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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Khaitan Chemicals and Fertilizers L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)501; [2008]307ITR150(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.03.2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 1261/Del/2004 pertaining to the assessment year 2000-01. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the following substantial question of law arises for our consideration:Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the net profit (as referred to in Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961) of the assessee company is to be computed only after deducting the expenses on prior period/extraordinary items which are business expenditure, but shown separately in the profit and loss account due to the specific requirement of the Accounting Standards prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India2. Consequently, we admit this appeal. The filing of paper books is dispensed with and the Counsel for the parties have been heard on the above ...
Akshod Kumar Sharma Vs. Tanu Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ461
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By the petition, petitioner has assailed an order dated 12th March, 2008 passed by First Appellate Court whereby an appeal of the petitioner against an order of learned Civil Judge dated 22.8.2007 dismissing his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for interim injunction, was dismissed.2. The brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner, who is husband, filed a suit against his wife for declaration of permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of house No. E-5/22, Sector 16, Rohini claiming that the property constructed over 60 square meters of plot was purchased by him benami in the name of his wife and daughter and for their benefit and welfare. He has spent a huge amount on its construction. He was dealing in shares and sale-purchase of properties. He used to get money from his foreign based brother, mother and sister. He was living in the property along with his wife and daughter. However, after a dispute be...
Kashmilon Processing Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(133)ECC288; 2008(159)LC288(Delhi); 2009(234)ELT442(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The short point raised in this writ petition is that the order passed by the Central Government on 30.01.1981 under Section 36 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was beyond time. The facts are that the Appellate Collector of Central Excise had passed an order under Section 35 of the said Act in favour of the petitioner on 28.3.1978. The show cause notice under Section 36(2) of the said Act was issued on 16.10.1978. Consequent to the said show cause notice, the impugned order dated 30.01.1981 has been passed.2. The provisions of Section 36 as it stood at the relevant point of time read as under:Section 36: Revision by Central Government.- (1) the Central Government may on the application of any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any Central Excise Officer or by the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963, and from which no appeal lies, reverse or modif...
P.C. Sharma and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR228(Delhi)
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. Both the petitions with respect to separate arbitration proceedings, but between the same parties and involving identical facts, have been preferred under Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Old Arbitration Act, 1940 with the prayer for removal of the respondent No. 2 (also same in both the petitions) appointed as the sole arbitrator by the respondent No. 1 DDA and for appointment of an independent arbitrator. Replies have been filed by the respondent No. 1 to both the petitions. However, the counsel for the petitioner, during the hearing, did not press for the relief of change of arbitrator but only pressed/argued for extension of time under Section 28 of the Act for extension of time for making of the award. The counsel for the respondents in each of the cases have opposed the said prayer for extension of time on the ground of the same being barred by time. The power of the court to extend the time for making of the award was not disputed and, in fact, Mr Gaurav Sar...
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and anr. Vs. Harinder Kohli and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT56; LC2009(1)274; 2008(38)PTC185(Del)
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This order shall dispose of the plaintiffs' application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an interim injunction, inter alia, restraining the defendants from releasing the defendants' film under the trademark/title 'HARI PUTTAR'. The application has been filed in a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademarks, passing off, dilution, damages and rendition of accounts of profits earned by the defendants by use of the impugned trademark/title; and for an order of transfer of the domain name www.hariputtarthefilm.com to the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs assert in the plaint that the plaintiff No. 1 applied for and secured trademark registration in India for the word mark 'HARRY POTTER' under Nos. 1111702 in Class 9, 1111703 in Class 16, 917454 in Class 25, 917453 in Class 28 and 1246560 in Class 41, and that the defendants are guilty of infringing the aforesaid registered trademarks of the...
Dr. Deepashree Vs. Sultan Chand and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi85; 2008(4)ARBLR94(Delhi); 2008(106)DRJ457
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. Application is filed Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of Arbitrator. The relationship between the applicant and the respondent is of an author and a publisher. The agreement dated 1.8.2008 between the parties contains an arbitration clause as under:If and when any dispute arises between the parties as to the meaning, interpretation or on implementation of these terms, such dispute shall be referred to the arbitration of two Arbitrators, one to be appointed by the publishers and the other by the author/s.2. Disputes and differences have arisen between the parties, the applicant vide legal notice dated 13.3.2007 to the respondent nominated Justice A.P. Chaudhary, retired, as the Sole Arbitrator and called upon the respondent to within 30 days consent to his appointment. The respondent sent reply dated 7.4.2004 refusing to concur in the appointment of Sole Arbitrator and relying on arbitration clause in the agreement ...
Blb Institute of Financial Markets Ltd. Vs. Mr. Ramakar Jha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR12(Delhi); 154(2008)DLT121
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This petition, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief against the respondent, an employee of the petitioner.2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is one of the leading institutes in imparting education and knowledge in the field of financial services. The objective of the petitioner is to educate and develop professionals for the securities industry in India, to disseminate information about Indian capital markets by creating a comprehensive body of knowledge and to contribute to the healthy development of securities market by bringing expertise to bear on structural and policy issues concerning the securities industry. The petitioner is also an authorized education provider of the Financial Planner Standards Board, India (FPSB) for the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) professional education...
Sanjay @ Sonesh Dass Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: 153(2008)DLT379
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. In this appeal the appellant questions the correctness of judgment dated 9th January, 2001 and the order on sentence dated 10th January, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby he was convicted for having committed the offences of murder, attempt to murder and robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 394 IPC. Fine was also imposed on each count with a default stipulation. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts of the prosecution case may first be noticed. PW-5 Dwarka Nath Khanna, aged about 73 years, was living with his wife Smt. Kamla Khanna in house number R-545, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. They had a son (PW-6 Vipin Khanna) who was settled in London and a daughter who was married. They had employed one domestic servant Ram @ Vishu. The appellant Sanjay, who was a...
Harji Engg. Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR199(Delhi); 153(2008)DLT489
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., the objector, was awarded contract for erection, testing and commissioning of eltrostatic precipitators at Ampara 'B' Thermal Power Project vide LOI dated 28.8.91 issued by Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd., the respondent.2. Disputes arose between the parties and in terms of the arbitration clause, one Mr. U.C. Gupta, Senior DGM of the respondent was appointed as a Sole Arbitrator. However, on his retirement, Mr. S.K. Sawhney, the then AGM of the respondent was appointed as a Sole Arbitrator in 1997. 3. Mr. S.K. Sawhney has made and published, the award dated 21.2.2006, partly allowing claims of both parties. The objector has challenged the said award in the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act', for short).4. Paragraph 3 of the award reveals that the learned Sole Arbitrator had entered reference on 01.10.1997 and had 27 effective hearings before him. The last ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Moser Baer India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN42(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 30-11-2007 passed in ITA No. 4992/Delhi/2003 pertaining to the assessment year 2000-01.2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of computer related products including floppies and compact discs. The said business is carried on through its industrial undertakings which are, inter alia, 100 per cent export oriented undertakings. The assessee had claimed exemption under Section 10A/10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the profits earned by it. According to the Assessing Officer, out of the total sales of Rs. 148.75 crores of the assessee's three units, direct export sales were only to the extent of Rs. 72.78 crores and the remaining sales were on account of stock transfer to the assessee's Rotterdam unit amounting to Rs. 73.46 crores. There was a certain amount of domestic sales amounting to Rs. 2.33 crores and sale of scrap amounting to Rs. 0.18 crores. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »