Delhi Court September 2008 Judgments

G.L. Sanghi and Others Vs. Scandinavian Airlines and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The complainant No. 1 herein was a reputed Senior Advocate prasticing in Supreme Court of India and was a frequent traveller in International Airlines to attend various conferences and seminars held all over the world. Complainant No. 2 is the wife and Complainant No. 3 is an eight years old grand-daughter of the Complainant No.1 respectively. 2. Opposite Party No.1 (in short O.P) is an International Airline i.e. SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES System Denmark, Norway, Sweden, SAS in short. 3. For multifarious deficiencies of OP causing loss, mental agony and harassment, emotional sufferings, complainants have sought compensation of Rs. 5 lacs each to complainant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and cost of the complaint. 4. Complainants case, in brief, is that they booked themselves with Scandinavian Airlines through OP No. 3 M/s. Jasmine Travels Pvt. Ltd. for 31.5.1999 from Delhi Copenhagen Oslo - New York Delhi. Complainant Nos. 1 and 2 were travelling on business class tic...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eastman Industries Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Del)593

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against a common judgment dated 31.01.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) passed in ITA No. 1850/ Del/2002 and ITA No. 4561/Del/2003 in respect of the same Assessee i.e. M/s Eastman Industries Ltd in respect of the assessment years 1998-99 and 2001-02.2. The Revenue which is in appeal before us, has sought consideration by this Court, of the following questions of law, which according to the Revenue, are substantial in nature:a. Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowing depreciation to the assessee @ 100% ignoring the material fact that the assets were entered in the books of accounts only after 30.09.1997b. Whether assessee was entitled to depreciation @ 50% or @ 100% when the assets were entered in the books of accounts only after 30.09.1997c. Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was corr...

Rajiv Gulati Vs. Tata EngineerIn and Locomotive Co. Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The complainant had purchased a Tata Safari vehicle from the Authorized Dealer of the OP No. 1 i.e. M/s. Concord Motors Ltd., New Delhi for Rs. 9,06,796 bearing Chassis No. 403011FZZNo.2131 Engine No. 483 DLT C491FZZ-748246 on 30th September, 2000. The complainant found that within a period of less than 3 months i.e. 13.12.2000, the Power Steering of the vehicle was not working properly and he got the vehicle checked form the service centre of the authorized dealer of OP No. 1, i.e. M/s. Concord Motors situated at 19, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi who rectified the defect. 2. That the defect in the power steering still persisted after driving the vehicle about 1300 kms. and that the complainant had again to get the vehicle checked at the service centre of OP No. 1 on 3.1.2001. Again on 31.1.2001 the complainant faced the problem with the power steering after driving the vehicle for about 3000 kms. and got it checked from the service centre of the OP No. 1. 3...

Rajnish Tuli Vs. National Insurancce Co. Limited

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 28th July, 2008 passed by the District Forum is that the District Forum has erred in passing the impugned order dated 18.7.2008 against the execution petition moved by the appellant that resulted in miscarriage of justice against the appellant and the appellant is deprived from the fruits of the order dated 28.11.2007. Impugned order reads as under: Reply filed by OPs, orders stand complied with. Consign. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The order which was stated to be complied with is dated 28th November 2007. The operative portion of the order is as under: As the result of above discussion, we direct OPs to process the complainants claim afresh and decide the same on merits within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For this purpose OPs if so desire, shall collect necessary mate...

Smt. Kalawati and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ789; II(2008)DMC647; 2008(106)DRJ299

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the CrPC) preferred against the judgment dated 24.08.2005 and sentence of even date i.e., 24.08.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge; Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.2. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment has found only Smt Kalawati (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ist Appellant' and Shri Tikam Singh (hereinafter referred to as the '2nd Appellant') guilty of the offences they were charged with, out of six persons accused, under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Section 498A, read with, Section 34 of the IPC. The said Appellants have been sentenced under Section 302, read with, Section 34 IPC to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each upon default in payment of fine, they have been sentenced to undergo a further simple imprisonment of five months each. For the offence under Section 498A, r...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Del)397; [2008]306ITR182(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Admit.2. The following substantial question of law arises for our consideration:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in accepting the assessee's claim of expenditure of Rs. 14,03,835/- towards renovation of rented premises under Section 30(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in holding that the Assessing Officer had wrongly disallowed the same on the ground that the same was allowable as a deduction towards depreciation under Section 32 of the said Act?3. The counsel for the parties agreed that no paper books would be necessary and that this appeal be heard straight away.4. The facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed the aforesaid expenditure of Rs. 14,03,835/- as a deduction under Section 30(a)(i) of the said Act. The expenditure was in respect of tenanted premises which had been taken by the assessee on lease for the purposes of its business. The expenditure was towards false ceiling, fixing tiles, replacing glasses, wooden part...

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Ashok Kumar Ahuja

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT50; 2009LC(DEL)773

Hima Kohli, J.I.A. No. 10888/2007(by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151, CPC)1. The present application is filed by the defendant, praying inter alia for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same is barred by the law of limitation.2. It is stated by the counsel for the defendant that a bare reading of the plaint on the record shows that the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 30,26,178/- against the defendant on the allegation that the defendant has not paid the bills for electricity consumption for the period from April 1996 to August 2002. He states that, as per the averments made in the plaint, without admitting the contents thereof to be correct, the amount alleged to be due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff was for the period upto August 2002, and the period of three years, if calculated from August 2002 expired in August 2005, whereas, the present suit was admittedly filed on 09.7.2007. He further submits that the perusal...

Arjun Kumar Vs. D.T.D.C.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. This appeal has been received by way of transfer from the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad by the Order dated 20.8.2007 passed by the National Commission. 2. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 10.10.2003 passed by the District Forum at Hyderabad in CD No. 69/2000 dismissing the complaint of the appellant seeking refund of the consideration for booking the consignment with the respondent for delivery at Bokajan and compensation for loss of courier as his daughter could not avail the opportunity of appearing in medical entrance KCET-1999, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. The case of the appellant before the District Forum, in brief, was that on 15.4.1999 the appellant handed over a consignment to respondent to be delivered to one Sh. R.G. Bhattacharya at Bokajan Cement Factory (Assam) through their Dimapur branch in Nagaland. The consignment note was also received by the appellant for which the responden...

Jagdeep Singh @ Vicky Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1242

S.L. Bhayana, J.1. The applicant, who has been arrested on 25.05.2005 in connection with FIR No. 223/2004, registered at P.S. Vikaspuri, under Sections 302/307/120B/34 IPC has filed this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is in jail since 25.05.2005.2. Now coming to the merits of the present case. The case of the prosecution is that the present applicant Jagdeep Singh @ Vicky in conspiracy with other co-accused namely Vikramjeet Singh Sethi and Jasbir Singh @ Goldy with the help of one Manohar Singh @ Lucky committed murder of one Ranjeet Singh Sethi @ Happy. As per prosecution case Jagdeep Singh at the instance of one Jasbir Singh Sodhi resident of London, with whom he had gone together on 6.5.2004 from Delhi to Dubai and planned the murder taking an amount of Rs. 20 lacs to eliminate Happy Sethi, deceased. Out of that amount, he has given Rs. 50,000/- to Vikramjeet and Jasbir Singh @ Goldy respectively.3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted ...

Frank Finn Management Consultants Vs. Mr. Subhash Motwani and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT95; 2008(106)DRJ921

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The plaintiff claims Rs. 25 lacs as damages for defamation by the libelous article written and published by the defendants in their magazine 'Opportunities Today' of September, 2001. The said article is under the column 'Student Alert' and is titled 'Flights of Fancy Crash Courses or Crashing Hopes '!'.' The article comments on the small/limited number of vacancies for the posts of flight purser, air hostess and cabin crew in the airlines industry and the large number applicants for the same. It proceeds to tell that there are over a dozen institutes offering various training programmes to entice students to pay between Rs 15000/- to Rs 20000/- with the hope of scores of vacancies awaiting them; the students are not told of the heavy odds against employment in the said industry and are enrolled with promises of jobs. After commenting generally on the dozen odd institutes, the impugned article comments in particular on 'one of the Delhi based institutes' whose o...