seeking a Decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using the word or name 'Havell's' as its trade mark or even as part of its corporate name. The learned Single Judge has recorded that the Defendants admit the proprietary rights of the Plaintiffs over 'Havell's' so far as the trade mark is concerned, but dispute the Plaintiffs' claim for exclusive use of 'Havell's' as part of the corporate name also. After taking note of the pleadings of the parties and the undisputed documents, the learned Single Judge noted that Havell's Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 6) was in existence since 1956, fourteen years prior to when Haveli Ram Gandhi executed the Assignment Deed dated 9.10.1971 relied upon by the Plaintiffs. At that point of time Ha...

Brokers and Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Om Prakash Bhola and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi25; 2007(98)DRJ315

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed on behalf of the defendant No. 1 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit, from the statements in the plaint itself, appears to be barred by provisions of Section 14(1) (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The learned Counsel for the defendant No. 1 / applicant drew my attention to the averments made in the plaint which essentially indicate that the plaint relies upon the agreement dated 01.07.2004 by and between the parties. It is an agreement to sell and the relevant clause pointed out by the learned Counsel for the defendant No. 1 reads as under:That in the most unlikely event the vendor and the confirming party are unable to make the title of the said property marketable by getting the encumbrances mentioned herein above cleared due to genuine and absolutely unavoidable reasons, to the satisfaction of the vendee, ...