Delhi Court November 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 7 of about 102 results (0.023 seconds)Parsvnath Developers Ltd. Vs. Mr. Ghanshyam Das Agrawal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT218
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present application is filed on behalf of the defendants praying inter alia for amendment of the written statement by incorporating the paras as indicated in paras 7 and 8 of the application.2. Counsel for the defendants submits that the present suit instituted by the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of lease and for declaration, pertains to flat bearing Flat No. 614, 6th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, of which the defendants are the landlords. He submits that the suit is based on an unregistered lease deed dated 24.4.2003 and the plaintiff was a tenant on a month to month basis in the suit property. The defendants, vide legal notice dated 10.1.2008 terminated the tenancy of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and instituted a suit in the District Court for possession, mesne profit, damages, etc., i.e., Civil Suit No. 54/2008 entitled Mr. Ghanshyam Das Agarwal and Anr. v. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. which is pen...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Verma Vs. R.G. Soft Drinks Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT23
Gita Mittal, J.C.P. No. 95/19831. One Shri Ajay K. Verma has brought the present petition under Section 433 read with Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 which was registered as CP No. 95/1983 for winding up of the company. The petitioner has filed the present petition on the premise that despite service of statutory notice dated 10th August, 1983, M/s R.G. Soft Drinks Private Limited-respondent company failed to pay the amount of Rs. 33,600/-. The respondent-company has failed to pay this amount. The petitioner had contended that this amount was deposited on 7th June, 1983 as a business security which the respondent company was bound to refund to the petitioner.2. The respondent had contested the petition. By an order dated 10th October, 1984, the petition was admitted. Thereafter, on 31st May, 1985, an order was passed on CA No. 604/1985 under Section 442 and 443 of the Companies Act, 1956 in CP No. 95/1983 appointing the Official Liquidator attached to this Court as the provision...
Tag this Judgment!H.K. Choudhary Vs. N.D.M.C. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT267
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner impugns the order of sealing passed under Section 250 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 by the respondent on 27.06.2008 in respect of the petitioner's premises i.e. Choudhary Guests House situated at H-35/3, Connuaght Place, New Delhi. The impugned order reads as follows:Whereas the undersigned is satisfied that the following unauthorized construction has been carried out at Premises No. Choudhary Guest House, H-35/3, Connaught Place, New Delhi,1. Constructed multi storeyed structure i.e. Ground Floor, 1st Floor, IInd Floor and Porta cabin at Trace Floor in an area m.a. 2,644 sq. ft. (area ' of a circle) made of brick work and RCC slab and bifurcated the whole structure into small chambers by running Guest House, Shops, Courier Services, Photostat Shops etc. in the Premises No. H-35/3, Connaught Place, unauthorizedly without prior approval of NDMC.And whereas it has become necessary for the purpose of carrying ou...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Malik Vs. Anil Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT647
Anil Kumar J.1. The petitioner, who is stated to be a retired Superintendent of Tis Hazari Courts, seeks contempt proceedings against the police officials who had arrested him pursuant to an FIR registered pursuant to the direction of Commissioner of Police on the complaint of Mr. Navin Soni, who is not a party to the present petition, being FIR No. 270/2000 under Section 379/420/468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code on the ground that his arrest had interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings initiated by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and because his arrest has also obstructed administration of justice.2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that Mr. Navin Soni resident of 3, DLF Industrial Area, Moti Nagar, on 5th October, 1996 had made a written complaint addressed to SHO, Police Station Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, that he had lost two signed blank cheques one of them bearing number 722832 of Punjab National Bank, Khari Baoli, and other cheque o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri S.K. Katyal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)310; [2009]308ITR168(Delhi); [2009]177TAXMAN380(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') is directed against the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in IT (SS) A No. 302/Del/04 pertaining to the block period 01.04.1990 to 17.11.2000. The appellant/revenue is aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal held the block assessment order to be beyond the time specified under Section 158BE(1)(b) of the said Act.2. On the basis of a warrant of authorization dated 16.11.2000, a search, under the provisions of Section 132 of the said Act, was conducted on 17.11.2000 in the residential premises of the assessee at E-147 Kalkajee, New Delhi. As per the panchnama drawn up on 17.11.2000, in the course of the search certain documents, cash and key No. 765 of locker No. 725-B with Bank Of India, Nehru Place, New Delhi belonging to the assessee were purportedly seized. In the course of the said search conducted on 17.11.2000, amongst oth...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harkaran Das Ved Pal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Del)438; [2009]177TAXMAN398(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') raises the following substantial questions of law:a) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?b) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the penalty on the ground that the assessee himself had surrendered the amount and therefore it could not be said that the assessee had either concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income?2. The appeal is directed against the order dated 02.02.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in IT (SS) A No. 172/Del/2005 and pertains to the block period 01.04.1999 to 06.07.2000. As the questions set out above would indicate, the appeal arises out of penalty proceedings under Section 158BFA(2) of the said Act. The facts are that a search under Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Tobu Enterprises Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT125
Siddharth Mridul, J.1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for, inter alia, a direction to quash the Award dated 12th September, 2000 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator whereby the petitioner(management) has been directed to reinstate the respondent (workmen) and also pay them entire backwages without causing prejudice to the latters' right to continue in service on the terms and conditions as were applicable to them before their transfer.2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present writ petition and relevant for the purpose of the adjudication of the writ petition is as follows:(a) That the management had employed the workmen for doing manual work, to wit Sh. Rajit Kumar, Sh. Ram Asrey and Sh. Vinod Kumar as Electricians, Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma as a Helper, Sh. Ramesh Kumar as a Spray Painter and Sh. Gupteshwar as a Press Man in sheet metal.(b) Each of the workmen had been issued appointment letters wherein it was specifically mentioned t...
Tag this Judgment!Ford Motor Company and anr. Vs. Mrs. C.R. Borman and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT1; LC2008(3)418
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Appellant, Ford Motor Company, assails no the Order dated 28.11.2007 of the learned Single Judge passed in IA 270/2006 in CS (OS) No. 1710/2005, allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C. for short) directing that the Plaint be'returned for the purpose of filing before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction'.2. Succinctly stated, the case of the Appellants/Plaintiffs is that 'FORD' is one of the world's most well-known and reputed automobile manufacturers and one of the most successful commercial enterprises in the world. It has used FORD as a part of its trade/corporate name and as a trademark since 1903 which is widely recognised throughout the world. Through a Joint Venture, the Plaintiffs have been promoting and selling FORD Cars in India for several years and in March 2005 FORD became a wholly owned subsidiary of Plaintiff No. 1, namely, FORD Motor Company, Michigan, USA. It has been pleaded that apart from...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hughes Software Systems Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN52(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.09.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 2167/Del/2002 pertaining to the assessment year 1998-1999. The issue that is sought to be raised in this appeal relates to the allowability of direct expenses said to have been incurred by the assessee in respect of a project known as the Jakarta Project in Indonesia.2. The extent of direct expenses claimed by the assessee was Rs. 37,18,958/-. The assessee had entered into an agreement with PT Radio Telepon, Indonesia also known as Ratelindo for installation, testing and commissioning of a fixed digital radio cellular network system and related services. The assessee did not have the necessary expertise to execute the said project and, therefore, assigned the same to its parent company being Hughes Network Systems, USA (HNS). There was no formal agreement between the assessee and the parent company (HNS). However, they had an understanding vide letter d...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Kishan Kumar Vs. Manager (Business), Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT449
Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. The appellant has instituted this appeal under Section 42 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 against an order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as 'the Forum') on 10.4.2008. Admittedly, in passing the impugned orders, the Forum was exercising powers under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.2. At the outset, Counsel for the respondent has taken an objection to the maintainability of the appeal itself. He submits that since the impugned order was passed by the Forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, any appeal against an order of that Forum can only lie with the Ombudsman in terms of Section 42(6) and (7) of that Act, and the institution of the present appeal before this Court under Section 42 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 instead, is misconceived.3. The essence of the argument put forward by the learned Counsel for the respondent is that Section 42 of the Delhi Electricity Re...
Tag this Judgment!