Delhi Court September 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Societex

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN441(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1 These appeals have been preferred by the revenue as well as the assessee against the order passed by the Tribunal on 28-10-2005 in ITA 1397/Delhi/2002 pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98. The proceedings relate to the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act)2. By virtue of the impugned order the Tribunal has set aside the imposition of penalty on the ground that the satisfaction, which was necessary to be recorded prior to initiation of penalty proceedings, has not been so recorded, following the view taken by this Court in several decisions starting from CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) . The Tribunal, however, on merits had found in favour of the revenue in respect of the assessee's claim of deduction of Rs. 23,50,000. According to the assessee the said amount had mistakenly been claimed in the return whereas in the Profit and Loss Account and Balanc...

Gujarat Insecticides Limited Vs. Jainsons Minerals and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)153PLR1

ORDERA.P. Shah, C.J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the order of the learned single Judge rejecting the plaint and ordering its return for presentation to a court of competent jurisdiction.2. Since the plaint of the plaintiff had been rejected on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, only the material pleas of the parties for purposes of this appeal are being narrated so as to bring the controversy into focus.3. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is carrying on the business of manufacture and supply of insecticides and pesticides and agro chemicals to its various customers. The defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm of which the defendant No. 2 is the managing partner. It is the case of the plaintiff that it supplied the pesticides from the year 1989, as ordered by the defendants and as a result of which a sum of Rs. 11,55,704/- became due and payable on behalf of the defendants to the plaintiff and towards the part payment of t...

Alok Tandon Vs. Scandinavian Airlines System

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The complainant in person, along with his family, i.e. his wife Mrs. Swapna Tandon and two minor children, namely Master Arush Tandon (age approx. eleven years) and Miss Shreya Tandon (age approx. three years) travelled by Scandinavian Airlines System flight No. SK-0968 on the 16th June, 2001 from Delhi to Zurich, via Copenhagen and also returned by the Scandinavian Airlines System flight from Zurich to Delhi via Copenhagen on 24th June, 2001. 2. The complainant at the time of checking into the said flight from Delhi, also checked in three pieces of luggage, which were admittedly accepted by the duty staff of the OP, and booked all through to Zurich, Switzerland. As a result of the utter negligence of the OP, the three pieces of luggage belonging to the complainant failed to arrive at Zurich. 3. The three bags not only contained personal effects and warm clothing of the complainant and his family, but also contained especially tinned/canned diabetic fo...

Mr. Vinay Jude Dias Vs. Ms. Renajeet Kaur

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2009Delhi70; II(2008)DMC589; 2008(106)DRJ183

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of learned ADJ dated 25th August, 2008 whereby in a Divorce Petition by mutual consent filed by the petitioners, the Court directed personal appearance of both the parties for purpose of its satisfaction regarding an inquiry under Section 10(A) of the Divorce Act.2. Notice of the petition was accepted by the respondent in the Court and respondent supported the petition and wanted the petition to be allowed. Thus, the Court has only to examine whether the personal appearance of the petitioner before the Court below was necessary in order to obtain divorce with mutual consent under Section 10(A) of Divorce Act.3. In the present case, the special power of attorney in favour of one Mr. Lal Babu Tiwari was executed by the petitioner (husband) to appear before the Court and testify about the contents of the petition. The petitioner has signed the petition before Indian consulate High Commission of India in UK under Section 3(...

Sham Murari Vs. Rajneesh K. Kshyap and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 155(2008)DLT336

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner has assailed an order passed by learned ARC dated 13th May, 2008 whereby an application under Section 25(B) along with an application under Section 5 of limitation Act seeking leave to defend and condonation of delay in filing leave to defend were dismissed.2. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Ramesh Basandara v. Moti Ram : 105(2003)DLT713 wherein this Court refused to interfere in an order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Order 37 Rule 3(7) setting aside the eviction order in Abdul Salman v. Hans Raj 1996 RLR 71 and argued that the application for condonation of delay was maintainable. In Ramesh Basandara case, this Court has categorically observed that provisions of Limitation Act being inconsistent with the time prescribed under Section 25B(4) would not be available to the controller for condoning delay. It was also observed that Clause 25-A of Rent Control Act ...

Central Government Employees Consumer Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. the ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]178TAXMAN5(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Tribunal's order dated 20.01.2006 in ITA 2708/D/2002 pertaining to the assessment year 1998-1999. For the year ending 31.03.1998, the assessee had provided for a sum of Rs. 72 lacs under the head 'salaries and wages', pending revision. The Assessing Officer found that this liability had been provided for in relation to wage revision implemented with effect from 01.07.1997. But, the liability on account of wage revision had not been ascertained and had not accrued during the year which ended on 31.03.1998. Consequently, the Assessing Officer disallowed the provision of the said sum of Rs 72 lacs for the assessment year 1998-1999.2. Being aggrieved by this disallowance, the assessee took the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who agreed with the assessee and allowed its appeal. The addition of Rs 72 lacs was consequently deleted.3. In the revenue's appeal before the Tribunal it was urged on behalf...

Pragati Steels Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR141(Delhi); 153(2008)DLT529; 2008(106)DRJ803; (2009)153PLR9

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') praying inter alia for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that in the year 2000, the respondent, Northern Railways invited tenders for supply of 29,00,000 numbers of Metal Liners. The petitioner was also one of the tenderers. The tender of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent, who issued a purchase order dated 20.3.2001 for supply of 4,50,000 numbers of Metal Liners. It is the case of the petitioner that it supplied a total quantity of 1,40,000 numbers of Metal Liners to the respondent and was willing to supply the balance quantity of 3,10,000 numbers of Metal Liners for which it sought extension of time, vide letter dated 6.2.2003. However, the respondent cancelled the contract for the balance quantity, vide its letter dated 10.2.2003. 3. Couns...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Com. Inv. Trust Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN440(Delhi)

ORDERCM. No. 7352/2008 in ITA No. 627/20081. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.CM. No. 7362/2008 in ITA No. 631/20082. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.CM. No. 7364/2008 in ITA No. 636/20083. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA Nos. 627/2008.ITA Nos. 631/2008, 632/2008 and 636/20084. These four appeals arise out of the Tribunal's Order dated 3-8-2007, which disposed of the assessee's appeals bearing ITA No. 3581/Delhi/2005 (Assessment year 1995-96) and ITA No. 35827 Delhi/2005 (Assessment year 1996-97) as also the revenues appeals bearing ITA No. 3563/Delhi/2005 (Assessment year 1996-97) and ITA No. 3564/Delhi/2005 (Assessment year 1995-96).5. We find from the impugned order that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, in respect of the assessment year 1995-96 is to the extent of Rs. 4,02,640. The disallowance in respect of the assessment year 1996-97 is to the extent of Rs. 3,44,114. Even, if both the years are taken together...

Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd. Vs. Dr. Ramya Raghu and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(38)PTC212(Del)

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The plaintiff has instituted the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of copyright in a book, authored by the defendant No. 1 with the assistance of the defendant No. 4 and published by the defendants No. 2 and 3, for the reason of the defendant No. 1 having assigned copyright therein to the plaintiff even before the book had come into existence and on the plea that such assignment has taken effect on the book coming into existence. The plaintiff has also sought consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from distributing, selling or in any manner exploiting the said book and for damages etc. On IA. No. 4247/2007 filed by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint for interim relief, vide ex parte order dated 23rd April, 2007 the defendants were restrained from selling, distributing or exploiting the book.2. IA. No. 6613/2007 has been filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. Vide order dated 27th February, 2008 the said ex p...

A.R. Khanna and Sons Vs. D.T.C. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR153(Delhi)

Hima Kohli, J.I.A. No. 4917/1994 (by respondents objections under Section 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and CS (OS) No. 2765/1993)1. By way of the present order, this Court proposes to dispose of the objections filed by the respondent DTC to the award dated 30.11.1993, passed by Sh.Swami Dial, Sole Arbitrator, Chief Engineer, CPWD (Retd.).2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an agreement was entered into between the petitioner contractor and the respondent DTC on 10.8.1983, for construction of Wazirpur Depot-II, Delhi at an estimated cost of Rs.11,51,333/- plus 93.90% above DSR 1977 i.e. at a total cost of Rs.22,32,434.69paise. The stipulated date for the start of the work was 29.7.1983 and the stipulated date for completion of the contract was 28.1.1984. The time for completion was extended upto 30.9.1984 and the work was actually completed on 16.10.1984. Thereafter, as disputes and differences arose between the parties at the time of submission of final bill, the ...