Delhi Court October 2008 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.
Lata Verma W/O Sh. Jayant Verma D/O Sh. Gajey Singh Ruhela Vs. Jayant ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT432; II(2008)DMC792
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short as 'Act') has been filed by the appellant/wife, against the judgment/order dated 11th September, 2007 passed by Ms.Anju Bajaj Chyandna, ADJ, Delhi wherein the Trial Court has allowed the petition of respondent and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized according to Hindu rite and ceremonies on 9th December, 1997 at Delhi. From this wedlock, one male child, Rohan was born to the parties on 24th September, 1998 who is in the custody of the appellant.3. According to the respondent, appellant was treated with love and affection at the matrimonial home and as the appellant was working woman, respondent's mother helped the appellant so that she could discharge her official duties properly. It is alleged that appellant was disrespectf...
Avtar NaraIn Behal Vs. Subhash Chander Behal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT140
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. A family dispute and the consequent challenge to the Will dated 19.10.1972 and Codicil dated 25.4.1990 executed by late Shri Gopal Das Behal has given rise to the present proceedings. The respondent filed a petition for grant of probate/letters of administration which came to be allowed by the learned District Judge, Delhi, who by judgment dated 16.10.2003 issued the letters of administration to the respondent. The appellant aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal being FAO No. 420/2003 under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which was also dismissed by the learned single Judge on 31.03.2008 and the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the same order. When a question arose as to maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal in view of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) the learned Judges of the Division Bench were of the view that the reasons given by another Division Bench of this Court in Satish Chander...
Atul Rawal T/a NavIn Polycon Vs. S.B. Equipments
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT693
S. Muralidhar, J.1. Admit. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11th July 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's IA No. 9140 of 2007 being application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') in suit CS (OS) No. 1454 of 2007 filed against the respondent-defendant. The prayer in IA No. 9140 of 2007 was for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, marketing, advertising or in any manner whatsoever using the trademarks 'SUPER BRIGHT', SUPER BRIGHT EL', 'SUPER BRIGHT EL-C', 'SUPER BRIGHT EL-81', 'SUPER BRIGHT HD ULTRA' and 'SUPER BRIGHT Bleach' or any other trademark which is deceptively similar or confusingly similar to the above trademarks.3. The appellant is in the business of manufacturing and selling various detergent products. The case of the appellant is that it has dev...
Jagannath Dudadhar Vs. the Sale Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ831; (2009)19VST151(Delhi)
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. Revision Petitions were filed by the petitioner firm under Section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act') against the assessment orders made on 16th December, 2002 pertaining to assessment years 1889-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. Applications were also filed praying for condonation of delay in filing the revision petitions. The Additional Commissioner-III following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Foremost Industries India Limited v. Lt. Governor and Ors. WP(C) 221/2002 decided on 18th July, 2005, held that the Revisional Authority under the Act does not have the power to condone delay in filing revision petitions and Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to such revision petitions. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner has preferred these writ petitions. The petitions were listed before a Division Bench of this Court which was of the opinion that there are conflicting views by this ...
Sunil Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT1; 2008(106)DRJ621; (2009)154PLR52
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of learned Trial Court dated 29th July, 2005 whereby the Trial Court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the petitioner and therefore dismissed the suit on this ground.2. The brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner/firm carried its business at Ambala, Haryana. The defendant is a company incorporated under Companies Act having divisional office at Ambala and head office at Delhi. The petitioner received an order from an importer and dispatched his goods to Nigeria through Ethiopian Airlines vide two consignments. The petitioner obtained a marine insurance policy in a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the divisional office of respondent at Ambala. The petitioner paid the requisite amount from time to time for the insurance policy. A major fire broke out at transit warehouse at Murtala Muhammed Airport, Lagos, Nigeria on 21/11/2002 resulting into loss of good...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-iv Vs. Gupta Abhushan Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: [2009]312ITR166(Delhi); [2009]178TAXMAN473(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These three appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') are directed against the order dated 21.09.2007 in ITA Nos. 2236, 2237 and 2238/Del/2005 pertaining to the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, respectively. The assessee had filed returns for the aforesaid years which were processed under Section 143(1) of the said Act. A survey operation was conducted under Section 133A of the said Act at the business premises of the assessee on 07.03.2002. At the time of survey it was found that the business premises were under renovation and that there was a discrepancy in the stocks. Proceedings under Section 147 of the said Act were initiated by the Assessing Officer after recording reasons under Section 148(2) thereof. A notice under Section 148(2) was issued on 15.05.2002.2. The reasons, as recorded by the Assessing Officer under Section 148(2) of the said Act, were as under:1. In this case surv...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mani Kakar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2008
Reported in: [2009]178TAXMAN315(Delhi)
ORDER1. This appeal pertains to the assessment year 2001-02 and is directed against the order dated 15-2-2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 4828/Delhi/2004. The only issue that is sought to be raised in this appeal pertains to the question of notice under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act').2. The assessment had been re-opened and an assessment order had been framed. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which was also dismissed. Before the Tribunal, the assessee raised the point of jurisdiction inasmuch as according to the assessee no notice under Section 148 had been issued/ served upon the assessee and, therefore, all subsequent proceedings including the framing of the reassessment order, according to the assessee, were liable to be set aside. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to take the additional plea before it inasmuch as it was a jurisdictional...
Universal Builders and Contractors Vs. Sheila Singh Uppal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT69; (2009)154PLR47
Manmohan Singh, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13th May 2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 286/2003, whereby the application of the plaintiff under Order IX Rule 9 for restoration of suit which was dismissed in default on 7th February, 1996 was allowed Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance and damages on 5th February, 1988 in respect of the provisional booking of the flats at the fourth floor of the building called Praveen apartments(now known as golf apartments) at Sujan Singh Park South, New Delhi. 2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner (Defendant in the suit) has argued that the suit was dismissed in default on 7th February 1996, the respondent No. 1 was always negligent and had shown total callousness and utter disregard for prosecution of the suit and the conduct of the respondent No. 1 is apparent from the various orders passed by the learned trial court even...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Usha Marketing (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2008
Reported in: [2009]176TAXMAN159(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The respondent-company is dealing in sale and transfer of shares. In the assessment year 1986-87, the Assessing Officer permitted the conversion of certain shares from investment to stock-in-trade. In the assessment year 1987-88 (assessment year in question), the respondent-company booked certain business loss. The Assessing Officer, however, came to the conclusion that the loss could not be treated as a business loss and this Order was upheld by the CIT(A) as also by the Tribunal.2. The Tribunal in its Order dated 31-10-2001 in the quantum proceedings came to the conclusion that merely because the Assessing Officer in the assessment year 1986-87 had permitted the conversion of shares from investment to stock-in-trade could not ipso facto imply that the Assessment Officer for the year 1987-88 would be precluded from going into the real facts about the shares and determining whether the shares were held as investment or stock-in-trade. It was held that the share...
Satya Prakash S/O Late Dr. Mudrika Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Thr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ708
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 4th August, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 1744/2007.2. The Petitioner had been offered appointment as an Assistant Commandant in the CISF but it appears that for one reason or the other he did not join.3. By the impugned order, it was directed that the Petitioner may be accommodated in the above post if he reported to the appropriate authority before 29th August, 2008.4. On 27th August, 2008, we had considered the matter and had given time to the Petitioner till 1st September, 2008 to join the CISF and now an affidavit has been filed by him that he has since joined the CISF.5. In paragraph 1 of the impugned order, it has been mentioned that the Petitioner has raised certain issues with regard to his pay scale, seniority, etc. and alternatively for allocating any other Group 'A' service in which a vacancy might exist.6. We find that the other issues have not been comprehens...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »