Delhi Court September 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
K.C. Palaniswamy and anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Del)202; 152(2008)DLT620; 2008(106)DRJ319
S. Muralidhar, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ( CrPC ) two of the accused persons in a criminal complaint, CC No. 444 of 2005 titled Kamal Khanna v. Sidharth Ray and Ors. pending in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), New Delhi seek the quashing of the said complaint and all proceedings consequent thereto. The two petitioners are K.C. Palaniswamy and R. Karunanithi. The petitions by two other accused, R. Athappan and Gopinath Athapppan, stood withdrawn by them in terms of the order dated 21st February 2006 passed by this Court. The cause title of the present case accordingly reflects this change.2. The aforementioned complaint was filed by Kamal Khanna, Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 49 (4), New Delhi against Data Access (India) Limited (Company) [arrayed as Accused No. 16] and 16 other persons who were described as Directors or Senior Officers of the said Company. This complaint was filed under Section 279B read with S...
Rajiv Sud Vs. Ram Chand Rallan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: 153(2008)DLT418; (2009)153PLR14
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By way of instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 27th April 2007 passed by learned Commercial Civil Judge in an execution case No. 182/1972.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the instant petition are that in an execution of a decree dated 25th August 1971, the decree holder got immovable property of JD (respondent No. 2 herein) attached and prayed for sale of immovable property. Despite the attachment and proclamation of sale, when no amount was paid by the JD, the property measuring 2016 sq. yards forming part of Khasra No. 739, Khata No. 34/1293, Village Tuglakabad, New Delhi was put to auction through the Court auctioneer in 1979. The said property was purchased by the auction purchaser (petitioner herein) for a sum of Rs. 7200/- on 2nd March 1979. The bid money was deposited by the auction purchaser and he applied for confirmation of sale. On 29th March, 1979, objections...
Aft Trust - Sub 1 and ors. Vs. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Del)59
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.02.2005 passed by the Under Secretary, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Government of India (Respondent No. 2) whereby the application of the petitioners 1 and 2 under Section 10(15A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') was rejected. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners 1 and 2 also pray for an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant approval to the lease agreements dated 18.10.1999 under Section 10(15A) of the said Act in respect of two aircrafts leased by the petitioner No. 1 to the respondent No. 3 (Jet Airways). There is also a prayer for refund of Rs 10,98,42,772/- withheld and paid under Section 195 of the said Act in respect of the lease rents paid by the respondent No. 3 to the petitioner No. 1 being the owner of the aircrafts. There is also a prayer for striking down the...
Pooja Batra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT6
V.K. Shali, J.1. Ms. Pooja Batra, petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the detention order bearing F. No. 673/06/2007-CUS/VIII dated 5th December, 2007 issued by Joint Secretary (Cofeposa), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue against her husband Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Batra S/o Sh. Om Prakash (hereinafter referred as the detenu), R/o 1431, Gopal Street, Sangat Rashan, Paharganj, New Delhi under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Preservation of Smuggling Act, 1974. The detenu was detained in pursuance to the said detention order on 22nd May, 2008.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as given in the petition are that the detenu purported to have represented himself as a proprietor of a concern styled as M/s Om Prakash Deepak Kumar, 1074-75, Room No. 23, Jyoti Market, Gandhi Gali, Fatehpuri, Delhi-110006. He filed a bill of entry bearing No. 589144 dated 25th April, 2007 for clearance of the consignment at I.C.D., Tughlakabad, New Delhi ...
Society Des Products Nestle S.A. and anr. Vs. Satya Prakash Maheshwari ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: LC2009(1)311
V.K. Shali, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 17th December, 2007 delivered by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No. 1943/2006 titled as Society Des Products Nestle S. A. and Anr. v. Satya Prakash Maheshwari and Ors. By the impugned judgment although the suit of the appellant has been allowed, so far as the grant of relief of permanent injunction against the respondents is concerned but the prayer of the appellant for the rendition of accounts and the payment of damages has been disallowed.2. The facts of the case are as follows:a) The plaintiff/appellant herein filed a Civil Suit No. 1943/2006 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing their registered trademarks, copyright and for rendition of accounts of profits/damages etc. against the defendants/respondents herein.b) The case which was set up by the appellant in the plaint was to the effect that the appellant is a manufacturer of noodles which are being sold by them under the brand name of...
Mr. Manish Sethi and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT122
Manmohan, J.1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus for quashing the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 dated 19th February, 2003 No. F.8(12)/2002/L&D;/LA/18646, declaration under Section 6 dated 16th February, 2004 bearing No. F.8(12)/2002/L&D;/LA/25144 & Award No. 2/2004-05/Distt/Northeast in respect of Khasra No. 2 Min (1-02), 8(1-12), 9(4-16), 12(4-16), 13(1-14), 18/1(1-10) & 19/1(1-04) measuring 18 bigha 14 biswa situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Jivanpur @ Johripur (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioners' land') and a writ of certiorari seeking a direction from this Court for disposal of the application under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act for denotification of the abovementioned land pending before the competent authority.2. The facts of this case are that on 19th February, 2003 a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereina...
Saraya Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: [2009]176TAXMAN47(Delhi)
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks review of the order dated 27-2-2008. In the writ petition, the petitioner has made three prayers, which are as follows:(i) That the provisions of Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 may be declared as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 265, 300A of the Constitution of India and therefore they may be struck down;(ii) That alternatively the provisions of Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act may be read down suitably;(iii) That the satisfaction note dated 1-12-2006 recorded by ACIT, CC-4, New Delhi (Annexure P-l) may be quashed with all the consequential proceedings taken in pursuance thereof under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act.(iv) That any other order in favour of the petitioner may be passed as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.2. The only submission made before us on 27-2-2008 was with respect to the first two prayers. The third prayer was not argued before us.3. We do not know why the thir...
international Breweries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mohan Meakins Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR581(Delhi); 153(2008)DLT399
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The Respondent/Applicant seeks dismissal at the threshold of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, notice whereof was ordered to be issued to the Respondent on 23rd July, 2008.2. The Respondent/Applicant in its application for such rejection of the petition under Section 34 of the Act has stated that the Agreement leading to the Arbitration contained a jurisdiction clause that all the disputes or differences between the parties thereto shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of competent jurisdiction in Ghaziabad; that the Arbitration proceedings were held at Ghaziabad and the ex parte Award in favour of the Respondent/Applicant and against the Petitioner was announced at Ghaziabad; that no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and in any case in view of the jurisdiction clause in the Agreement, the parties had agreed to the jurisdiction of the courts at Ghaziabad.3. The pe...
Jai Singh Vs. Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR667(Delhi)
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The questions which fall for consideration in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are two folds. Firstly, whether the expressions-(a) the claimants have failed to establish incontrovertibly the claim in terms of the agreement?(b) the claim is not in terms of the agreement; besides was not established incontrovertibly? used by an arbitrator for disallowing the claim can constitute reasons for disallowing the claims; andSecondly, if in pursuance to such an award, the claimant accepts the amounts awarded by the arbitrator (mostly on admissions of the respondents), can the claimant be debarred from challenging the award.2. The arbitration proceedings were governed by the 1996 Act. The Arbitration proceedings were in pursuance to an arbitration agreement which itself provided that 'in all cases where the amount of the claim in dispute is Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and above, the arbitrator will give reason for ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Surinder Kumar Khosla and Co. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2008
Reported in: 152(2008)DLT782
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the correctness and legality of an award dated 28th February, 1989, has been called into question. The Plaintiff, Union of India questions the correctness in so far as the award does not allow the full amount of claim made by it.2. The brief facts necessary for purpose of this case are, the plaintiff entered into an agreement whereby the defendant (supplier) was to supply firewood charcoal and limequick at the Supply Depot ASC, Delhi Cantonment, at agreed rates. The Union of India alleged that the defendant/supplier defaulted from the terms of the agreement and did not make his supplies as agreed in October 1987. It was alleged that defendant was called upon to resume supplies in accordance with the agreed schedule but without any success. In these circumstances, the dispute was referred to arbitration by one Lt. Col Azim Ahmad Chida.3. The Sole Arbitrator, by his award dated 28.02.1989 d...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »