Delhi Court November 2008 Judgments

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Dinesh Chandra Porwal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Against insurance claim covering risk of fire, damage due to accident or theft of a vehicle, the appellant has been held guilty for rejecting the claim of the respondent on the premise of driving licence of the driver being fake and has been vide impugned order dated 7.7.2004, directed to pay the claim of Rs. 1,75,000 together with interest @ 9% from 1.1.2001 besides Rs.10,000 as cost of litigation. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. The admitted case as to the damage to the vehicle is that respondent is the owner of truck number DL-1G-8321 and the same was got insured with the appellant for the period commencing from 15.1.2000 to 14.1.2001 vide policy number 311400/31/99/14519 for Rs. 3,15,000 with unlimited third party property damage cover. It is further submitted that the above truck met with an accident when it was going from Sonepat to Daman on National Highway No.8 on 5.10.2000 at Ambrary Police Station, Ambamana, D...

Mr. Kiran Jogani and anr. Vs. George V. Records, Sarl

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 155(2008)DLT739; LC2009(1)398

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The claim of the respondent-plaintiff to a trans-border reputation in the mark Buddha-Bar for music albums and the allegation of. an infringement thereof by the appellants/defendants gave rise to legal proceedings inter-se the parties.2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit on the Original Side of thisCourt. An interlocutory application for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the said Code' for short) was filed along with the plaint. The respondent-plaintiff was granted an ad interim ex part injunction and thus the appellants-defendants moved an application under Order39 Rule 4 of the said Code for vacation of the interim injunction. The learned Single Judge in terms of the impugned order dated 11.03.2004 has confirmed the interim injunction.3. It is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that the trademark Buddha-Bar was first adopted and used in the year 1996 as the name of a restaurant in Paris by the respondent...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jindal Vegtables Products Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]315ITR265(Delhi)

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').The Revenue has preferred the present appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 11.8.2006 passed in ITA No 1567/Del/2001, in respect of, the assessment year 1997-98.The Revenue, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, has primarily raised the following two issues in the appeal which, according to it, raises substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the Tribunal had wrongly deleted the addition of Rs 22,67,980/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the claim of depreciation made by the asses see, in respect of, certain machinery items supplied by one Deepak Glycerides Process India (P) Ltd(ii) Whether the Tribunal had erred in deleting an addition of Rs 39,46,250/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the claim of the asses see, in respect of, expenditure made by asses see on...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. the Kohinoor TarpaulIn Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR341(Delhi); 156(2009)DLT106; (2009)154PLR22

Hima Kohli, J. 1. The present objections are filed by the objector/ contractor under Sections 16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against an ex-parte award dated 11.6.1992 made and published by Sh.Ram Bahadur, Sole Arbitrator.2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/DGSandD entered into a contract dated 31.8.1987 with the objector/contractor for supply of tent private MK-3. The aforesaid tender is stated to have been accepted by the objector/contractor vide letter dated 9.9.1987. It is the case of the petitioner that as per clause 9 of the contract, the objector/contractor was required to deposit security to the tune of Rs. 27,290/- by 30.9.1987 in favour of DGSandD for due performance of the contract. The aforesaid clause also stipulated that in case of failure on the part of the objector/contractor to deposit the security by the date specified, it would be a breach of the contract which would entitle the petitioner to cancel the contract and recover dama...

Suman Kaushik Vs. N.P. Kaushik

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2008)DMC771

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 26th April, 2007 whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the written statements made by the petitioner was dismissed.2. In nutshell facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner was facing a divorce petition filed by the respondent husband on account of cruelty and desertion. The evidence in the case had already been recorded and when the case was fixed for final arguments, the petitioner moved this application to amend W.S. and to bring on record subsequent conduct of the respondent husband. Petitioner submitted that the respondent had inserted advertisements seeking matrimonial alliance claiming himself to be a divorcee whereas he was not a divorcee. The petitioner wanted to place on record the said advertisement allegedly inserted by the respondent, a CD of the telephonic conversation allegedly of the respondent, his brother with other persons (relat...

Padmawati and ors. Vs. Harijan Sewak Sangh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT411

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition under Article 227, the petitioner has assailed an order of first appellate Court dismissing appeal of the petitioner.2. The facts relevant for the purposes of deciding this petition are that one H. Kameshwar was working with Harijan Sewak Sangh, respondent, a registered society in the service of down trodden. Due to his being in service with the respondent, he was allotted premises in question for his residence as an incident of employment. He died on 13.3.1982. The petitioners are legal heirs of late H. Kameshwar and are in possession of the premises allotted to H. Kameshwar since his death. After death of H. Kameshwar, one of the sons was given service on compassionate grounds by respondent but he also resigned on 13.7.1984. The legal heirs of H. Kameshwar did not hand over the vacant possession of the premises allotted to H. Kameshwar after his death or after the resignation of his son and continued to be in illegal possession of this prem...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. R.N. Goel

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN64(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 a common judgment dated 23.12.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 180/Del/2000 and ITA No. 598/Del/2000, in respect of, assessment year 1996-97.Before the Tribunal both the asses see, as well as, Revenue had preferred appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)').Before the Tribunal the appeal filed by the asses see was numbered as ITA No. 180/Del/2000, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue was numbered as ITA No. 598/Del/2000.By the impugned judgment, the appeal of the Revenue has been dismissed and that of the asses see has been allowed in respect of issues raised in grounds 1 to 6 raised in his appeal filed before the Tribunal. In this Court the Revenue has filed two appeals being ITA No. 631/2007 and ITA No. 632/2007 agai...

Manju Saxena Vs. Naina Lal Kidwai and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT153

Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner seeks initiation of criminal contempt proceedings and punishment to the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on the ground that they have interfered with the due course and administration of justice by willfully and deliberately making false statements and suppressing documents to obtain the ex parte order dated 11.08.2006 thereby causing serious prejudice and irreparable injury to the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks action against the respondents under Article 215 of the Constitution of India in order to uphold the dignity of this Court.2. The petitioner is alleged to have joined the services of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation as Lady Secretary. Later on she was appointed as a Senior Confidential Secretary. The Banking Corporation is alleged to have reviewed its working norms. Revised working norms were offered to the petitioner which were declined by her and consequently her services are alleged to have been terminated wit...

Satwinder Singh Vs. Kanwar Krishan Anand

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT473; 2008(106)DRJ852

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 8th January, 2007 whereby he set aside the judgment of ARC dated 27th May, 2004 and allowed the Eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act.2.The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of premises No. 13/39, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh. The respondent found that the premises was in occupation of M/s. Letheria (an undertaking of Punjab Government) and the petitioner had sub-let/parted with the possession of premises to M/s. Letheria without obtaining consent in writing of the landlord. A petition under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act was preferred. The landlord also got a Local Commissioner appointed for inspection of the property, immediately on filing the Eviction Petition. The Local Commissioner appointed by the Court inspected the premises and filed his ...

Guest Keen Williams Ltd. Vs. Josh India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]90SCL132(Delhi)

Gita Mittal, J.1. This petition was filed by Guest Keen Williams Ltd. a creditor under Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, a petition under Sections 433, 434 and 439 was admitted by this Court on 1-9-1992 the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as the provisional liquidator of the company. The company was thereafter directed to be wound up by an order passed on 25-9-1997.2. The matter was listed on 7-12-2006 when the court noted that after December, 1999, the official liquidator had not taken any further steps and no status report/compliance report had been filed. It is noteworthy that a report stood filed in the court only one day prior to the date of hearing. No further or effective steps had been taken in the matter after 1995 to comply with the statutory provisions and the rules framed thereunder for a period of almost twelve (12) years. The court noted that recovery proceedings against the creditors of the company had thereby become barred by limitation...