Delhi Court April 2008 Judgments

Paramjit Singh Vs. Charanjit Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT527

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Plaintiff has filed this suit for partition of property No. 45, SSI Industrial Area Opposite Jahangir Puri, Delhi built on 1650 sq. yards, standing in the name of M/s Paramajit Singh and Company in the year 2006 alleging that the firm had three partners viz. Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 and that Plaintiff had contributed Rs. 52,500/- while Defendants No. 1 and 2 contributed Rs. 15,000/- each in the purchase of said plot. In the year 1984, Defendants stopped cooperating with the Plaintiff in working jointly in the firm and they started separate business without allowing Plaintiff to enter into the front portion. So, Plaintiff gave a legal notice dated 27th May 1985 to dissolve the partnership firm. The Plaintiff filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership before the District Court on 8th July, 1985 and later on it was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit. Plaintiff filed a fresh suit being Suit No. 481/1986 before this Court for di...

Braithwaite and Co. Ltd. Vs. Central Organisation for Modernisation of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR136(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') whereby the petitioner has sought the appointment of a retired judge of this Court or any other person as this Court may deem fit to act as third presiding arbitrator in the arbitral tribunal including the two arbitrators nominated by the parties. The alternative prayer is that this Court may appoint a sole arbitrator to decide the disputes and claims of the parties arising out of the said contract.2. The counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The very foundation of this application is without substance. The application has been filed on the premise that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties for referring the matter for arbitration by three arbitrators. The original contract between the parties contained the arbitration clause, namely, Clause 3200. It is admitted by the parties that the said arbitration cl...

Jagat Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ651

Acting C.J.1. A large extent of land measuring nearly 16000 bighas situated in different parts of Delhi were notified for acquisition for the public purpose of planned development of Delhi in terms of a preliminary notification dated 24th November, 1961 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 6th December, 1966 in respect of land situated in Village Haider Pur. Award No. 13/75-76 and 50/80-81 were made in due course determining the compensation payable to the land owners. From out of the land acquired in village Haider Pur, the respondent/DDA has developed what is known as Pritampura housing colony. The DDA appears to have allotted an area measuring 16.695 acres in terms of an allotment letter dated 11th February, 1983 to the Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi for running three different secondary schools one of which happens to be a school meant only for girls. Possession of the said area...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Capital Tyres Mfg. Unit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]305ITR199(Delhi); [2009]176TAXMAN178(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as 'the Tribunal'), vide its order dated August 31, 2006, in I.T.A. No. 3231/Delhi/ 2004, relevant to the assessment year 2001-02 has allowed to the assessee relief of Rs. 15,48,502 on account of valuation of its opening stock.2. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.3. Brief facts leading to the dispute are that the assessee is a registered firm showing income from business of manufacturing rubber flaps and retreading of tyres. Return was filed by the assessee declaring loss at Rs. 86,170 on October 29, 2001. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had hypothecated its stock with Bank of India, Hauz Khas, New Delhi for availing of overdraft facility. The details of stock hypothecated with the bank quantity-wise and value-wise was obtained from the bank, according to which the total value of stock was Rs. 33,98,640 whereas the assessee had...

Baisakh Singh Pundhir Vs. Standard Chartered Bank

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On the face of it the impugned order dated 5.2.2008, is unreasoned, laconic and have not dealt with the allegations of the appellant, whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking refund of the amount of Rs. 12,000 as well as compensation was dismissed. 2. Allegation of the appellant leading to the impugned order in brief were that the appellant has two Credit Card Nos. 4129-0483-08616-7008 and 5543-7883-8610-1300 since 1995. In 2002, appellant realised that respondent has exploited appellant by way of debiting late charges, pick up charges, in the statement of account of both credit cards. Respondent also cheated the appellant in every possible manner. Respondent asked the appellant to deposit Rs. 12,000 as pre-condition for issuing statement of account since 1995. Accordingly appellant deposited Rs. 12,000 with the respondent. In spite of deposit of Rs. 12,000 the respondent did not furnish the statement of account since 1995. The appellant termed t...

Union of India (Uoi) (Through Vs. Shri Ram Dass S/O Late Shri Rustam

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Respondents have filed present Review Applications 226 and 228 of 2007 in OAs 1533 and 1532 of 2007 respectively, which were decided vide order dated 31.08.2007. The grievance of review applicants is that the aforesaid OAs were decided ex-parte without even giving notice to the respondents on the statement made by the counsel for original applicants that they are similarly situated persons as of applicants in OAs 795 and 796 of 2006 decided on 07.8.2006.2. It is submitted by the counsel for review applicants that counsel for the original applicants did not inform the Court on 31.8.2007 that the judgment dated 07.8.2006 passed in aforesaid OAs 795 and 796 of 2006 has been challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and notice has already been issued therein.3. Counsel for the original applicants, on the other hand, submitted that he had specifically mentioned about the Writ Petition in their averments in the OA in Para-4.6 and no stay has been granted by the...

Zauri Leasing and Finance Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)721

1. This appeal by the assessee has been filed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi, dt. 31st May, 2005.The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of leasing and hire purchase of equipment, financing, bill discounting, loan placement etc. The first ground of appeal is reproduced below: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the AO's act of disallowing appellant's claim of bad debts of Rs. 80,68,668 out of total write off of Rs. 85,69,350. The disallowance so upheld is in total disregard to the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) read with the provisions of section. [Section 36(2)] 2. The assessee claimed bad debts of Rs. 85,69,350. The AO observed that the amounts were written off as bad debt during the pendency of suits Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The assessee maintained that the claim was admissible because: (i) it was not necessary for the assessee to take legal action against the defaulters ...

Chhanga Lal and ors. Vs. M.C.D.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi146; 149(2008)DLT460; 2008(102)DRJ555

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Menace of stray cattle in Delhi has resulted in a series of directions being issued by this Court in WP(C) No. 3791/2000 titled as 'Common Cause v. Union of India'. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as MCD for short) prepared a re-settlement scheme for shifting of unauthorized dairies to Ghogha on the outskirts of Delhi. Approximately 180 acres of land has been earmarked and allotted to MCD to develop a colony on self-financing basis. Allotment of dairy plots was to be made on first come first serve basis as per circular No. 539/Dir./VS./2006 dated 1/8/2006 issued by MCD. Public notices were thereafter issued inviting applications for allotment of dairy plots. The relevant public notice taken on by MCD reads as under:Hon'ble Delhi High court has issued directions in writ petition No. 3791/2000 Common Cause v. Union of India and Ors. that all the unauthorized dairies run in the Urban area of Delhi be got closed. In compliance the Government has ...

SachIn J. Joshi and anr. Vs. Lieutenant Governor and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ603

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. M/s. Asrani Inns and Resorts Private Ltd.-petitioner No. 2, has purchased two adjacent hotel plots measuring 7220.40 sq.mt. (hereinafter referred to as plot No. 1, for short) and 7030 sq.mts (hereinafter referred to as plot No. 2, for short) at Wazirpur District Centre, Delhi for Rs. 1,27,00,00,000.00 (One hundred and twenty seven crores only) and Rs. 1,02,40,00,000.00 (Hundred and two crores and forty lacs only) respectively in the auction held on 4th May, 2006. The permissible built up area or Floor Area Ratio on plot No. 1 is 15,500 sq.mt. and 14,500 sq.mts. on plot No. 2. One of the terms and conditions of allotment is that the petitioners will construct two hotels, one on each plot, within a period of 42 months. The petitioners have given two bank guarantees of Rs. 6,35,00,000.00 and Rs. 5,12,00,000.00 for plot No. 1 and plot No. 2 respectively, which can be invoked in case of delay in construction beyond the agreed period. Two separate Conveyance Deeds dated 3...

Ashwani Garg Vs. N.D.M.C.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi145

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioner is a contractor by profession. He has, in this petition, assailed the validity of Clause 17 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), issued by the respondent-New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), according to which any contractor who has a near relative posted as a Divisional Accountant or as an officer in any capacity between the grades of Engineer in Chief and Junior Engineer in the NDMC is not eligible.2. The petitioner argues that the condition aforementioned offends his fundamental right to carry on his trade and profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. A similar question arose for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in S.N. Engineering Works v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. : 1996(37)DRJ446 . The Court was in that case examining a similar disability arising in terms of a tender condition stipulated by the MTNL. As in the present case, the tender condition stipulated by the MTNL also stated that a contra...