Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments

Smt. Surinder Kaur and ors. Vs. S. Rajdev Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT704; 2008(105)DRJ324

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The plaintiff Nos 1 and 2 have filed this application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The application is not signed by other parties, rather opposed by them. This order shall decide whether the suit can be decreed as sought by plaintiff Nos 1 and 2.2. The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from estate bearing Municipal No. 124, Janpath, New Delhi and the building comprising of Hotel Imperial constructed thereon and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the said property and for declaration and other reliefs relating to running of hotel Imperial, New Delhi. The suit has been contested vigorously by the defendants. On 18th July, 2007, while hearing arguments on various pending applications, this Court gave the parties a chance of mediation and directed that counsel for both the parties shall hold a meeting and explore the possibility of mediation. Thereafter, the ...

Amardeep Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR200(Delhi)

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner has applied for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 1 (Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited) for carrying out the work of civil construction at the factory of the respondent No. 1 at Paradeep, Orissa. It is further the case of the petitioner that after the completion of the work, the said factory of the respondent No. 1 at Paradeep, Orissa has been disposed of to the respondent No. 2, Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited (IFFCO) in the month of September 2005. The petitioner claims monies to be due to it under the contract aforesaid with the respondent No. 1. The said contract/agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 is stated to be containing an arbitration agreement. The petitioner has filed before this Court a letter dated 1st June, 1998 of the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner ...

Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]176TAXMAN169(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. We propose to dispose of these three references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all relating to the assessment year 1978-79. One reference (ITR No. 299/1988) is at the instance of the assessee and arises out of the assessee's appeal [ITA No. 2907/1982 (Delhi)] before the Tribunal. The other two references (ITR No. 300/1988 and ITR No. 301/1988) are at the instance of the revenue and arise out of the assessee's appeal [ITA No. 2907/1982(Delhi)] and revenue's appeal [ITA No. 3018/1982 (Delhi)] before the Tribunal.ITR No. 299/19882. In this reference, the question that has been referred to us is:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure amounting to Rs. 10,03,627 being legal, court and other expenses in connection with the litigation against the National Bank of Pakistan3. According to the learned counsel for assessee, this question has be ...

Sharda Bansal and ors. Vs. R.D. Bansal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ282

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. In this suit, the defendant No. 5 (Gulab Devi Charitable Trust) is admittedly a public charitable trust. Issues were framed in the suit on 5th October, 2007 and the issue No. 5 as under was ordered to be treated as a preliminary issue:Whether the suit is not maintainable against defendant No. 5 in view of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure as alleged by the defendant No. 5?OPD52. Arguments have been heard from the counsel for the defendant No. 5 and the counsel for the plaintiffs. The suit is with respect to the estate of Shri Manmohan Bansal who died on 24th May, 1996. The plaintiff No. 1 is the widow and the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are the son and daughters of Shri Manmohan Bansal. It is the case in the plaint that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 who are the brother and legal representatives of the brother of Shri Manmohan Bansal have fabricated a Will dated 17th May, 1996 of Shri Manmohan Bansal whereunder the proceeds of the estate are to go to the defendant...

Texpart Syndicate Vs. Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

The following order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Sh. R.N. Poddar. Member. 2. Appeal against adjudication Order No. ADJ/657/DD(AKL)/B/2004 dated 20.5.04 passed by Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs on the appellant for the reason of failure to submit evidentiary proof of utilization of any import of goods for which foreign exchange acquired in contravention of section 8(3) and 8(4) of FER Act, 1973 r/w para 7A 20 (Chapter 7 of Export Control Manual) 3. It is stated that there is inordinate delay of more than 200 days in filing this appeal. On behalf of the appellant it is submitted that the appellant had never received SCN stated to have been issued. Consequently no reply could be filed in response thereto. However, in the application for condonation of delay it is stated that the appellant came to know for the first time about the impugned order when the copy was received on or around 02.06.2004. On perusal of the...

Shri K.L. Ahuja (Retd. Technical Vs. Director General, Council for

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA applicant has challenged recovery of penal rent from his gratuity for overstaying in the quarter unauthorisedly on the ground that without following the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, no recovery could have been made.2. He has further sought 18% interest on delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment.3. It is stated by the applicant that he was allotted Quarter No. 9C/1, NPL Colony, New Delhi while working as Technical Officer 'C'. He retired on 31.1.2001 and was allowed to retain the said quarter up to 31.5.2001. As his wife was very sick, he sought further extension vide letters dated 24.5.2001, 4.11.2003 and 29.4.2004 but no reply was given. They asked him to vacate and filed OA No. 3046/2002 seeking direction to the applicant herein to vacate the premises and for recovery of dues. The said OA was dismissed on 21.10.2003 (page 37) for want of jurisdiction.4. Grievance of applicant is that respondents have deducted pe...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Sh. S. Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR290(Delhi); 2008(105)DRJ669

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The question as to whether provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Old Act') or that of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'New Act') are applicable to the arbitration proceedings in question between the parties from which award dated 13.7.1998 emanated.2. We may have to take note of certain dates for answering this question. The respondent herein was awarded the contract by the appellant-DDA vide agreement No. 14/EE/SED-11/DDA/88-89. Certain disputes arose between the parties. The respondent invoked the arbitration clause and requested the Engineer Member, DDA to appoint the arbitrator vide letter dated 30.10.1992. Since no arbitrator was appointed, the respondent filed Suit No. 1744/94, which was a petition under Section 20 of the old Act. In that suit, order dated 18.1.1996 was passed by this Court directing the Engineer Member to appoint an arbitrator. As the DDA failed to take action, the re...

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. India Trade Promotion Organizat ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]181TAXMAN26(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.CM No. 6249/2008 in ITA 549/2008Allowed subject to all just exceptions.ITA 548/2008 & ITA 549/20081. These appeals pertain to the assessment years 1989-1990 and 1990-91. They arise out of the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 22.06.2007. They are, therefore, disposed of by this common order.2. The facts in brief are that the assessment was completed in respect of both the years creating demands for both the years. Thereafter, in 1994 exemption was granted to the assessee under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). In view of the said exemption which had been granted, the assessment was rectified under Section 154 of the said Act and the assessee was assessed at nil. The Assessing Officer also granted refund but did not grant any interest on the refund of the tax paid by the assessee. It was claimed that no interest was payable in view of the assurance given by the representative of th...

Harish Kumar S/O Surender Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Harish Kumar, applicant herein, had applied for selection to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police on 02.05.2005 in prescribed format. He cleared the written test on 05.08.2005, physical measurement test on 18.01.2006, trade test on 02.02.2006 and interview on 03.04.2006. On succeeding in the above tests and the interview, he was called for completion of codal formalities for appointment as Constable (Driver) on 03.05.2006, and after completion of such formalities, he was provisionally selected along with other 14 candidates on 26.05.2006, and was directed to report for medical examination on 13.06.2006. As the luck would have it, by the time he was called to complete codal formalities, his in-laws and wife got an FIR registered under Section 498A/406 IPC against him and his relations. He honestly disclosed this fact in his pre-appointment formalities. In November/December, 2006, when other candidates, selected with him, received appointment letters but the same was not is...

Sahu Basheshar Dayal Bankers and Anr. Vs. Sujata R. Nath Decd. Thr. LR ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT18; 2008(106)DRJ110

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner, who was a tenant in the first floor of the premises bearing No. 2-B, Commissioner Lane, (Kirpa Narain Marg), Delhi-110006 on a monthly rent of Rs. 800 per month since 1971, has preferred this revision petition against the order of learned Rent Controller dated 13th November 2007 whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioner for leave to defend. The land lady had filed the eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act claiming that she required the premises for her bona fide requirements.2. The land lady contended that she was in possession of first floor and second floor of her premises. The accommodation available with her was three rooms with a drawing-cum-dinning room on the first floor and store room and a tin shed on the second floor. She was having a mentally retarded son incapable of looking after himself, therefore, one of her grandchildren namely Udit, was residing with her so as to help her menta...