Delhi Court November 2008 Judgments

M.L. Kalra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 155(2008)DLT365

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing his Writ Petition No. 154/1994 vide order dated 23.2.2004.2. The appellant who was employed as Deputy General Manager with New Bank of India (NBI) was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service by the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2) vide order dated 22.3.1996 after NBI was amalgamated with the said respondent. The punishment was imposed after one year of his superannuation on the basis of the charge sheet issued to him on 19.8.1993, i.e., after a period of six years alleging lapses on his part in having forwarded the loan proposal of M/s Kashipur Steels Private (Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Borrower') sometime in 1987-88 when he was working as the Regional Head of NBI at Delhi. The appeal filed against the aforesaid order was also rejected by the Appellate Authority and thereafter, the ...

Gaurav Dayal Vs. Rabbi Shergil and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(39)PTC205(Del)

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 15th December, 2008. Notice accepted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Reply to the application, if any, be filed within one week from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.2. This appeal is by the appellant-defendant No. 5, the Music Director of the Motion Pictures 'Sorry Bhai'. The appellant is aggrieved by the ex-parte order of the learned Single Judge dated 26th November, 2008 by which it was held that the intellectual property rights of the plaintiff are likely to suffer if the movie 'Sorry Bhai' is released with the song Jalte Hain.3. The learned Single Judge also heard the two songs in the Chamber and has recorded a finding that the music of the two songs i.e. the appellant's song Jalte Hain and the plaintiff's song Ballo are similar if not identical. One of the reasons given by the appellant is that the defendant No. 5 i.e. the appellant was t...

Mohan Lal Ahuja and ors. Vs. Tarun Chandra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT216

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The two suits for specific performance are result of relationships which have gone sour. The specific performance is being sought in respect of proposed purchase of flats on the 4th floor of the building to be constructed on property bearing No. 34, Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi ('the said property' for short). In suit No. 571/1990 ('first suit' for short), an agreement to sell was executed while in respect of suit No. 633/1990 ('second suit' for short) only a receipt for the money was executed. The receipt of money in both the cases is undisputed. The purchasers in the first suit are Mr. Mohan Lal Ahuja, his wife and children as per the agreement to sell dated 02.04.1988 for 1866 square feet on the 4th floor of the said property along with a garage while the receipt in the second suit dated 31.01.1988 is once again for a flat of 1866 square feet on the 4th floor of the said property. The phraseology used in the receipt is 'provisional booking'. The second suit i...

Rajesh Masrani Vs. Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2009Delhi44; 2009BusLR280(Del); LC2009(1)252

Manmohan Singh, J.1. The present appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC against the order dated 16th July, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court allowing the application of the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC for restraining the appellant/defendant from reproducing, printing, publishing and distributing, selling or offering for sale prints in any form, whatsoever that are colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of the plaintiff's fabric prints including the underlying drawings/sketches thereof and dismissing the application of appellant (defendant in the suit) under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC read with Section 151 for vacation of ex-parte injunction order passed by this court on 2nd February, 2007.2. The Plaintiff-Respondent herein filed a suit CS (OS) No. 183/2007 on 01.02.2007 seeking a decree of permanent injunction, damages and rendition of accounts against the defendant for infringement of the Plaintiff's alleg...

Shri R.D. Bhanot Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 162(2009)DLT111

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Short factual matrix in this case is followed by long tale of legal battles. For proper adjudication of the issue involved, it would be necessary to take stock of the legal developments as well, which would be noted while narrating the facts of the case.2. The respondent issued the notification dated 25.11.1980 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the 'Act') whereby it was proposed to acquire a large chunk of land situate in the revenue estate of Village Chattarpur, Satbari, Maidan Gari, Shayoor Pur and Rajpur Khurd. Objections under Section 5-A of the Act were invited. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued vide notification dated 27.5.1985, inter alia, stating that the Lt. Governor was satisfied that the land is required to be taken by the Government at public expenses for a public purpose, namely, for the planned development of Delhi. In respect of Village Satbari, the land of the petitioner herein was also mentioned, which is...

ircon International Ltd. Vs. National Building Construction Corporatio ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 155(2008)DLT2226

Manmohan Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order of the learned Single Judge of this court whereby the execution petition of the appellants was dismissed as not maintainable.2. Brief facts relevant for deciding this appeal are that the appellant M/s Ircon International Ltd. (Ircon) and the respondent M/s National Building Construction Corp. Ltd. (NBCC) entered into an agreement whereby NBCC proposed to construct the commercial building on plot No. 15, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. IRCON made a payment of Rs. 15,93,00,000/- to NBCC which is almost 90 per cent of the sale price. After construction of the building, however NBCC did not handover the requisite space to IRCON and sold it to others by making profits.3. In view of the arbitration Clause contained in the agreement, arbitrator entered upon the reference and made his Award dated 22.6.1999 granting partial relief to IRCON. IRCON filed an appeal in the appellate authority who by his award dated 8...

Prakash Associates Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Against a demand of Rs. 4,16,113 towards electricity charges raised by the opposite party (in short O.P) which is being disputed by the complainant, this complaint has been filed seeking Rs. 11.00 lacs as compensation for unlawful demand, Rs. 9.50 lacs for mental agony and suffering and Rs. 75,000 litigation cost; which, on the face of it, has been claimed in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission. 2. However, for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, learned Counsel for the complainant agrees that the amount of compensation, if any, that my accrue to him, may be deemed as Rs. 20.00 lacs or so, including the demand of Rs. 4,16,113 out of which he is ready to pay 50%. 3. In view of these facts, the complaint is hereby transferred to the concerned District Forum because of the pecuniary jurisdiction with the direction to the District Forum to consider the application seeking interim relief within one week of receipt of this order. 4. Order ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)133; [2009]317ITR353(Delhi); [2009]180TAXMAN557(Delhi)

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to in short as the 'Act') preferred by the Revenue against judgment dated 19.1.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to in short as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 3905/Del/2004, in respect of, the assessment year 2001-02.1.1 The issue in the appeal pertains to allowance of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act on an income which, according to the Revenue, arose to the respondent/assessee from its industrial undertaking located in Agartala unit, due to refund of excise duty amounting to Rs. 24,87,81,499/- and not by way of a profit derived from 'any business' of the said industrial undertaking.2. The aforesaid issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in the preceding assessment year i.e., 2000-01 in ITA No. 4031/Del/2003. The Tribunal, by an order dated 31.1.2006 had dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.The Tribunal, in assessment year, unde...

Nemi Chand JaIn Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]89SCL241(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These appeals are directed against the impugned orders dated 24th April 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellants' Writ Petition (C) Nos. 5613 of 2006 and 5618 of 2006. The writ petitions were filed by the appellants challenging a common order dated 12th December 2005 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi (Tribunal) in Appeal Nos. 76 and 77 of 2005, rejecting the applications made by the Appellants for waiver of the pre-deposit of penalty as a condition for hearing the appeals.2. Proceedings were initiated against both Appellants by the Respondent Directorate of Enforcement under Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('FERA') for violation of Section 8(1) thereof. The case of the Respondent against Appellant Shri Nemi Chand Jain @ Shri Chandraswamy and Appellant Shri Vikram Singh was that a sum of US $ 1,49,000 had been withdrawn by them from the non-resident external (NRE) account in Canara Bank R...

Pearey Lal Workshop P. Ltd. Vs. Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 155(2008)DLT145

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 1st September, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge dismissing an application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the suit.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for delivery of possession of premises No. 40-42, Janpath, New Delhi comprising of a Service Station, Store Office, Workshop Shed, Two open Areas, Two WCs on the ground floor which petitioner had taken on monthly rent of Rs. 400/- some time in year 1956 and used as a vehicle service and repair workshop. The respondent in the suit contended that by effect/action/implication of law, the defendant lost the protection of provision of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with regard to the suit premises because of rent recoverable and by virtue of the value of the consideration being received by the defendant in the suit premises. Defendant had become 'tenant at sufferance'. The plaintiff served a notice dated 21st December, 2001 on the defe...