Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Amit Dhawan Vs. D. Paul’s Travel and Tours and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Aforesaid two appeals arise from the order dated 20.7.2007, passed by the District Forum. One is filed by the complainant Mr. Amit Dhawan and another is filed by the OP-D. Pauls Travel and Tours. For convenience the appellant-Amit Dhawan will be referred as Complainant and appellant-D. Pauls Travel and Tours will be referred as opposite party. 2. On account of having not provided the transport from Changi Airport at Singapore to the hotel booked by the complainant and for having not provided assured accommodation at the first instance the opposite party has been vide impugned order dated 20th July, 2007 passed by the District Forum directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation. 3. Opposite party has challenged the impugned order on the ground that there was no deficiency in service on its part and rather on the representation of the complainant he was shifted to Hotel Peninsula Excelsior on the undertaking that...

A.M. Rao Vs. Sanjay Singh and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Appellant is a landlord of the premises given on rent to respondent-1 Sanjay Singh. Premises consists of 1st floor and 3rd floor. On the allegation that the appellant disconnected the supply, the respondent applied to the BSES for exercitation of new meter and deposited the amount for installation of connection. Besides this connection at 3rd floor he also applied for NX connection at 1st floor. However, respondent-2 declined to sanction the electricity connection. Consequently he filed the instant complaint before the District Forum. 2. Vide impugned order dated 22.8.2005, the District Forum directed the respondent-2 to install and energise connection No. 501-134335/DL within a period of 30 days and pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation. Since the appellant has a grievance against the order being the landlord of the premises, he has preferred this appeal. 3. In view of the allegations of the respondent-1 that the e...

Archna Vs. Tarun Kumar Vohra (Dr.)

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. It appears to be a very hard and pathetic case. In spite of having been subjected to ultra sound examination the respondent doctor is alleged to have not detected congenital anomaly in the limb of the unborn child and as a result the appellant-woman gave birth to a male child whose left upper limb of forearm was missing. The child is now a handicapped child and has to live for whole of life without the forearm. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lacs. 2. However, vide impugned order dated 12th September, 2005, passed by the District Forum, the complaint was dismissed on the ground that anomaly of limbs is congenital anomaly and opinion of Diwan Chand Satya Pal Aggarwal Imaging Research Centre in respect of some other person that the anomalies in relation to foetal heart and limbs are extremely difficult to detect due to constantly changing position of foetus and overlappi...

Neeraja Vs. Castrol India Limited and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On having rejected the request of the appellant for transfer of the share certificates because of difference in the signatures in the transfer form and signatures in the records of the respondent-company, the appellant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation at the price difference of shares per share with interest. 2. Vide impugned order dated 7.3.2005 the complaint was dismissed by absolving the respondent-company from the charge of deficiency in service. 3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. Case of the appellant, in brief, is that she was a holder of 8476 equity shares under folio number N 00535 of respondent No. 1 company. She received a letter of offer in September 2001 from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their respective capacities as Registrar and Manager to the offer for the purchase of shares. The appellant submitted on 23.10.2001 at legal office of the respondent No. 2 the form of acc...

Gold Leaf Capital Corpn. India Vs. Jcit, Spl. Range-37

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. With this order, we shall dispose off the appeal filed by the assessee and Cross Objection filed by the revenue arising from the order of CIT (A), New Delhi, passed in Appeal No. 168/2001-02 dated 20.3.2002 for the sake of convenience.2. In its appeal, the assessee has taken nine grounds. The Ground Nos.1 to 8 of the appeal relate to the issue of receipt of share application money amounting to Rs. 1,79,50,000/- pending allotment being treated as unexplained under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground No. 9 relates to the issue of charging of interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned AR for the assessee conceded before us that charging of interest Under Section 234B and 234C is consequential in nature and shall be reworked according to the appellate order passed by the Tribunal. Whereas, in Cross Objection, the Revenue has raised following ground: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in de...

Energy Infrastructure (India) Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals, filed by the assessee are directed against two separate orders of CIT (A) dated 28.12.2004 for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03. As common issue is involved, these appeals are being disposed off by a single consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The main grievance of the assessee in these appeals is non-acceptance of an application filed Under Section 154 contending therein that income earned by the assessee by way of interest on lien money kept for the purpose of bank guarantee during the period of pre-commencement of business which was wrongly shown as income should be reduced from returned and assessed income. The amount of relief claimed in this regard is Rs. 6,01,270/- for Assessment year 2001-02 and Rs. 16,07,188/- for Assessment year 2002-03. Alternatively, it has also been claimed that in case the interest is not reduced from the returned/assessed income, then it should be set off or adjusted against the interest expenditure of Rs. 62,35,207/- an...

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Saraya Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT625

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 8th June, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi in ITA No. 1886/Del/2003 relevant for the assessment year 1990-91.2. The grievance of the Revenue relates to the deletion of penalty by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act).3. The assessed claimed depreciation on a biogas plant and that was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the plant had not started giving the end product, that is, biogas during the relevant previous year but only from the subsequent accounting year. According to the Assessing Officer, by claiming depreciation in the assessment year 1990-91, the assessed had furnished inaccurate particulars for reducing its tax liability and was, thereforee, liable to be penalized.4. The Commissi...

Gulshan Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ661

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th September, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.2. The appellant herein alleged that he was in possession of the land bearing khasra No. 436 (4-16), 446 (4-16) and 445 (4016), situated in the revenue estate of Village Bhalaswa Jahangirpur, Delhi to the extent of one and half share in the said khasra numbers. The said land was notified for acquisition on 15th September, 2000. Declaration under Sections 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 17th April, 2001 and the award was made on 12th April, 2002.3. In July 2002, the appellant along with his brother Shri Yogender filed an application for compensation. On reference from the Land Acquisition Collector for adjudication, the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi by order dated 22nd March 2003, held that, though it is admitted fact that Gaon...

Sh. Sarabjit Singh Anand and ors. Vs. Sh. Manjit Singh Anand and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ377

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of the above application filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The Plaintiff has filed the suit seeking the relief of partition of the suit property and for a decree of injunction against defendant No. 1 restraining the said defendant from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property.2. The broad facts which have been pleaded in the plaint or can be otherwise culled out from the documents filed are that the Plaintiffs (excluding Plaintiff No. 3) and the defendants are all sons and daughters of Late S. Sucha Singh Anand, albeit, from different wives. Plaintiff No. 3 is the third wife of Late S. Sucha Singh Anand. Plaintiff No. 1 and 2 and defendants No. 2 and 5 are born from Plaintiff No. 3. Defendant No. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are the children of the second wife of Late S. Sucha Singh Anand. There were no issues from the first wife.3. Late S....

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ex. Sqn. Ldr. R. Sood

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ52

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23rd September, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed with a further direction that the respondent should be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.2. While the respondent was working in Jaiselmer and was camping in GREF premises, an incident took place on 29th March, 1987, when one Mohinder Singh of 95 RCC (GREF), while reversing his vehicle, accidentally uprooted one of the pegs holding the wires of P-22 Radar Antena. It resulted in arguments between him and the Air Force personnel. The respondent herein picked up Mohinder Singh in service jeep and asked some personnel to accompany him. The said jeep left the camp at 11.30 p.m. so as to leave Mohinder Singh at a BSF post on Miyajalar Road 25 kms away. However, instead of stopping at BSF post, he drove past the BSF post by 5 to 6 kms and after getting down from the jeep, the responden...