Delhi Court August 2008 Judgments

Mohan Construction Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR609(Delhi); 2008(106)DRJ859

Hima Kohli, J.CS (OS) No. 2130A/1995 & IA No. 12226/1995 (objections under Section 15, 16 and 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. By way of the present order, this Court proposes to dispose of the objections filed by the objector UOI against an award dated 29.6.1995. The disputes adjudicated upon by the learned Arbitrator arise out of a contract entered into between the objector UOI and the petitioner contractor for the work of construction of Camp Jail, Phase II at Tihar Jail, Delhi including the development works in respect of which, a contract was executed between the parties on 28.11.1980. In the course of executing the work, as disputes and differences arose between the parties, the petitioner contractor invoked the arbitration clause contained in the contract. As a result, the respondent appointed an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The Arbitrator entered upon reference on 29.4.1991. The petitioner contractor raised 10 claims against the objector UOI, whe...

Rajesh @ Hunny @ Munny Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT92

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the two appellants, who are real brothers, against the judgment dated 21.11.2001 and order dated 22.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Session Case No. 90/2000 whereby they were convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' in brief) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to a fine of Rs.5000/- each, with a default stipulation, for the murder of one Kapil and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.5000/-each, with a default stipulation, for the attempted murder of his mother. 2. The incident leading to the prosecution of the two appellants(hereinafter to be referred to as the accused persons) was narrated by PW-2 Santosh Sharma in her first information statement to the police(Ex.PW- 2/A) on 12th December,1998 when the incident had taken place. She had claimed that that day i.e. 12th December, 1998, her sons Kapil(the deceased) and Anuj(PW-5) ha...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Dua

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN494(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal relates to the block assessment period 1-4-1987 to 16-1-1998. It is directed against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') order dated 28-3-2005. Essentially, two issues have been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. One issue pertains to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of certain bank statements discovered during the post search inquiry. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was to the extent of Rs. 3,10,000 by way of undisclosed income based on the said bank statements. It is an admitted position that the said bank statements were discovered in the course of a search during the 'post search inquiry' conducted by the Assessing Officer.2. The second issue sought to be raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is with regard to the additions made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 6,50,000 on account of his finding that the gifts of the said amount rec...

Manohar Lal, Executive Engineer Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Challenge in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to order dated 27.9.2005 (Annexure A-1) passed by Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development on behalf of the President of India, vide which the applicant was inflicted penalty of reduction to lower stage in time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect not adversely affecting his pension, as also order dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure A-2) rejecting his review petition against the order aforesaid.2. Brief facts as may be required at this stage for disposal of the Application reveal that while working as Executive Engineer, a memorandum of charge for minor penalty dated 15.10.2003 was issued to the applicant under the orders of the President of India. The applicant was chargesheeted under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules...

Rajesh Kumar Menghani Vs. Chief Urban Planner Pd Cell

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR557(Delhi)

Rekha Sharma, J.1. This appeal arises out of judgment of Additional District Judge Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan dated February 29, 2008, dismissing the objections filed by the appellant against an arbitration award dated January 23, 2006 made by a former Judge of this Court. The facts relevant to the disposal of the appeal are as under:Pursuant to an open tender, the respondent awarded a contract to the appellant for car/scooter/cycle etc. parking at Kanhaiya Nagar Metro Railway Station. The contract agreement was signed on March 25, 2004 and on the same date, the site was handed over to the appellant. It was alleged by the appellant that the conditions as projected in the tender were not complied with by the respondent particularly with regard to the area of the site made available to him. The respondent disputed the allegation of the appellant and on October 12, 2004 terminated the Agreement. The appellant approached the court of the District Judge for appointment of an Arbitrator whereupo...

Hotel Rajdoot Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT606; 2008(105)DRJ645

Veena Birbal, J.1. Petitioner is a private limited company which, inter alia, owns and operates Hotel Rajdoot, Mathura Road, New Delhi. The hotel commenced its operation in the year 1965. Two distinct restaurants were opened in the hotels, namely 'El Dorado' and 'Pussycat Discotheque'. The 'El Dorado' restaurant provided entertainment to customers by way of music played by live band and daily cabaret shows and Indian dances. The customers were not permitted to dance there. While having food they enjoyed live band played as well as cabaret shows. Petitioner was paying entertainment tax from the entry fee charged from customers of aforesaid restaurant. The other restaurant i.e. 'Pussycat Discotheque' had a different menu and atmosphere as compared to 'El Dorado' restaurant. A dance floor was provided there to customers for dancing to the recorded music. Timing of the discotheque was from 9 P.M. to Midnight and on Saturdays from 9 P.M. to 2 A.M. Lighting arrangement was kept low. Only cou...

Krishan Kumar Gupta Vs. Swadesh Bhushan Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT556

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner (tenant) is aggrieved by an order dated 27.3.2008 passed by the learned ARC whereby his application under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for permission to leave to contest the eviction petition was dismissed.2. The premises consisting of three bedrooms, one store, kitchen, verandah, bath and latrine on the ground floor of the property No. 58, BD Estate, Timarpur, Delhi was let out to the tenant on 1.11.1981. The landlord (respondent) stated his family consisted of himself, his wife, six daughters and one son. He was residing at first floor of the property consisting of three rooms, two stores, kitchen, lobby, bath and latrine and one store on the ground floor. The second floor of the property was in possession of his daughter Smt. Anjali Garg, who was living there along with her son. The son of the respondent/landlord was working in Australia having one son and daughter. His family used to frequently visit India and live with the la...

Poddar Pigments Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Del)309

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.03.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax on an application made by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for the assessment year 2001-02. The petitioner manufactures plastic granules, which is used as a colouring agent in the plastic and fibre industries. The petitioner claimed to have started production w.e.f. 01.03.1995. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it was entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB(3) to the extent of 30% in respect of its profits and gains for a period of 10 consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year 1995-96. Since the petitioner did not have a positive gross total income in the initial years, it could not claim the said deduction. For the first time, the petitioner had a positive total gross income in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2001-02. However...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Peekay Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR569(Delhi)

Hima Kohli, J.IA No. 9528/2000 (under Sections 16, 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Section 151 CPC)1. The present objections are directed against an award dated 28.7.1999, passed by the Sole Arbitrator in respect of the disputes between the parties.2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the petitioner claimant entered into an agreement dated 8.6.1990, with the respondent contractor for supply of 8,000 helmet combat fibre glass against work contract dated 27.10.1989. The period for the supply was valid from 20.9.1989 to 19.9.1990. The respondent offered Stores for inspection on 26.7.1990, which were rejected on 21.9.1990. The respondent made a request for extension of time which was acceded to by the petitioner claimant and the time period for delivery was extended, as per the amendment letter dated 22.11.1990. The stores offered on the second occasion were accepted only to the extent of 2130 helmets on 1.2.1991. A second extension was sought by the respondent c...

Durga Periwal Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT514

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order of DRAT dated 8th August, 2007 and he has confined his grievance to the denial of right of cross-examination. The right of cross-examination is claimed on the basis that a bank official had deposed that he saw the Petitioner sign the disputed documents. The DRAT has dealt with the above issue in the following terms:8. In the case at hand, there is no cogent or convincing reason to permit the cross-examination of the witnesses of the Bank prayed for by the appellant herein (Defendant No. 4). There does not appear to be any anomaly or ambiguity. The contention that cross-examination is needed on the point of the Bank having charged penal interest or to have debited other impermissible charges cannot be upheld. The matter is of argument only. In case the interest charged or other charges debited by the Bank are against the settled norms, against RBI guidelines against the terms of loan agreement or against the case law, t...