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.
Smt. Sudesh Kumari Soni and anr. Vs. Smt. Prabha Khanna and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: 153(2008)DLT652
Manmohan Singh, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed against the dismissal of the eviction petition filed by the petitioners, by the court of learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi vide order dated 24.5.20004.2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner is the landlady of the respondents in respect of the premises No. F-61,Radhey Puri, Krishna Nagar, Delhi,(for short 'disputed property') comprising of two rooms, one kitchen , bathroom with a common latrine and common courtyard and common back courtyard at a monthly rent of Rs 500/-. The disputed portion was let out to the respondents in the year 1987 for residential use.3. It is stated that the family members of the petitioner consists of herself, her husband i.e. petitioner No. 2, two married sons namely Praveen Kumar Soni and Sunil Kumar Soni and one divorced daughter Seema, her son Sunil Kumar Soni and his wife Rekha having two sons namely Bharat Soni and Deepanshu; another ...
The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Through Its Chie ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT295
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Pursuant to an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher in Political Science, the Respondent put in his application along with all necessary documents. 2. For the purpose of selection, a marking scheme was evolved by the Petitioners and as per this scheme, the Respondent secured 51 marks which met the required cut off. Accordingly, the Respondent was placed in the select list for the purposes of issuance of an appointment letter. 3. According to the Respondent, the appointment letter never came and on enquiries he was informed that his name was no longer in the select list since certain other applicants, who had got better marks, were entitled to be selected.4. Under these circumstances, the Respondent filed an Original Application bearing No. 1810/1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi seeking issuance of an appointment letter for the post of Post Graduate Teacher Political Science. 5. In response, the...
Ushak Kaal Communications Ltd. and anr. Vs. Thomson Press India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT13; 2008(106)DRJ771; (2009)154PLR54
Rekha Sharma, J.1. Appellant No. 1 and the respondent are the companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The former does the business of advertisement and the latter of printing.2. On July 24, 1996, appellant No. 1 had placed upon the respondent, purchase order for printing of brochures. As per the respondent, the said purchase order was varied from time to time and in terms of the varied order, the requisite quantity of brochures were delivered to the appellant. The respondent claimed that in addition to the printing of brochures, it had also carried out for the appellant the work of scanning, planning, proofing of Mescos Floaters, Retailers Ad, Studio Janak Ad and Diwan Saheb Press Ad. The respondent had raised four invoices upon the appellant bearing No. (i) 97-98/2556 dated April 23, 1997, (ii) 96/1381 dated September 30, 1996, (iii) 96/1421 dated October 31, 1996 and (iv) 97-98/2358 dated October 21, 1997 of a total value of Rs. 1,46,070/-. The appellant company decline...
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited Vs. Cipla Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: LC2008(3)384; 2009(39)PTC347(Del)
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. Though the plaintiff has instituted the suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark THEOBID in relation to medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation and passing of by using the trade mark THEOBID-D, also in relation to medicinal preparations, the counsel for the plaintiff for interim relief has argued only on the basis of infringement of registered trade mark and not on the basis of passing of.2. The first question to be decided therefore is whether, prima facie, the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark and entitled to maintain an action for infringement. The question has arisen because the trade mark is stated to be registered in the name of M/s Natco Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited vide registration No. 440830 dated 26th July, 1985 and valid till 26th July, 2016; that the said trade mark was assigned to the plaintiff alongwith its goodwill vide deed of assignment dated 31st October, 1998. The plaintiff claims t...
Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. Indian Bank Mutual Fund and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT755
Manmohan, J.1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 13.07.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7463/2000 titled as 'Indian Bank Mutual Fund and Ors. v. SEBI', whereby the learned Single Judge held that though the offer document floated by the Respondent Fund was capable of two constructions, namely, either offering indicative returns or minimum assured returns, but as no investor was misled, the circumstances did not warrant issuance of any direction to the Respondent to treat the expression 'minimum indicative return' as a minimum assured return and not an 'indicative return'.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:(a) Respondent No. 2, Indian Bank which is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, created Respondent No. 1, by way of a Trust and Respondent No. 1 as the Principal trustee by virtue of a Trust Deed dated 17th November, 1989.(b) In 1990, the Respondent N...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kay Bee Alums Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR99(Delhi); 155(2008)DLT131; 2008(106)DRJ562
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been preferred by the petitioner, Union of India, with respect to the arbitral award dated 26th March, 2001 of respondent No. 2 Shri B.L. Nishad, the then Additional Legal Advisor to the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. The respondent No. 1 had made five claims before the arbitrator, of which claims No. 1 and 3 to 5 have been rejected by the arbitrator. Claim No. 2 for Rs. 3,10,865/- towards excise duty at 10%, with 27% interest per annum from 1st July, 2000 has been allowed to the extent of Rs. 3,10,865/- with 15% interest per annum from the date of the award till actual realization. The petitioner, Union of India, had also made a counter claim for rejection of the claims of the respondent No. 1 with special costs. Since one of the claims of the respondent No. 1 was allowed, no special costs were awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner, Union of I...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Praveen Electronics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: [2009]312ITR170(Delhi); [2009]178TAXMAN8(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') preferred by the Revenue against the judgment dated 28th February, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to in short as 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 3273/ Del/2000, in respect of, assessment year 1996-97. 1.1. The Revenue being aggrieved has proposed the following questions of law which, according to them, are substantial questions of law. These are as follows:(i) Whether the I.T.A.T. has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of loss of Rs32,10,166/- on account of loss in trading of shares, treating as speculation loss by the Assessing Officer?(ii) Whether the I.T.A.T. was correct in law in deleting the disallowance in spite of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Mcdowell v. CIT reported in : [1985]154ITR148(SC) (iii) Whether the order of I.T.A.T. is perverse, as it has ignored the relevant facts and material on record?2. Afte...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Hotels Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN417(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 30-1-2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 996/Delhi/2005 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02.2. The assessee runs a hotel business. It paid an amount of Rs 1.19 crores to Megapode Airlines Limited (MAL) towards annual entitlement fee in terms of the agreement executed between them on 29-12-1999. The said agreement was for the purpose of availing certain fixed flying hours annually at discounted rates on charter hire basis of a Jet Aircraft for use by the assessee's directors, executives, hotel guests and employees. Under the agreement the assessee was entitled to avail of a maximum of 35 flying hours in a year to be provided by the jet belonging to MAL for an annual fixed charge of Rs 1.19 crores plus variable costs at the rate of Rs. 65,000 per flying hour as against the market rate of Rs. 1.25 lakhs per hour. The assessee was committed t...
Manjit Kaur Vs. Durga Builders Private Limited and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: (2009)3PLR29
Gita Mittal, J.1. One Smt. Manjit Kaur claiming to be the sole proprietor of M/s Kumar Security Syndicate filed a petition under Section 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 contending that she had contracted with M/s Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd.-the respondent herein, to provide security services and that bills raised by her upon the respondent company from September, 2003 onwards till 31st July, 2004 for the total sum of Rs. 9,35,800/- had not been paid. She had claimed this amount with interest at the rate of 18% as due and payable. It was further submitted that a legal notice dated 15th April, 2005 had been got served by her through counsel Sh. Vishesh Jain, Advocate whose address was shown as A-104, Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad. The submission of the petitioner was that despite service of such notice the company had failed to pay the dues and consequently a prayer was made for the winding up of the respondent and appointment of an official liquidator in accordance with Section 433...
N.K. Sunil Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT159
ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE In that he,at Bikaner (Peace), on 21 Jun 2008 at around 0920 hours improperly and without authority visited PBOR married accommodation Quarter Number 36/6 KLP No-1, allotted to Number 3195348P Sep Ramji Lal in violation of local orders.6. The charges were read out to the petitioner and calling of witnesses in terms of Rule 22 of the said Rule was dispensed with since the provisions of Rule 180 had been complied with at the stage of Court of Inquiry. The summary of evidence was thereafter recorded in terms of Rule 23 of the said Rules. In the recording of Summary of Evidence Smt. Sanju, the complainant, appeared as a prosecuting witness No. 2 and deposed inter alia in the following terms:4. I opened the door and asked him to sit and turned back towards the kitchen to get him a glass of water, when he suddenly held me from behind. I was completely startled and got scared. I pushed him away and then he started saying things like 'I love you' and that I cannot...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »