Delhi Court August 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 11 of about 155 results (0.024 seconds)O.P. Chirania and anr. Vs. the Director of Lotteries and Dy. Secy. to ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 152(2008)DLT100; 2008(106)DRJ77
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this judgment it is proposed to resolve the divergence of opinion that has arisen on account of the views expressed by two learned judges of this Court in their respective judgments in Crl.M. (Main) No. 2153/1996 O.P. Chirania and Anr. v. The Director of Lotteris, Haryana and Ramrichhpal Gupta v. DCM Shri Ram Consolidated Limited reported in (1995) DLT 284. This Bench for the sake of brevity has limited the scope of its opinion to the question/issue referred to it.2. The brief facts which have led to present reference are as follows. One Shri Gauri Shankar Mittal and the two petitioners, namely, Shri O.P. Chirania and Shri Binod Kumar Chirania, were the partners of M/s. Deep Mayank and Associates, the respondent No. 3, having its branch offices in New Delhi and Patna and its Head Office at Calcutta. The firm was dealing in lottery business. In 1992, the State of Haryana was running seven weekly lotteries, namely, Jai Durga, Mahadev, Hari Om, Jai Vishnu, Shri Gan...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Sanghu Chakra Hotels Private Limited ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR255(Delhi); 152(2008)DLT651
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) filed by Union of India and India Tourism Development Corporation challenges and questions the award dated 28th April, 2006. The respondents herein M/s Sanghu Chakra Hotels Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Sanghu Hotels, for short) have purchased share holding of the petitioners in Madurai Hotels Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Madurai Hotels, for short) under the share purchase Agreement dated 31st January, 2002. Madurai Hotels, the respondent No. 2, was incorporated on 23rd August, 2001 with Hotel Madurai Ashok located at Madurai, Tamil Nadu as its asset under the scheme for demerger, which was approved by the Department of Company Affairs on 9th November, 2001. 2. For the purpose of inviting bids and disinvesting Madurai Hotels, balance sheet as on 31st March, 2001 was prepared and the same formed the basis for...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Bhushan Vij Vs. Arti Teckchandani
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 153(2008)DLT247; 2008(106)DRJ24
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By an order dated 5.3.2008, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi allowed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act in favour of the respondent in respect of property No. 123, First Floor, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order on the ground that the learned ARC went wrong in not considering other defence raised by petitioner on the ground that the leave to defend granted to the petitioner/respondent was limited to the question of bonafide requirement. The petitioner relied upon Precision Steel & Engineering Works and Anr. v. Prem Deva, Niranjan Deva Tagal : [1983]1SCR498 and S.K. Dey v. D.C. Gagerna 1984(2)RCR 615.2. There is no doubt that the learned ARC in her order observed that the leave to defend granted to the petitioner was restricted to the question of bona fide necessity and she considered only this aspect. However, this Court can consider in view of the evidence led by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Batra Bhatta Company
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Del)531; 2008(106)DRJ389
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue in respect of the assessment year 1996-97 against the decision of the tribunal in ITA 1186/Del/2003 dated 23.02.2007.2. The facts are few. The assessee had sold agricultural land at Rs 57,37,500/- in March, 1996 and in its return had claimed exemption under the provisions of Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The assessee's claim was that the agricultural land sold by it was not a capital asset. Consequently, no capital gains accrued at the hands of the assessee and he was not required to pay any tax thereon.3. Although, it appears that an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) had been sent, the appellant's case throughout has been that it did not receive any such intimation. In any event, nothing turns upon this. The main issue involved in this appeal is with regard to invocation of the provisions of Section 147 of the said Act. The Assessing Officer had issued a notice ...
Tag this Judgment!Priyanka Vivek Batra Vs. Neeru Malik and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT354
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The defendants No. 1 and 2 have filed this application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint as premature and not disclosing any cause of action and on the ground of claim therein being barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act. Vide order dated 2nd May, 2007, the plaintiff was also called upon to satisfy on the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit.2. One Shri Ashok Malik was the father of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 and the husband of the defendant No. 1. Shri Ashok Malik died on 4th January, 2003. It is the case of the plaintiff that Shri Ashok Malik has left a Will dated 29th October, 2002 of which probate has been applied for by its executor before this Court and is pending as Testamentary Case No. 3/2006. It is the case of the defendants No. 1 and 2 that the said Shri Ashok Malik left a Will dated 28th February, 1998 and they have applied for probate of the same in the courts at Chandigarh. The pl...
Tag this Judgment!Himachal Joint Venture Vs. Panilpina World Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi88; 2008(3)ARBLR497(Delhi); 2008(106)DRJ424
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11th January, 2008 of the learned single Judge dismissing the appellant's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal seeking reversal thereof.2. The facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant was desirous of importing Tunnel Boring Machine ('TBM' in short) with backup system and associated equipments from Malm, Norway and Bilbao/Spain to Adit-II site of Parbati PB-2 Project site at District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. The respondent being a leading company in the field of International Freight forwarding with expertise in the movement of such type of heavy machinery submitted its quotations for executing the aforesaid shipment. After discussion and deliberations, revised quotations were submitted. After the preparatory action and submission of offer by the respondent, the appellant issued Letter of Intent on 25th June, 2003. Formal agreement was executed ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. S.V. Nagarajan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 153(2008)DLT406
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India, challenging the validity of the order dated 01.05.2002, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (in short 'the Tribunal'), allowing the OA No. 2388/2001 filed by the respondent herein Shri S.V. Nagarajan, whereby the Tribunal has held that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the upgraded scale of Rs. 22400-24500 22400-24500 , retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.1996, in terms of para 4(a) of the Official Memorandum (O.M.) dated 30.06.1999 bearing No. 6/1/98-ICI issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. As to what this O.M. states would become clear a little later.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Joint Director in the Indian Cost Accounts Service (ICAS) w.e.f. 04.09.1982. Thereafter, Sh. M.L. Mehta and Sh. J.K. Puri, were appointed as Dy. Directors (Cost) in the said service. Admittedly, t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Atam Prakash and Sons
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Del)164
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal') by an order dt. 13th April, 1988 passed under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') has referred to this Court the following question of law arising in the case of two assessees Atam Prakash & Sons, HUF (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1st assessee') and Om Prakash (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2nd assessee'):Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the IT Act, 1961 and hence no capital gain has arisen to the assessee?2. In order to answer the aforesaid question it would be important to refer to certain undisputed facts. The same are as follows:3. On 9th Oct., 1936 a perpetual deed was executed between the Secretary of State for India in Council representing the Government of India (i.e., the lessor) and one Shri Kan...
Tag this Judgment!Mansoor Mumtaz and ors. Vs. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT346
Manmohan Singh, J.1. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 23rd July 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No. 2467 and 2468 of 2000 in Suit No. 2480/98 whereby the application of the Defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed and the plaint as such was rejected mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by strict provisions and rigours of Sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the suit is not maintainable under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure.2. In the nutshell, brief facts for deciding the appeal are that on 12th November, 1996, there was a mid air collision of Saudi Arabian Airlines Boeing 747 ( flight SV 763) with Kazakistan Airlines near Charkhi Dadri, Haryana. One Ms. Farah Mumtaz was a passenger on board of Saudi Arabian Airlines. She died as a result of the said collision. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Farah Mumtaz and claim compensation and damage...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Sangeeta Garg Vs. Sh. Deepak Bansal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT173
Manmohan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) against the order dated 19th July 2007 passed in I.A. No. 7904/2006 in CS(OS) No. 558/2006 allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as Defendants) for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action.2. The case of the Plaintiff in the trial court was that the Plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief of a decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 19th December 2004 in respect of HIG/Ground Floor Flat No. 1, Akash Kunj Apartment, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property').3. The sale consideration of Rs. 27,75,000/- was agreed between the parties for the suit property.4. The Plaintiff paid Rs. 4 lac to the Defendant No. 1 as earnest money, Rs. 2 lac by cash and Rs. 2 lac vide cheque bearing No. 458943 dated 19th December 2004 drawn on Punjab National Ba...
Tag this Judgment!