Delhi Court November 2008 Judgments

C.L. Devgun Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 155(2008)DLT180

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition, filed as a Public Interest Litigation ('PIL'), is by a former employee of the New Delhi Municipal Council ('NDMC') and seeks a mandamus to the NDMC to 'withdraw the facilities being provided to the non-official members' and for a declaration of 'all the facilities currently being enjoyed by the non-official members of NDMC as illegal.'Preliminary objection2. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the PIL has been raised by Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) on behalf of the Union of India. According to him, the petition is by a former employee of the NDMC who may be disgruntled and therefore this raises doubts about his bonafides. He accordingly prays for in limine dismissal of the PIL. In support of this contention Mr. Singh referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan : (2003)7SCC546 and Common Cause v. Union of India : AIR2008SC2116 . However, Mr. Parag Tr...

Glencore GraIn Rotterdam B.V. Vs. Shivnath Rai HarnaraIn (India) Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR497(Delhi); 155(2008)DLT457

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This is a suit under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act, 1996') for filing and enforcement of the foreign award No. 12031 A dated 29.07.1997.Facts2. The background facts as set out in the plaint are as follows.3. The plaintiff is a company based in Rotterdam, Netherlands while the defendant is a partnership firm based in India with its office at A-8, Bhagwan Dass Nagar, New Delhi - 110 026. Between 30th November, 1994 and 8th June, 1995, the plaintiff entered into eleven contracts with the defendant, in terms whereof a total quantity of 300,500 MT of Indian white rice was to be sold by the defendant and purchased by the plaintiff. All these eleven contracts were negotiated and concluded through an English broker, Jackson Son and Co. (London) Ltd. In respect of each contract, immediately after the business had been concluded, Jackson Son and Co. sent to both parties, by fascimile transmission, their Contract Confirmation Not...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Cosmos International

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]318ITR314(Delhi); [2009]177TAXMAN363(Delhi)

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against judgment dated 07.09.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 3967/Del/2006 pertaining to the assessment year 2003-04.2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned judgment, in so far as, the Tribunal held that interest income on fixed deposits earned by the assessee be treated as 'business income', as against, 'income from other sources'. The consequent effect of which would be that the assessee would be required to deduct 90% of such interest from the 'profits of the business' under Section 80HHC of the Act.3. At this stage, it may be noted that we had issued notice in the appeal by our order dated 02.07.2008. As per the service report, the respondent has been served. Despite, service of notice, the respondent has chosen not to put in an appearance before this Court. This has left us with no a...

Commissioner of Income-tax-v and Etc. Etc. Vs. Rampur Engineering Co. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)221CTR(Del)32; [2009]309ITR143(Delhi); [2009]176TAXMAN211(Delhi)

Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. In all these cases, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has either deleted or affirmed the deletion of penalty levied upon the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has, while doing so, relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) and held that the authority initiating the penalty proceedings had not recorded its satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof by the assessee. The Revenue has assailed the correctness of the said orders in these appeals. According to the Revenue, penalty proceedings initiated by the competent authority should be deemed to be valid so long as the satisfaction of the authority was discernible from the order made by it. The fact that the authority had not used the words 'I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof...

East End Apartments Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs. Delhi Develo ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT272

1. These two writ petitions and the CM(M) are all concerning land measuring approximately 13 Bighas comprising in Khasra No. 391/263 situate at village Chilla Saroda Bangar, Delhi. Since the matters involve common questions of law and fact, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. CM(M) 1558/2007 is by the Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA') for setting aside an ex parte decree dated 6th January, 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 222/1998 (Suit 1066/1990) under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and also an order dated 23rd July, 2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC filed by the DDA for setting aside the said ex parte decree. The first respondent in the CM(M) is the Ashok Nagar Welfare Association (Regd.), the plaintiff in Suit No. 222/1998. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are Union of India and Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi respectively. Respondents 4...

Prabha Mahale (Dr.) Vs. Vgp Agro Farm (P) Limited.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The OPs, vide their flamboyant, flashy and enticing advertisements in leading newspapers of Delhi and other major cities of India, invited the public to book Garden Houses near Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore. 2. Attracted by the said advertisements, the complainant booked two houses with the OPs and made payment of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 vide receipt Nos. 10347 and 10348 both dated 1.4.1996. 3. The OPs vide their letter dated 3.5.1996 confirmed the booking of Plot Nos. 63 and 64 in VGP Bangalore Garden having an extent of 10,952 sq. ft. 4. The complainant made payment of Rs. 9,85,680 till 24.9.1996. Mr. VGP Babudas, Director of the OPs vide letter dated 17.9.1997 promised possession of the complete garden Units on or before 30.9.1997. 5. The complainant was constrained to write letter dated 20.7.1999 seeking refund of the sum paid by the complainant along with interest followed by letters dated 22.2.2000 and 1.5.2000. 6. Complainant got served upon ...

Larsen and Toubro Vs. Puri Construction Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR462(Delhi)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of the above petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act'), by which the petitioner has assailed an award dated 28th December 2002 passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal on various grounds which shall be dealt with at the relevant place herein below.Brief Facts2. Puri Construction Limited (for short, 'PCL') and few other sister companies and persons were in possession of certain lands in District Gurgaon, Haryana for which they had obtained licenses from the Director, Town and City Planning, Haryana (for short 'DTCP') for developing the same into a residential group housing scheme. PCL initially entered into an agreement with ITCREF and formed a joint venture company as 'Florentine India Limited' in order to carry on the development of this land into a residential group housing project. Under this joint venture, ITCREF gave funding to PCL for purchase of other land and acquiring lice...

Ram Krishan and Sons Charitable Trust Ltd. Vs. Iilm Business School

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2009(1)105

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Appeal assails the Order dated 30.7.2007 of the learned Single Judge, holding, inter alia, that because of concealment and deliberate misstatement of material facts the Plaintiff would be required to be non-suited; that such a plaintiff has no equity in his favour and is disentitled to discretionary relief. The Application for interim relief filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 was dismissed.2. The subject matter agitated in the Plaint, filed under Section 27(2) read with Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, was for permanent injunction, restraining passing off, damages, unfair competition etc. Initially, by Order dated 23.7.2007 an ex parte order had been granted restraining the Defendants (Respondents before us) from passing off their Institution using the mark 'IILM' in any manner deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff. It was this injunction that was recalled in terms of the impugned Orders. A reading of the Plaint will disclose that t...

Subodh Kumar Bhargava Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)534; [2009]309ITR31(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), the following substantial question of law had been framed for our consideration:That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was right in law in interpreting the provisions of Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 correctly and holding that the penalty order passed under Section 271B was within the limitation period'2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.09.2007 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 2952/Del/2005 pertaining to the assessment year 2000-01. By virtue of Section 44AB of the said Act, the assessee was liable to get his accounts of the relevant previous year audited by an accountant as also to furnish the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such an accountant before the specified date indicated in the said provision, which, at the ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hitashi Estates Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]313ITR393(Delhi); [2009]178TAXMAN211(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order dated 25.5.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 1359/Del/2006 pertaining to the assessment year 2002-03 in as much as the Tribunal has directed the Assessing Officer to assess the profit/loss arising from the surrender of tenancy rights under the head 'capital gains' as claimed by the assessee.2. Property No 7, KG Marg, New Delhi was taken on rent by the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee made improvements in the said rented premises and retained the same for more than five years. The assessee had shown the said property as inventory in its balance-sheets for several years. On 4.4.2001 the assessee surrendered the tenancy right in the said property to the owner for a consideration. In the year in question, the assessee showed the said property as a capital asset and the loss incurred on surrender of the tenancy right in the said property was claimed at Rs 14...