Delhi Court September 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.
Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj S/O Late Ngar Mal Bajaj Vs. Brahm Prakash Sharma ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ480
V.B. Gupta, J.1. By way of present petition, filed under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner is seeking quashing of complaint case, pending in the court of Magistrate, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against seven accused persons and the present petitioner is one of the accused in that complaint. It has been alleged in the complaint that accused no. 2 to 7 have been Directors of accused no. 1 and they have been in-charge and were responsible to the accused no. 1 company for the conduct of the business of the company. Towards the part payment of the dues of the respondent/complainant, the accused had issued cheque and when the respondent/complainant presented the cheque for encashment, the same was returned unpaid with the remarks 'exceeds arrangement'. Thereafter the legal notice was served by the respondent/complainant.3. In the present petition, it has been alleged b...
K.P.G. Nair Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC471
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner has been imp leaded as accused No. 4 in the complaint filed by respondent No. 2. As accused No. 4, in the memo of parties he is described as under:Mr. K.P.G. Nair, Executive2. Material allegations against the petitioner and other living human beings imp leaded as co-accused, i.e. accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are in para 10 of the complaint. Following is Page 1 of 4 averred:10. That the Accused No. 1 is the company and accused Nos.2 to 5 are its Principal Officer and have committed an offence punishable under Section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act as amended, 1988.3. The averments in the complaint fall short of actionable averments in view of the law laid down as per the following judgments:1. K.P.G. Nair v. Jindal Menthol India Ltd. JT 2000 (Suppl.) SC 5192. Katta Sujatha (Smt.) v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Anr. : (2002)7SCC655 3. Monaben Ketanbhai Shah and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 2004 (3) JCC 158 (NI) 4. S.M.S. Pharmaceutic...
Vaish Brothers Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR26(Delhi)
Anil Kumar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, by Vaish Brothers & Company for filing the award dated 19th January, 1993 and to make the said award rule of the court and pass a decree in terms thereof and the objections filed by Union of India under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the said award.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm and Mr.C.P.Vaish is a partner of the petitioner firm who contended that he is competent to sign, verify and file the petition being conversant with the facts of the case. The petitioner had entered into a contract with respondent No. 1, Union of India, for the execution of work of construction of building No. 6 at project site Milaram near Shankarapally bearing contract No.CE(P)FY/MDK/20 of 85-86 which agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. During the execution of the work and after conclusion of the work by the petitioner, the dispute...
P.S. Khanna Vs. Gift Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: [2008]305ITR415(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The assessed is aggrieved by an order dated 26th August, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' in GTA No. 10/DEL/1999 relevant for the assessment year 1993-94.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration -Whether the valuation report dated 13th September, 1995 obtained under Section 15(6) of the Gift Tax Act, 1957 when no proceedings were pending for the assessment year 1993-94 in relation to a sale of property that took place on 6th March, 1992 (registered on 4th November, 1992) could constitute material to record a belief in terms of Section 16(1) of the Act that a deemed gift of Rs. 68,31,732/- has escaped assessment?3. Filing of paper books is dispensed with.4. The assessed had entered into a sale transaction for a plot of land measuring 2.56 acres along with boundary wall for a consideration of Rs. 9.59 lacs by an agreement to sell execut...
Srimati Afsana W/O Sri Haroon Vs. State of Delhi Through Its Chief Sec ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ698
V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against impugned order dated 9th March, 2007 passed by Sh.Sanjay Sharma, Addl.Session Judge, Delhi.2. Vide impugned order, the learned Addl.Judge has held that this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the present case and the same lie only with the courts of District Gaziabad, U.P.3. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is illegal and against the law as the same has been passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge without looking into the material on record. The case was fixed for arguments on charge and the court was bound to hear arguments on charge and further the court has ignored the provisions of Section 178 Cr.P.C. The court in Delhi has got jurisdiction to try this case as the demand of dowry was made at the petitioner's father's residence in Delhi also and only the Supreme Court has got the jurisdiction to transfer the case ...
Laxmi Kant Vijayvargiya Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ53; 2008(2)SLJ360(Delhi)
Hima Kohli, J.1. The respondent Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) raised a preliminary objection in its counter affidavit with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition in this Court on the ground that the entire cause of action has arisen in Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and thereforee this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the petition. By this order, the court proposes to decide the preliminary objection raised by the respondent with respect to the maintainability of the writ petition in this Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking inter alias issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent directing it to promote him from grade E3 to E4 w.e.f. 25th June, 2005 on the basis of reservation provided under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter refer...
Dhan Singh Karki Vs. Bureau of Indian Standards Through Its Director G ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR547]; (2008)ILLJ327Del; 2008(2)SLJ495(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28th August, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. 2. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the respondent-Bureau of Indian Standards dismissing the appellant from service after he was found guilty of the charges leveled against him. Consequent to a vigilance inquiry initiated and conducted and on submission of the report, a memorandum of charge was issued to the appellant. The allegation made was that while functioning as Assistant in the bids Central Laboratory, Sahibabad, the appellant had accepted a bribe of Rs.5,000/- in order to clear a sample. Some other allegations were also made. The Inquiry Officer appointed in the said departmental inquiry against the appellant submitted his report on 14th July, 1998, finding the appellant guilty of the charges. On perusal of the said inquiry report, the Disciplinar...
Can Bank Mutual Fund Vs. Nuclear Power Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC330; 2007(98)DRJ464
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff is a trust constituted under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trusts Act') with the primary object of conducting the business of mutual fund by promoting the savings of small and individual investors through various schemes.2. It is stated that the plaintiffs were registered holders of 55,000 13 per cent secured bonds of Rs. 1000/- each, fully paid up, of the defendant company which were acquired by the plaintiff in December 1992. The said bonds were redeemable on 22.08.1997 and are stated to have been held under two schemes of the plaintiff being CANPREMIUM and CANSTAR. The details of the bonds are as under:S. Certificate Distinctive No. Quantity ValueNo. No.1 TND 0112 D5211001 To D5221000 10000 1,00,00,000/-2 TND 0200 D4961001 To D4971000 10000 1,00,00,000/-3 TND 0204 D4996001 To D5001000 5000 50,00,000/-4 TND 0205 D5001001 To D5006000 5000 50,00,000/-5 TND 0206 D5006001 To D5011000 5000 50,00,000/-6 TND 0115 D5241001...
Sanjay Thakur Vs. the State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1580; 2007(98)DRJ486
R.S. SODHI, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos.16 of 2003 and 191 of 2003 seek to challenge judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No.29 of 1999, arising out of F.I.R. No.245 of 1999, Police Station Parliament Street, whereby learned judge vide his judgment dated 9.8.2002 has held the appellants, namely, Sanjay Thakur and Sabu Lal, guilty for the offence punishable under Section 458 IPC read with Section 302 IPC. Further vide his order dated 20.8.2002, he has sentenced the appellants to undergo imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 458 IPC together with fine of Rs.5,000/- to each of the appellants and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 1 1/2 years. He also sentenced the appellants to imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further Simple Imprisonment for one year each. 2. Brief facts of the case as have been no...
Cit Vs. Noble and Hewitt (i) (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: [2008]305ITR324(Delhi)
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 17-11-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal'), Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi in ITA No. 2910/Delhi/2004 relevant for the assessment year 1999-2000.2. The assessed maintains a mercantile system of accounting. It had collected service tax during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question. Out of the service tax so collected the assessed had deposited part of the amount but an amount of Rs. 14.40 lakhs was not deposited by the assessed with the concerned authorities. The assessed did not claim any deduction in this regard nor did it debit the amount as an expenditure in the Profit & Loss Account. The assessing officer as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) ('Commissioner (Appeals)') nevertheless disallowed the amount and added it back to the income of the assessed.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the assessed had not followed the correct accounting procedure. If it h...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »