Delhi Court October 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Del)258; [2009]319ITR139(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In all these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), the following substantial questions of law have been framed:(a) Whether the payments made by the asses see to the MTNL/other companies for the services provided through interconnect/port/access/toll were liable for tax deduction at source in view of the provisions of Section 194J of the Act(b) Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in holding that the payment for use of services for MTNL/other companies via the interconnect/port/access/toll by the asses see would not fall within the purview of payments as provided for under Section 194J of the Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source2. The facts in all these appeals are similar. The respondents/asses sees in these appeals are companies engaged in the business of providing cellular telephone facilities to their subscribers. The asses sees/respondents had been granted licences by the Department of Tel...

Khem Chand and ors. Vs. M.C.D and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ697

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This common judgment shall dispose of the aforesaid two LPAs which arise out of two separate judgments dated 15.05.1998 passed by Dr. M.K. Sharma, J (as his lordship then was) dismissing Writ Petition (Civil) 1789/1991 filed by Khem Chand and others and Writ Petition (Civil) 4824/1993 filed by Khem Chand alone.2. Appellants in LPA No. 302/1998 had filed Writ Petition (Civil) 1789/1991 seeking directions for their promotion as Senior Pharmacist in respect of reserved vacancies for SC/ST candidates from the post of Junior Pharmacist in accordance with 40 point roster system, which writ petition was, however, dismissed by the learned Single Judge by way of the impugned judgment dated 15.05.1998 on the ground that the first three appellants were promoted to the post of Senior Pharmacist during the pendency of the writ petition as and when they became eligible for those posts while expressing hope that the other two appellants would also be selected when their turn wil...

Shekhar Goel Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1and 2. These appeals with identical facts are filed against following two adjudication orders as recorded below : (1) Appeal No. 228/06 and appeal No. 230/06 - against Adjudication Order No. SDE/SKP/III/12/2006, dated 4-4-2006 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing total penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs (Rs. 5 lakhs each) on Shekhar Goel (the individual appellant) for contravention of sections 8(1) 9(1)(a), 8(1) read with section 64(2) of FER Act, 1973 respectively and total penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rs. 5 lakhs + Rs. 5 lakhs) on M/s. American Express Bank Ltd. (the appellant bank) for contravention of sections 6(4) and 6(5) read with sections 73(3), 49 of FER Act, 1973 and also refer para 29B, 8(c) of ECM 1987 and section 9(1)(c) of FER Act, 1973 respectively besides imposing separate penalties on other co-noticees who are not parties in any of these appeals. (2) Appeal No. 531/05 against Adjudication Order No. Adj/142/DZ/ 2004/AD(SMB), dated 28-2-2005 passed by Assistant...

Dr. Ritu Rawat and anr. Vs. Tej Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT605; 2008(106)DRJ541

Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioners, Dr. Ritu Rawat, Medical Superintendent, Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals and Dr. Rajeev Puri, Consultant ENT seek quashing of complaint in case No. 495/1/2007 and orders dated 2nd March, 2007 and 17th March, 2007 passed in the said complaint case under Section 304/304A/34 IPC.2. The complainants are respondents No. 1 & 2, grandfather and mother of Late Aditya Pal who was suffering from Recurrent Laryngeal Papillomatosis. He was undergoing treatment at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital since November, 2004 and he underwent multiple laserisation of his papillomata on 25th November, 2004, 7th March, 2005, 22nd April, 2005 and 28th July, 2005.3. The respondents contended in their complaint that on 3rd October, 2005 late Aditya Pal was again admitted in Indraprastha Apollo Hospital and during the procedure one of the pulses caused a luminescence in the airway leading to withdrawal of the procedure as the deceased suffered laser burns in the airway and he was shifte...

Pfizer Enterprises Sarl Vs. Cipla Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(39)PTC358(Del)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In the Pfizer Appeal the Plaintiffs have assailed the Order dated 16.7.2008 of the learned Single Judge holding that the High Court of Delhi lacks territorial jurisdiction. The impugned Order returns the Plaint for filing in the appropriate court. The dispute centres upon the averments made in the Plaint and the response thereto contained in the Written Statement.2. P.M. Diesels litigation has remarkable annals. For the present purposes the relevant pleadings are found in paragraph 30 of the Plaint wherein it has, inter alia, been asserted that 'the goods of the parties bearing the impugned trade marks are also sold in the Union Territory of Delhi'. The interim injunction had been declined on 10.3.1998 principally for the reason that the Plaintiff/Appellant had failed to establish the territorial jurisdiction of the courts in Delhi. In the Appeal the Division Bench set aside the Order and the lis was carried further to the Supreme Court. Their Lordships noted that ...

St. Anthony's Girls Sen. Sec. School and Ors. Vs. the Govt. of N.C.T. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ935

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. By this Judgment we shall decide the challenge to the vires of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal and Vice Principal in the Petitioners' Schools which are avowedly minority aided institutions. The Recruitment Rules(RRs) specify the scale of pay, the age limit for Direct Recruits, educational qualifications, period of probation, method of recruitment, post from which promotions are to be made and composition of the Selection Committee. The RRs for both Principal as well as Vice Principal, mentioned in Column 3, specifically state that both these posts are selection posts. Column 8, however, indicates that the method of recruitment is by promotion, failing which by direct recruitment. In the case of recruitment for the post of Principal, Column 9 prescribes that it shall be by promotion out of Vice Principals/PGTs; and in the case of Vice Principal by promotion out of (i) PGT/AM of the same school with at least five years experience as PGT/TGT (ii) - wit...

Cinevistaas Limited Vs. Prasar Bharati

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR112(Delhi); 2008(106)DRJ682

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petition titled as one under Section 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed on the averments that the disputes and differences had arisen between the petitioner and the respondent which were subject matter of arbitration as per Clause 23 of the agreement between the parties and which is as under:23. In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties hereto, such dispute or difference shall be resolved by mutual consultation. If such resolution is not possible then the same shall be referred to the Chief Executive of Prasar Bharati whose decision shall be final.2. It is further the case in the petition that the respondent Prasar Bharati vide letter dated 3rd March, 2003 to the petitioner invoked the aforesaid Clause 23 of the agreement between the parties. The said letter is as under:Sub: Notice to invoke Clauses 23 of Memorandum of Agreements.Dear Sir,1. You as Producer for various sponsored serials/programmes inclu...

Dr. Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT707

Gita Mittal, J.1. By this judgment, I propose to decide this writ petition filed by the petitioner wherein the following relief has been sought:(a) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to allot an alternative plot to the petitioner in lieu of the plot bearing No. 36, Pocket - 2, Block - B, Sector - 16, Rohini, Delhi admeasuring 60 Sq. mtrs. as per the terms and conditions of the original allotment and in the same sector or in any other similarly developed sector and location; and(b) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioner a compensatory damages quantified as Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) for violation of the fundamental right by non delivery of the plot in question till date despite allotment being made in 1985 and possession delivered in 1988.2. There is no material dispute by the respondents to the facts placed by the pet...

Sarvadeshik Press and ors. Vs. Usman Ghani and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT628

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This petition gives rise to a question whether Civil Court can entertain a suit for banning/issuing an injunction on publication of a book, which is in existence and being published and read for last 135 years, on the ground that its publication was likely to disturb public tranquility and public order.2. The brief facts leading to this question are that the two respondents considered themselves 'public spirited persons' and filed a suit with ostensible object of protecting the religious feelings of other persons of same religion seeking a declaration that publication and distribution of the 'Satyarth Prakash' written by Swami Dayanand was injurious to the religious faith of Muhammadan Community and they wanted a perpetual injunction to be issued against the publishers and certain Arya Samaj Organizations, restraining them from publishing, printing and distributing 'The Satyarth Prakash' in any language.3. Section 9 of CPC provides that Civil Court in India h...

Nimmakakayala Geeta Swapna Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT643

1. This writ petition challenges an order dated 26th March 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal'), Principal Bench dismissing the petitioner's application OA No. 592 of 2008.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner sat for the Civil Service (Main) Examination 2006 conducted by the respondent No. 2 Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Among the subjects were Psychology Part-II and Essay (English). According to the petitioner, she had performed very well in these subjects. She states that she appeared in the personality test but ultimately did not make it to the merit list. It is the case of the petitioner that on knowing her marks in Essay and Psychology-II papers to be 64 out of 200 and 126 out of 300 respectively, she wrote a letter dated 8th June 2007 to the UPSC seeking 'revaluation/reappraisal of the said two subjects'. The UPSC replied by a letter dated 4th July 2007 informing her that although these papers 'hav...