Delhi Court April 2008 Judgments

Japan Chamber of Commerce and Vs. Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Delhi)61

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Director of IT (Exemptions) refusing to accord registration to the assessee under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee is the Japan. Chamber of Commerce & Industry in India with its office at No. 7, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. It was registered by the Registrar of Societies, Government of NCT of Delhi on 17th July, 2006 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. According to the memorandum of association of the society, the following were its aims and objects: 1. To undertake, encourage, facilitate and promote the development of trade, industry and commerce between India and Japan in general without any element of profit. 2. To facilitate economic co-operation and strengthen the relationship between India and Japan. 6. To invite whenever desired intellectuals, industrialists, scholars, creative artists, etc., to address the 7. To collect and discuss among its members information pertaining to en...

Shri Ashwani Kumar, Jai Laxmi Cane Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. All these appeals by assessee ares directed against the order of learned CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar dated 5.1.2006 in an appeal against order levying penalty Under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). In all these appeals, the assessee challenges levy of penalty Under Section 271D of the Act. Since all these assesses are related to each other and facts in all the cases are identical, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.2. The three assesses became partners of a partnership firm M/s Jai Laxmi Cane Crusher at Village Kukavi, Distt. Saharanpur, UP. Each of these partners introduced capital of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the books of firm. The capital introduced was received by them from their grandfather Shri Rodhu Singh through cheque drawn on District Cooperative Bank.3. The AO issued notice Under Section 148 requiring the assessee to file return of income. The assessee filed the return of income declaring income in the form of salary and interest...

Ujjal Dasgupta Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ349

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') challenges an order dated 19th April 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), Delhi dismissing an application filed by the Petitioner, who is an accused facing trial in FIR No. 42 of 2006 under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 ('OSA') and 409/201/120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') registered at Police Station Special Cell, for the supply of certain documents relied upon by the Respondent State. 2. A significant question of law that arises in this matter concerning the right of an accused facing trial under the OSA to be provided with the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution which are in digital form in pen drives and hard discs. The case of the prosecution is that under Section 14 OSA even documents gathered during investigation can, if they are classified or secret, be withheld from the accused although they are relied ...

Shri. A.S. Chhachhi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Del)579; [2009]311ITR293(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. This reference has been made to this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as 'Act') by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' in ITA No. 3112/Del/91 relevant for the assessment year 1989-90.2. The Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding order of Assessing Officer computing taxable gain at Rs. 6,60,000/- for the assessment year 1989-90? 3. The brief facts of this case as they appear from the paper book are that the assessed in the period relevant to assessment year 1989-90 owned a house at Jorbagh, New Delhi. He sold the ground floor of that house for a consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/- The cost of construction of the ground floor was shown to be Rs. 1,25,000/- and the expense for brokerage were claimed at Rs. 45,000/-. Thus, the transaction resulted in a capital gains of Rs. 28,30,000/-. The assessed ...

Haran Haldar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ1601; [2008(118)FLR350]

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Appellants, parents and minor unmarried sister of late Kishan Haldar have filed the appeal challenging the order dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim petition filed by them.2. Appellants had filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the untimely death of Kishan Haldar who as a passenger in train No. 9263 was undertaking the journey on 22.9.2004 from Jaipur to Delhi Sarai Rohilla. According to the appellants as the train passed Patel Nagar station Kishan Haldar fell off the train due to a sudden jerk/jolt.3. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train and suffered multiple grevious injuries which proved fatal. He died on 26.9.2004 at 2.15 AM at DDU Hospital.4. Pertaining to the death of the deceased the Tribunal has returned a finding as under:The fact that the deceased died while traveling on the train is established from the record. However, one pertinent fact that has been ...

Afzal-ur-rehman Khan Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT185; 2008(3)KLT200

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has filed in court today a no objection of the respondent No. 2 to the grant of letter of administration with will annexed as prayed by the appellant. 2. The no objection along with the vakalatnama executed by respondent No. 2 in favor of the counsel is taken on record.3. Vide order dated 10.5.2007 probate petition registered as PC No. 257/06/07 filed by the appellant has been dismissed holding that the appellant has not proved that the will dated 13.2.1998, Ex.PW-1/1, is the last legal and valid testament executed by Late Mst. Khateeja Begum, the mother of the appellant and respondent No. 2. 4. Reason for so holding is that the attesting witness to the will has not spoken a word about the other attesting witness. Learned Trial Judge has opined as under:PW-1 being the only attesting witness to the will dated 13.2.1998 examined by the petitioner, did not, utter a single word regarding the presence of and putting signature by, ...

Shri Satyendra Singh Vs. University of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ97

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. This writ petition has been posted for urgent hearing at 3.45 p.m. today by a special order. The petitioner is a student of LL.B First Year at the Law Centre-II, Faculty of Law. He is also a handicapped person. He prays that a direction be issued to the respondents, 'to issue examination admit card to the petitioner so as to enable him to appear in the examination of LL.B First Year, Second Semester, starting from 28th April, 2008.'2. The petitioner rests his case on the fact that he met with an accident on 16th January, 2008 and was thereafter hospitalised up to 19th January, 2008. While at hospital, the petitioner underwent an operation. On 19th January, 2008, he is stated to have been discharged. He thereafter revisited the hospital on 30th January, 2008, when the sutures that had been applied pursuant to his operation, were removed. On that date, according to the petitioner, he was advised rest for four weeks. The petitioner states that he ultimately rec...

Paramjit Singh @ Bittoo Duggal and anr. Vs. Raj Shree Steel Co. Pvt. L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]146CompCas354(Delhi)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of two applications, one under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and another under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. Plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts claiming that Plaintiffs were engaged in the business of development of colonies in Punjab and Haryana. Plaintiffs had identified approximately 90 acres of land in Village Rahon at Khanna, District Ludhiana (Punjab). Plaintiffs contacted the farmers/owners for purchase of the land for development of residential-cum-commercial colony at Khanna, District Ludhiana (Punjab). Defendant No. 1, a Private Limited Company through its Directors approached the Plaintiffs and showed interest in the above land for developing the same into a colony. The Directors of Defendant No. 1 asked Plaintiffs to become Directors of Defendant No. 1 Company and work for development of the colony by the Company, to be known as Sunder City, Samrala...

Sh. Raj Kishore Tyagi Vs. Radhey Shyam and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT754; 2008(103)DRJ55

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Though service is not effected on all the respondents I can proceed ahead with the hearing and disposal of the appeal for the reason the battle has to be fought inter se the appellant and respondent No. 1 who was imploded as defendant No. 8 in the suit and on whose application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the plaint has been rejected.2. Mr. Tomar learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 states that the appeal may be heard for disposal today itself.3. The appellant had filed a suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction in para 1 whereof it was pleaded as under:That the plaintiff purchased a plot admeasuring 917 sq. yds. approx. vide property No/Khasra No. 410/1 and 411/1 situated in extended Lal Dora abadi of village Burari and presently known as Laxmi Vihar, Delhi-84 by virtue of Sale Deed dated 29/11/2005 vide Regn. No. 8344, book No. 1, volume No. 1686 on pages 159 to 164. Photocopy of the said Sale Deed is attached herewith as Annexure 'A'.4. In the a...

Pioneer Nuts and Bolts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Goodwill Enterprises

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(37)PTC514(Del)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff applicant sues the defendant for permanent injunctive relief and delivery up in respect of its trademark, claiming infringement and seeks an ad-interim temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2. This Court had granted ex-parte injunction; that order stood vacated due to non- compliance with provisions of Order 39, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. The counsel for parties were heard on the question of grant of ad interim injunction. This order disposes off that application.2. According to averments in the suit, the trademarks TUFF AND TUFF LABEL (hereafter collectively called 'the subject marks') were adopted by the Plaintiff, in 1996 in relation nuts, bolts and screws; they were advertised for registration in Class 6 in the Trade Mark Journal on 30-3-2005. It is averred that the registrations were granted. In relation to the trademark TUFF, the registration is deemed to subsist since 11-2-1998, in Class 6 in India, and for export; in relation t...