Delhi Court November 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 4 of about 102 results (0.026 seconds)Harish Chander Sharma and ors. Vs. Deep Chand Ram Dass and Sons and or ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT153; (2009)153PLR23
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide impugned Judgment and decree dated 16.03.1991, suit filed by the appellant seeking partition of property bearing Municipal No. 147-148, Chandni Chowk, Delhi has been dismissed, being held as not maintainable, in as much as the Learned Trial Judge has held that the suit sought partial partition of a joint property.2. The case of the appellants was that Hadi Ali Khan, defendant No. 2, was the owner of the 11.68% share in property bearing Municipal No. 135 to 148, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and that vide sale deed dated 18.10.1995, Ex-P-1, he sold 8.76% share in said properties to the appellants, thus, appellants became the joint owners of the property bearing Municipal No. 135 to 148, Chandni Chowk, Delhi with their undivided share being 8.76%.3. It was pleaded that later on, the other co-owners sold their 82.84% undivided share in property No. 147-148 to defendant No. 1, vide a sale deed dated 20.03.1979. Defendant No. 1 was already a tenant in the said premises N...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mercury Rubber Mills
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR599(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment dated 09.04.1987 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon ble Court in Suit No. 2279-A/85 wherein the petition filed by the Respondent herein was allowed and the dispute existing between the parties was referred to arbitration to ascertain what amount was due to the Respondent from the Appellant, under the contract of insurance.2. M/s. Mercury Rubber Mills, the Respondent had entered into contract of insurance with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy No. 2130/302/02211/44/05/80/00034 dated 29.12.1980. The appellant had agreed to pay to the Respondent all losses of profit which the Respondent might suffer due to the breakdown of its machinery installed at its factory premises situated at 35th K.M. milestone, G.T. Karnal Road, Rasoi, District Sonepat, Haryana.3. The insurance policy had an arbitration Clause which reads as under:If any difference shall arise as to the quantum to be paid under this policy liability being...
Tag this Judgment!Hardayal Singh Vs. Joginder Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT28
Manmohan, J.1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 read with Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act against the judgment and order dated 31st May, 2007 delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court. By virtue of the impugned order the learned Single Judge made the Award dated 5th April, 1972 Rule of the Court and directed that a decree sheet be prepared in terms of the Award as objections to the Award had already been withdrawn and no objections to the Award were pending.2. Mr. G.L. Rawal, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant stated that he had no dispute with the Award passed by the learned Arbitrators but as the properties awarded to the Appellant, specially land at Sawan Park, Wazirpur, Delhi, had been fraudulently disposed of by the Respondents, the Award was liable to be set aside. He submitted that the mandate of Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 had not been followed by learned Single Judge before making the Aw...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Usha Goel and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2010ACJ332
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.R.P. No. 397/2007 in C.R.P. No. 764/20031. The Civil Revision Petition was filed by the Oriental Insurance Company in the year 2003 raising a challenge to an order dated 23.04.2003 dismissing the application filed by the company under Section 170 of the M.V. Act, 1988, inter alia, alleging that neither the owner nor the driver of the offending vehicle had appeared to contest the proceedings evidenced by the fact that none had bothered to enter appearance before the Learned Judge MACT, and that from such conduct, the Insurance Company apprehends a probable collusion between the claimants and the owner/driver. It was thus prayed that the Insurance Company may be permitted to contest the claim petition on the grounds which in law are available to the owner of the vehicle.2. The said application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 23.04.2003.3. The contention urged by the Insurance Company in the Civil Revision Petition is that Section 170 o...
Tag this Judgment!Bureau of Indian Standards Vs. Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT588
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal by the Bureau of Indian Standards arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 08.05.2006 delivered by the Learned Single Judge, whereby it was held that the use of the words PURE , CRISP , REFRESHING , PURIFIED AND PURITY GUARANTEED and the pictorial depiction of snow-capped mountain and the sun on the label of Respondent No. 1 M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. for packaged drinking water, was not misleading, and was not prohibited by any law, and that the impugned letters including those dated 24.04.2001, 13/14.09.2005, 05.10.2005 and 07.10.2005 cannot be enforced by the Appellant. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that the pictorial device SNOW-CAPPED MOUNTAIN and the expression PURITY GUARANTEED as used in the label of Respondent No. 1 creates confusion in the mind of general public regarding the origin nature, composition and properties of the Respondent No. 1 s product and suggest that the origin of the water being...
Tag this Judgment!The Times Travels and anr. Vs. Chief Managing Director and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(2)CTLJ503(Del)
Manmohan, J.1. The Petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 39 and 40 of the Constitution of India. By way of this petition the Petitioners have prayed for quashing of Letter of Intent dated 18th January, 2008 issued by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of Respondent No. 4. It has further been prayed that the tender dated 15th October, 2007 for hiring of Non-AC CNG Coaches for staff transportation on point to point basis be awarded to the Petitioners.2. The sole submission of Mr. Varinder Kumar, learned Counsel for Petitioners is that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have awarded aforesaid tender to Respondent No. 4 who had not even participated in the tender process. Learned Counsel for Petitioners contended that after opening of the financial bid, both the Petitioners, L-1 and L-2 were called for negotiation and after brining the L-2 to the level of L-1, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had decided to divide t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Brass and Metal Works Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]313ITR352(Delhi); [2009]178TAXMAN215(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 the judgment dated 17.11.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 4688/Del/2003, in respect of, the assessment year 2001-02.2. We may note that, even though by our order dated 06.11.2008 notice had been issued to the respondent/assessee, despite service, the assessee has not entered appearance. This left us, with no other alternative, but to hear the matter in the absence of the respondent/assessee.3. The short question which has arisen for our consideration in the present appeal is, whether in the facts and circumstances, as found by authorities below in the instant case, the interest earned on fixed deposits kept by the respondent/assessee with the bank would enter the ring of profits under the provisions of Section 80HHC of the Act. The other supplementary issue which arises for consideration ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Monnet Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)266; [2009]176TAXMAN81(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an Appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') preferred against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') passed in ITA No. 4040/Del/2002 in respect of the assessment year 1996-97.2. The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned judgment has preferred an appeal to this Court. The ground taken in the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred in short as the 'CIT(A)'] erred in allowing the claim of the assessee in the sum of Rs. 5,66,79,270/- as revenue expenditure in connection with setting up of the sugar plant at Muzaffarnagar in the State of U.P.2.1. In order to dispose of the appeal, the following facts require to be noted:2.2 In 1991, the respondent/assessee had set up a Ferro Alloys Manufacturing Plant, in Raipur, which was, engaged in both, the manufacture of Ferro...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dcm Sriram Consolidated Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)519; [2009]176TAXMAN49(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 02.05.2005 passed in ITA No. 1400/Del/2001, in respect of, assessment year 1997-98.1.1 In the appeal the Revenue has raised two issues which impact the computation of Minimum Alternate Taxation (hereinafter referred to as MAT) under Section 115JA of the Act. These being:1. Whether provision for bad and doubtful debts amounting to Rs 1.01 crores was to be added back to the net profit while computing book profit under Section 115JA of the Act in view of Explanation (c) to Section 115JA(2)'2. Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in reducing the amount of Rs 41.88 crores allegedly claimed by the assessee as profit from business of generation of power while computing book profit under Section 115JA of the Act'1.2 As...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax-v Vs. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Del)430; [2009]312ITR22(Delhi); [2009]177TAXMAN168(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are preferred by the Revenue against a common judgment dated 05.01.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 313/Del/2006 and ITA No. 3509/Del/2003, in respect of the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 respectively. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The short issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the respondent/assessee was entitled to deduction as claimed, in respect of the profits derived from an industrial undertaking set up in assessment year 1994-95.3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent/assessee was entitled to the claim made by it for the reasons given in the impugned judgment. We are of the view that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal deserves to be sustained for the reasons given hereinafter. Before we elucidate t...
Tag this Judgment!