Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 17 of about 163 results (0.022 seconds)In Re: Dhara Vegetable Oil and Foods Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2008]86SCL211(Delhi)
ORDERVipin Sanghi, J.1. This is a joint application under Section 391(1) read with Sections 393 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') by applicants Dhara Vegetable Oil and Foods Company Ltd.(Transferor-company) and Mother Dairy Fruits and Vegetables Pvt. Ltd.(Transferee-company), seeking directions from the Court for convening, holding and conducting separate meetings of the shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors, which are statutorily required for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of applicant companies.2. The registered office of the applicant/Transferor-company is situated at NDDB House, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110029 and of the transferee-company is at Mother Dairy, Patparganj, Delhi - 110092, that is, within the jurisdiction of this Court.3. The Board of Directors of the Transferor-company and the Transferee-company have passed separate resolutions approving the scheme of amalgamation of Transferor-company with the Transferee-company on 12-2-2008 and 1...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motor and General Finance Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN465(Delhi)
ORDER1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 12-1-2005 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' in ITA No. 4671/Delhi/2003 relevant for the assessment year 1997-98.2. The Tribunal has held that the notice for reassessment issued to the assessee under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') is hit by the proviso to Section 147 of the Act inasmuch as the notice was issued beyond the period of limitation.3. The reasons for issuing the notice have been placed on record and they read as follows:The assessment for the assessment year 1997-98 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 21-3-2000 by the then JCIT Spl. Range-10, New Delhi at an income of Rs. 4,69,82,360.In the instant case for the said year, it is seen that the assessee had shown lease equalisation charges amounting to Rs. 8,63,09,927. which were added back during the course of asstt. Proceedings. However, for the purpose of computation of book profit under S...
Tag this Judgment!Anuradha Jha Vs. Santosh Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ86
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.CM No. 3166/2008 (exemption)Allowed, subject to just exceptions.FAQ(OS) No. 105/2008 & CM 3165/08, Cav. 68/081. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15th January, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant, who is defendant No. 1, is aggrieved by the said order as according to her, the person who is appointed as guardian ad litem of the defendant No. 2/respondent No, 4 herein could have interest adverse to the interest of the said person of unsound mind. Counsel for the plaintiffs (respondents herein) is also present in court. We have also heard her.2. After hearing counsel appearing for the defendant No. 1 - appellant we find that the contention raised in this appeal pertains to the order of the learned Single Judge appointing the defendant No. 5/respondent No. 7 herein, being the elder sister of the defendant No. 2, as guardian ad litem for the purpose of the present suit;3. The suit is instituted by the plaintiffs - respondents in which ...
Tag this Judgment!