Delhi Court April 2008 Judgments

Anant Raj Agencies P. Ltd. Vs. the Narang Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT678

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.IA Nos. 1042/2007 (under Order I Rule 10 CPC)1. This is an application seeking impleadment of a subsequent purchaser of property in a suit for specific performance.2. The plaintiff's case in the suit is that it entered into an agreement to purchase property through oral contract dated 29.5.2000. The ostensible consideration pleaded in the suit is Rs. 25,00,000/-. The court had at the stage of issuing summons not granted interim relief; after notice was issued a statement was made that the property was sold to Mr. Anil Karla through his attorney Sh. Vishal Gulati. This statement was made by counsel for the defendant on 10.1.2002. This is also mentioned in the written statement filed at that stage on 9.1.2002. In addition to contending about the same, the defendant in clear and unambiguous averments denied any concluded contract in respect of the suit property. It also specifically made mention to the concluded contract with regard to suit property before institution ...

Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lakhbir Sawhney and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)CTLJ419(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application for impleadment filed on behalf of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. claiming that it is the owner in respect of the suit property. It is claimed that the suit property was sold to the applicant by the defendants by sale deeds executed on 03.04.2001.2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 29.05.1986 allegedly entered into between the plaintiff and the two defendants. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff drew my attention to the order passed on the very first day when the suit came up for hearing on 04.11.1991. The defendants were represented on caveat and the learned Counsel for the defendants had stated on that date that till the disposal of is No. 11488/1991 the defendants would not transfer or alienate the flat in question. The said application (IA No. 11488/1991) was disposed of on 26.02.2007 and the order dated 04.11.1991 was made absolute for the duration of the suit.3. The le...

Cce Vs. Rama Wood Craft (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR439

1. This appeal has been referred to Larger Bench on the following question: Whether Rs. 5000/- is a minimum penalty that is required to be imposed in terms of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.2. It may be stated at the very outset that Rs. 5000/- was the penalty prescribed in Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, corresponding to Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. Rule 25 of the 2002 Rules provides for the (alternate) penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. By amendment under Notification No. 8/2007 dated 1.3.2007, effective from 11.5.2007, the amount Rs. 2000/- has been substituted for Rs. 10,000/-.Reference to the amount or the rule in the reference order (supra) or in this order hereinafter may be understood accordingly mutatis mutandis.3. The issue has been referred to Larger Bench in view of two conflicting decisions of the Single Member Bench in CCE, Lucknow v.Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. and CCE, Lucknow v.Sarjoo Sahkari Chini Mills 2006 (204) ELT 478 (Tribunal). In t...

Ms. Pooja Sharma W/O Pawan Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA, applicant has challenged order dated 07.1.2008, whereby she has been transferred to Ambala Division alongwith post on administrative ground in public interest (page-11). It is stated by the counsel for applicant that till date applicant has not been relieved from her post and she has already given a representation on 02.2.2008 explaining therein her pitiable condition as she has three minor children and there is no one else to look after her family, as stated in the additional affidavit, filed by the applicant, but no response has been given by the respondents.2. Since applicant has already given a representation, as stated in Para-2 of the additional affidavit and no reply has been given by the respondents, it would be better that respondents should apply their mind to the representation of applicant and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Since reasons are not known why applicant has been transferred, I feel it would be better, if this OA is disp...

Dr. V.K. Dwivedi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA, applicant has challenged order dated 24.12.2004 whereby his appeal has been rejected, order dated 3.9.2004 whereby he has been removed from service (page 14) and also letter dated 5.7.2007.i.e.reply to the legal notice given by the counsel for applicant (page 9).He has also sought direction to the respondents to disburse pension and Ors.pensionary benefits to the applicant w.e.f. 20.5.2001 along with interest.2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was working as Senior Scientist in IVRI, Izatnagar, Bareilly. Vide order dated 3.10.1997, applicant was sent on deputation to the Government of Botswana for a period of two years and in the order itself it was mentioned that he was required to pay pension contribution on the normal rates (page 23).His deputation period was extended for a period of one year w.e.f.5.10.1999 with Government of Botswana vide order dated 12.11.1999 (page 24). Applicant requested for further extension but vide letter dated 2.2.2001, his request...

Picker India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are the two appeals filed one by the assessee and other filed by the Revenue and both are against the order of the CIT(A)-XXIX, New Delhi dt. 14th July, 2000. There are six grounds in the appeal of the assessee. Grounds 3 to 6 of the assessee's appeal are narrative and the issue that arises from them is whether the CIT(A) would have taken a decision based on the available facts and delete the addition of Rs. 1,61,86,880 instead of setting aside the issue relating to the alleged low GP to the files of the AO with certain guidelines. Further, the CIT(A) is directing the AO to apply the provisions of Section 92 of the IT Act and issuing certain directions in this regard. Finally, other two grounds Nos. 1 and 2 are: 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of commission of Rs. 11,07,251 paid to RTP Business Enterprises, Rs. 8,500 paid to JK Traders and Rs. 8,400 paid to Technomed Services on the ground that the appellant failed to bring any evidence...

Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The only ground taken by the assessee in this appeal is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the finding of the Assessing Officer that investments in shares on the Mumbai Stock Exchange were at par with loans and advances and consequently income form such investments amounted to interest chargeable under the Interest-tax Act, 1974.2. In this connection, it is mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee received income of Rs. 21,67,902/- from Vyaj Badla transactions conducted at Bombay Stock Exchange. This amount was not included in the chargeable interest. It was explained that under the Act what can be brought to tax is interest on loans and advances.Income from investment at Bombay Stock Exchange for Vyaj Badla transactions was on account of purchase and sale of shares and, thus, it did not amount to interest on loans and advances. The AO considered the facts of the case and the submissions made bef...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. Yogender Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Del)264; [2009]311ITR372(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act), the following question of law has been referred for our opinion:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in directing the ITO to grant investment allowance to the assessed in terms of Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. The assessed is a practicing Radiologist and he had installed an X-ray machine on which he claimed a deduction by way of an investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act. This was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and also by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) while relying upon an order passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal in some other case came to the conclusion that the assessed was entitled to the deduction under Section 32A of the Act. It is in these circumstances that the present reference is made to this Court.3. It i...

Anandharam and Co. Vs. Directorate of Health Services Through Its Dire ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ649

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The short question that falls for determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioner was illegally deprived of an opportunity to submit its tender in response to a tender notice issued by the respondent for supply of surgical consumables. The petitioner's case is that the tender documents downloaded by it from the internet were incomplete in as much as it did not have the requisite specifications for the material to be supplied apart from the fact that the said document had certain discrepancies in the same. A letter dated 4.10.2007 allegedly written by the petitioner to the Director, Health Services, Karkardooma, Delhi lodged a protest against the denial of a fair opportunity to him to make the supplies. Another letter dated 8.10.2007 addressed to the Chief Minister of Delhi sought certain clarifications and asked for re-tendering of the supplies. Having received no response from the respondents to the said request the petitioner has sought a writ of certi...

Mrs. Mani Shandly and anr. Vs. the State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ578

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Temperance is the hallmark of judicial authority. The exercise of judicial authority is not 'show of strength' but a duty to be performed with humility and yet firmness. This cardinal principle seems to have been lost while passing orders in the present case.2. The petitioners, both ladies, have been charged under Sections 347/461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) by the MCD on the allegation of misuse of property consisting ground floor of property bearing No. B-23, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi in the capacity of the owner/occupier. The criminal complaint No. 1291/2001 is filed by the MCD, which was pending in the Court of the learned MM. The offence is a bailable offence punishable with simple imprisonment, which may extend to six months or fine which may extend to Rs. 5,000.00 or with both. It is the case of the petitioners that they were only employees working in the said premises at the relevant time and...