Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

Shri R.V. Bansal S/O Shri Mishri Vs. Delhi Development Authority,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Writ Petition 5598/1993 had been filed by the applicant before the Delhi High Court, inter alia, pointing out that the charge sheet issued to him and the proposed inquiry were illegal. He had agitated various grounds in support of his contentions. On 14.12.1993, the High Court had directed that the inquiry proceedings may go on, but final orders are not to be passed. The order was extended from time to time and from records it is seen that on 6.4.1995 there was a further order after hearing the counsel for the parties that the inquiry proceedings are not to be proceeded with. The matter is remaining now at this stage.2. The applicant was an Assistant Engineer working with the respondent DDA and at the bar, it has been submitted that he has already gone on retirement after attaining the age of superannuation. In view of the Notification, the files had been transferred to this Tribunal by the order of the High Court dated 9.10.2007.3. The applicant had put forward three main objectio...

income Tax Officer Vs. Shambhu Mercantile Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)304ITR36(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dt. 20th March, 2006 of learned CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,88,47,816 by disallowing exemption under Section 10(34) claimed by the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that all the conditions prescribed in Section 94(7) (sic).2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of sale, purchase and trading in stock, shares and units of mutual fund. During the relevant assessment year, assessee purchased units of mutual funds, which include units of Tata Index Fund Nifty Plan Option-A and IL & FS Index Fund Nifty Plan. The assessee sold the said units during the relevant assessment year and the loss incurred on sale of such units was set off against the profits on sa...

Sudhir Engg. Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)766

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dt. 3rd Dec., 2004 passed by the CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi for asst. yr. 1998-99.The first ground of appeal relates to the validity of notices issued Under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961.2. Briefly stated facts are that the original assessment in this case was completed Under Section 143(3) of the Act on 28th Sept., 2000 at an income of Rs. 3,61,830. The perusal of the deduction Under Section 80-IA claimed by the assessee reveals that certain incomes, which did not form part of business income, have been included in the business income resulting in excess claim of deduction Under Section 80-IA of the IT Act. Accordingly, notice Under Section 148 was issued to the assessee within the provisions of Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. In response to the above notice, the assessee firm filed written submissions on 9th April, 2003 whereby it was claimed that deduction Under Section 80-IA was claimed correctly and requested that the pro...

Ram Niwas Vs. Pitamber Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ81

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. By this judgment we propose to dispose of this appeal filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, dated 19th September, 2007, passed by the learned Single Judge in the suit filed by the appellant. In the said suit, the following issues were framed:1. Whether late Smt. Mishri Devi executed a valid and legal Will dated 18.11.1971 (OPD1)2. Whether the order dated 23.7.1996 in Case No. 704/1988 passed by Shri K.K. Dahiya, SDM/R.A is void, inoperative, ab initio and non est (OPP)3. Whether the sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendants No. 2 to 6 on 25.7.1996 are null and void and illegal (OPP)4. Whether the mutations made by the Revenue Authority in favor of defendant No. 2, defendant No. 4(i) and (ii), defendant No. 5 and defendant No. 6 are liable to be declared illegal and null and void (OPP)5. Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to determine the controversy raised in issues No. 2 to 4 (OPP)6. Relief2. In th...

Sardar Nirmal Singh and anr. Vs. Sardar Harinder Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR184(Delhi); (2008)2CompLJ297(Del); 150(2008)DLT486; 2008(102)DRJ374

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Petitioners have challenged the award dated 4th April, 2003, passed by Mr. Haji Ayamuddin, Sole Arbitrator, Respondent No.2 herein, on various grounds.2. Brief facts relevant for deciding this Petition are that an Arbitration Agreement was entered into on 29th August, 2002 between Petitioners and Sardar Harinder Singh/Respondent No.1. As a result of this Agreement, the Arbitrator entered into the reference and called upon parties vide a fax message dated 6th November, 2002 to appear before him and Sardar Attar Singh, Arbitrators in respect of the dispute. The Petitioners told the Arbitrator that he was acting in a biased manner as he was enjoying hospitality of Respondent No.1 during his stay in Delhi. Petitioners also wanted photocopy of arbitration letter i.e. Agreement dated 29th August, 2002 and a statement of claim filed by Respondent No.1. The Arbitrator vide his reply ...

Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Grover

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ197

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The issue that is involved in the present appeal is whether or not the respondent is entitled to stagnation increment as envisaged in the Fifth Bipartite Settlement dated 10th April, 1989.2. The respondent was appointed in the erstwhile Laxmi Commercial Bank Limited as Clerk on 4th September, 1972. He was promoted as Head Clerk on 11th November, 1980 and then as Special Assistant on 11th November, 1981. Thereafter, the respondent was promoted to the Officer cadre on 7th January, 1983. Subsequent thereto, the erstwhile Laxmi Commercial Bank Limited was merged with the appellant-Canara Bank with effect from 24th August, 1985 in terms of an amalgamation scheme framed by the Central Government in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. Consequently, effective from 24th August, 1985 the respondent became an officer employee of the appellant-bank. The respondent after the aforesaid amalgamation was transferred to Sikanderabad Branch of the appellant-bank on 10t...

Anil Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ212

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th February, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. The appellant applied under the Rohini MIG Residential Scheme for allotment of a plot in 1981. Vide allotment-cum-demand letter bloc-dated 1st September, 2003 to 5th September, 2003, the appellant was informed that he has been allotted plot bearing No. 102, Pocket C-2, Sector 28, Rohini Phase ' IV, Delhi measuring 60.00 sq.mtrs in pursuance of computerised draw held on 11th June, 2003, at a premium of Rs. 3,71,520/-. As per the said allotment-cum-demand letter the appellant was required to deposit Rs. 1,17,287/- by 4th November, 2003 and Rs. 1,85,760/- by 3rd January, 2004 and Rs. 55,728/- was to be deposited when possession was to be offered by the DDA.3. It is an established fact that there was a delay of 175 days and 115 days in making payment of the first and the second Install...

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Prem Power Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR39(Delhi); 151(2008)DLT172; 2008(103)DRJ605

Hima Kohli, J. 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, praying inter alia, for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 5 contained in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 31st August, 2007 which is reproduced here in below:That all disputes, differences and/or claim arising out of or touching upon this Memorandum of Understanding shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the sole arbitration of an Arbitrator who shall be appointed either by mutual agreement or in case no mutual agreement is reached by court. The arbitration shall be held in New Delhi. The award given by such an Arbitrator shall be final and binding on all the interested parties to this MOU.2. It is stated in the petition that the respondent No. 1 which is a private limited Company, approached the petitione...

Time Warner Entertainment Company I.P. and ors. Vs. Rpg Netcom Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ499; 2008(37)PTC21(Del)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The Plaintiffs in the present Civil Suit seek a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from telecasting or broadcasting on their cable network any cinematograph film, the copyright in which vests in them. They also seek from this Court, a decree directing the Defendant to hand over possession of infringing copies and a decree in their favor for the profits made by the Defendant. 2. The facts of the case may be summarized as follows. The Plaintiffs, US based corporations, along with their affiliated companies and concerns are carrying on business of film production. They own various interests in and to the copyright in the films produced by them. It is averred that investigations conducted at the behest of the Plaintiffs revealed that Defendants were exhibiting films on its network. The copyrights in those works belong to the Plaintiffs and the defendants were exhibiting them without licenses. The Plaintiffs also allege that most of the times the...

In Re: Alcatel - Lucent Technologies India (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]85SCL243(Delhi)

ORDERVipin Sanghi, J.1. These are the applications under Section 391(1) read with Sections 393 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by applicants Alcatel-Lucent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (Applicant/ Transferor-Company No. 1), Spatial Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Applicant/Transferor-Company No. 3) and Lucent Technologies Hindustan Pvt. Ltd. (Applicant/Transferor-Company No. 4) with Alcatel-Lucent India Limited (Applicant/Transferee-Company) seeking directions from the Court for convening, holding and conducting separate meetings of the equity shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors, which are statutorily required for sanctioning the scheme of arrangement for amalgamation of applicant companies.2. The registered offices of the applicant/Transferee-company and Transferor-companies Nos. 1 and 4 are situated at 202-206, Tolstoy House, 15 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001 and that of Transferor-company No. 3 is at 10/29, West Patel Nagar, New De...