Delhi Court April 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 2 of about 149 results (0.022 seconds)Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Del)2228; 2008(103)DRJ312; [2008]307ITR363(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. By an order dated 24th April, 2008, we had disposed of the reference made at the instance of the assessed since it was conceded by learned Counsel for the assessed that the questions of law are required to be answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessed. 2. Consequently, we are now dealing only with the reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Revenue.3. The questions of law that have been referred for our opinion are as follows:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,96,988/- paid by the assessed to M/s. Riken Piston Rings Inds. Co. Ltd., Tokyo revenue expenditure? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure on gifts amounting to Rs. 10,58,855/- was not of the nature of advertisement failing within the purview of Section 37(3) of t...
Tag this Judgment!Shri N.S. Bhatnagar Vs. India Tourism Development Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 151(2008)DLT136; 2008(103)DRJ240; [2008(118)FLR719]; (2008)IIILLJ517Del
Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. The workman, Mr. N.S. Bhatnagar, was initially employed by the India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) in the year 1972 as a Store Helper at a consolidated salary of Rs. 200/- per month. In the same year, he came to be promoted as an Assistant Storekeeper.2. In August 1976, he was suspended on charges of fraud and dishonesty. He was charged with misappropriating Rs. 12,146.85. A chargesheet was issued to him in 1977 by his employer. At the same time, a criminal complaint was also lodged against him at the local police station.3. A domestic inquiry was also commenced by the respondent. There, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report in 1981. Consequent upon this, Mr. Bhatnagar was issued a show cause notice. He duly replied to the same. Ultimately, on 1/6/1981, Mr. Bhatnagar was dismissed from service.4. Mr. Bhatnagar claims that he approached the Labour Authority against his dismissal, but was advised to wait for the conclusion of the criminal trial tha...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Chand and anr. Vs. Kumari Rajni JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 150(2008)DLT101; 2008(103)DRJ65
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The substantial question of law which arises for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the finding by the learned Trial Judge pertaining to issue No. 1 and 2 is sustainable in law. 2. On 5.7.2002 learned Trial Judge framed the following issues:1. Whether the suit is maintainable in the form as filed and presented before this Court? OPP.2. Whether the suit by the plaintiff is barred under the provision of law, particularly those of Specific Relief Act and Delhi Land Reforms Act? OPP.3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP.4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.3. In the suit, appellants who were the plaintiffs, had pleaded that they were in possession of the suit land which was hithertofore shamlat land and on consolidation of the village Rajokri in the year 1954-55 was assigned khasra No. 2052-2056. They pleaded that notwithstanding plaintiffs be...
Tag this Judgment!National Highways Authority of India Vs. Elsamex-tws-snc Joint Venture
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 150(2008)DLT215; 2008(103)DRJ1
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Yet another instance of an injunction being sought against a beneficiary who sought to enforce it's right under bank guarantee(s). 2. NH-5 in the State of Orissa from Km 136.5 to Km 199.141 has run into a road block. Excluding a stretch of 3.799 Km covering major bridges, the work of 4/6 lanning was awarded by NHAI to ELSAMEX-TWS-SNC Joint Venture (hereinafter referred to as the contractor). The contract was awarded on 5.3.2001. 33 months was the completion time i.e. date of completion was 3.2.2004. 3. Under the contract the contractor was to furnish a performance guarantee and was entitled to receive mobilization advance and equipment advance but the same was to be secured under bank guarantees in favor of NHAI. 5 guarantees issued by various banks were submitted by the contractor favoring NHAI on various dates. 4. Work could not be completed within the completion period. On 19.8.2005 a supplementary agreement was executed modifying/substituting certain clauses...
Tag this Judgment!Director General (Works), Cpwd Vs. Sant Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ524Del
Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.CM No. 2251/20061. This is an application filed on behalf of the respondent/workman under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On 30th April, 2004, the impugned award bearing ID No. 15/91 came to be passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby it was directed that the workman who is respondent No. 1 herein be reinstated with 25% back wages. The management has chosen to challenge this award by way of a writ petition filed in this Court. On an application filed by the management, the impugned award also came to be stayed. On 20th February, 2006, the workman moved the instant application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act praying that the management be directed to pay the workman last drawn wages from the date of the award i.e. 30th April, 2004. In that application, the workman had also averred as follows:3. That the Applicant/Workman/Respondent No. 1 has not been in employment any where since his illegal termination nor has he been engag...
Tag this Judgment!Jaspal Singh and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ51
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Order dated 18.1.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing application of the appellants under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is under challenge. 3. It is unfortunate that the counsel appearing before the learned Trial Judge as also the learned Trial Judge, all have remained extremely non focused. Though not relevant for the purposes of the present order a discussion thereon it would be otherwise relevant for the purposes of disposal of the suit and this is my justification for penning a few words on said aspect of the matter. 4. Before dealing with the relevant facts relatable to the issue or grant or denial of interim injunction it may be noted that due to the non-focused approach wholly inappropriate issues have been framed by the learned Trial Judge. The issues framed are as under:1. Whether suit is bad for want of notice under Section 477/478 of DMC Act? OPD-12. Whether the suit is bad for want of not...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rana Devi (Deceased) Through Lrs. Vs. Shri Lachhman Dass Chaturve ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 150(2008)DLT169; 2008(103)DRJ68
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 16.9.2005 dismissing appellant's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which prayed for delay to be condoned in moving an application under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Appellants' appeal was dismissed in default on 19.5.1999. Restoration thereof was prayed for by filing an application on 8.5.2002.3. What had happened was that during pendency of the appeal, against an interim order passed in the appeal the respondent preferred a revision petition in this Court registered as C.R. No. 247/1996. Due to the pendency of the said civil revision petition in this Court further proceedings could not be continued in the appeal as the same were stayed by this Court.4. Counsel informed me at the hearing that the interim order challenged in the civil revision petition pertained to an application for substitution filed by the appellants during the pendency of the appeal which order was challenge...
Tag this Judgment!Dhan Bahadur Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4795; 2008(103)DRJ398
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. The appellants have assailed the judgment dated 16.04.1999 and order dated 20.04.1999 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 20/96 whereby they were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(Part I) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were awarded sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each with a default clause of six months rigorous imprisonment in case of non- payment of fine. Since these two appeals arose out of the same judgment they were heard together and will now be disposed of by this common judgment.2. The relevant facts leading to the trial and conviction of the appellants for causing the death of one Mahender Singh have been noticed by the learned trial Court in para nos. 1 and 2 of the impugned judgment and are reproduced as under:Destiny was cruel to Mahender Singh on ill-fated night of 25.5.95 at about 11/12 pm when he was coming from Bangla Sahib Gurudwara ...
Tag this Judgment!Webneuron Services Ltd. Vs. Monster.Com (India) (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas61(Delhi); [2008]85SCL35(Delhi)
ORDERS.N. Aggarwal, J.1. Webneuron Services Ltd. ('the transferor company') has filed this petition under Sections 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking approval to the scheme of the amalgamation with Monster.com (India) (P.) Ltd. ('the transferee company').2. The transferor company Webneuron Services Ltd. was incorporated on 28-7-1999 as a Public Limited Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 vide certificate of incorporation No. 55-100870 of 1999-2000 issued by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. The authorised share capital of the said company is Rs. 30,00,000 divided into 3,00,000 equity share of Rs. 10 each. The issued, subscribed and paid up capital of the transferor company is Rs. 29,08,750 divided into 2,90,875 equity shares of Rs. 10 each fully paid up.2A. The registered office of the Transferor Company is situated at 1105, Ashoka Estate, 24, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 within the jurisdiction of this Court. The registered o...
Tag this Judgment!Kulbir Singh Vs. Official Liquidator Attached to the High Court of Del ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2008]146CompCas21(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.C.M. No. 10481 of 2006:1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.Company Appeal No. 35 of 2006:2. A petition for winding up of M/s. National Chemical Industries P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the said company') was filed before this court and a winding up order was passed on February 19, 1981. The scheme propounded under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') was sanctioned by the company judge on March 1, 1983, to facilitate revival of the said company. It is stated that the order sanctioning the scheme provided for no alienation of immovable properties and the official liquidator was made as the observer to supervise and report on the progress of revival and implementation of the scheme. The consequence of this order was stated to be the stay of the winding up order.3. It is the case of the appellant that the company was actually never revived in pursuance to the scheme and the official liquidator failed to report t...
Tag this Judgment!