Delhi Court January 2009 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.
Union of India Vs. Satyam Computer Services Ltd.
Court: Company Law Board CLB Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(148)CC629,2009(90)CLA4,2010(97)SCL49(CLB-NEWDELHI)
1. The instant application has been filed by the company seeking for various interim reliefs on the grounds stated in the application. 2. Heard on the application. Satyam episode does not require any elaboration. With the view to protect the interests of the company, its large work for customers and more so, in the larger public interest, the Union of India, invoked various provisions of the Companies Act before this Board and sought for urgent ex parte interim reliefs. Forming a prima facie opinion that there existed sufficient grounds to exercise the powers of this Board under section 403 of the Act, to regulate the affairs of the company, by an order dated 9-1-2009, while suspending the then existing Board of Directors, I also authorized the Union of India to appoint, in the name and on behalf of this Board not more than 10 eminent persons as directors of the company. Accordingly, the Central Government has appointed, for the time being, 6 eminent persons as directors. Since, they h...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Sunder Lal Khatri and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT555
Vipin Sanghi, J.4. The Sole Arbitrator rendered his award dated 1st August, 1992 thereby allowing the claims of the Respondent/contractor to the extent noted by the learned Single Judge on page 3 of the impugned judgment, while the counter claims of the DDA/appellant were rejected, except counter claim No. 6 towards material found short, which was adjusted while considering the respondents claim No. 1.5. The learned Counsel for the appellant, Sh. D.S. Mahendru, in the present appeal has confined his pleas to the rejection of counter claim No. 1, and the award on claim Nos. 4 and 5.6. In so far as the counter claim No. 1 is concerned, the plea advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Bhagat Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Anr. the decision of the Superintending Engineer (S.E.) levying compensation under Clause 2 is not arbitrable but that the decision of the S.E. will not negate the power...
Santosh Kapoor Vs. Apex Computers P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: (2009)154PLR13
Manmohan, J.1. By way of the present judgment, I am disposing of a Civil Revision Petition being CRP No. 48/2000 and a Civil Contempt Petition being Cont. Cas.(C) 557/2008 as facts are common to both the proceedings.2. The CRP No. 48/2008 has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), by Mrs. Santosh Kapoor seeking setting aside of the order dated 12th February, 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in RCA No. 16 of 2007 as well as quashing of order dated 11th December, 2006 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi in Execution Case No. M-7/2004, whereby Mrs. Santosh Kapoor's objection application to the warrants of attachment with respect to DDA Flat No. C-58C, Shalimar Bagh (hereinafter referred to as 'DDA flat') was dismissed.3. Cont. Cas.(C) No. 557/2008 has been filed by the Apex Computers against Mr. Rajiv Kapoor, son of Mrs. Santosh Kapoor under Article 215 of the Constitution and Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of ...
Adarsh Kaur Gill and ors. Vs. Ajit Singh (Dead) Thru Surjit Kaur Gill ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2009
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT137
A.K. Sikri, J.1. In a suit filed by the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff'), application of the appellant ('defendant' in the said suit and hereinafter referred as such) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned orders dated 7.4.2008. The attempt of the defendant, thus, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the relief being time barred has failed in the trial court. Not satisfied with the outcome of her application, this appeal is preferred challenging the order of the learned Single Judge.2. It is but necessary to know the nature of the suit and traverse the averments made in the plaint, on the basis of which the suit is filed, to find out as to whether the suit of the plaintiff is ex-facie time barred. Reason is simple. When an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is to be considered, the Court is not to see the defence raised in the written statement by the defe...
Anil Sethi Vs. Shri Satish
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2009
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT552; [2009(121)FLR748]; (2009)IIILLJ396Del; 2009(2)SLJ361(Delhi)
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 30.8.2007.2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the tribunal has not taken note of the averments and the stand taken by the petitioner management in his written statement wherein it was clearly stated that the petitioner had already closed its business.3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in such circumstances Section 25-F could not have been attracted and it is only Section 25-FFF which will attract in the facts of the present case. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that even a specific issue in this regard was framed by the tribunal i.e. Issue No. 2 and the said issue was only framed after taking into consideration the stand of the petitioner management pleading closure of its business, otherwise in normal circumstances such issue could not have been framed by the Tribunal. Counsel for the peti...
Sara International Ltd. Vs. Arab Shipping Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT439
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The present proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act') questions the validity of an award, drawn by an arbitrator, and published on 9th June, 2005 (hereafter called 'the impugned award').2. The facts, in brief are that the respondent/claimant (referred to as 'the claimant'), a company incorporated in Singapore, and disponent owner (a term which, according to the Maritime dictionary -www.m-i-link.com/dictionary/means a person or company which has commercial control over a vessel's operation without owning the ship) of the vessel MV Asha Manan, entered into a Charter Party with the Petitioner (hereafter called 'the Charterer') whereby 15000 MTs (5% more, or less) of bulk wheat were to be shipped from Kandla, for discharge, in the ports of Salalah and Sultan Qaboos, (the latter port hereafter referred to as 'PSQ') in Oman. It is a matter of record that disputes arose between parties, over settlement of demurrage, ...
Sandeep Co-operative Society Vs. Manohar Singh and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT406
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act') the award of a sole arbitrator, dated 10th November, 2006 has been challenged, by the petitioner, a co-operative society (hereafter called 'the society').2. The facts necessary for purposes of this judgment are that the respondent was awarded the work of construction of 218 residential flats by the society. The total consideration agreed was Rs. 671,28,677/- (Rupees six crores, seventy one lakh twenty eight thousand, six seventy seven only). The award of works by the society, pursuant to tender notice, was communicated to the respondent on 3rd January 1991. The parties entered into an agreement, on 6-7-1991. Some relevant conditions and stipulations agreed upon by the parties, in the agreement, (in which the society was described as the employer, and the respondent, as the contractor) are extracted below:2. That in consideration of the payments to be made to th...
Mahesh Bhatt Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2009
Reported in: 156(2009)DLT725
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. 'To cease smoking is the easiest thing I ever did, I ought to know because I have done it a thousand times', said Mark Twain. Smoking is a habit which has permeated ages its harmful effects well-known. It is a habit most difficult to give up but the consequences are so damaging not only to the person indulging in it but to other people in and around him that it has formed a part of a larger debate worldwide leading to passing of necessary legislations to discourage it. The strength to give it up, however, often comes from within rather than without in the form of any legislations.2. The subject itself has bred controversies in different forms. The impact of smoking by way of representation in films and media has formed the basis of two erudite judgements of my brother Judges who have, however, agreed to disagree on a crucial aspect of it without there being any disagreement on the harmful effects of it. It is this disagreement which has resulted in the present ...
Deepak Kumar Bali Vs. Hmt Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2009
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR742]; (2009)IIILLJ27Del
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The appellant joined the services of the respondent in September 1978 as a Service Mechanic and his terms of appointment entitled the respondent to transfer the appellant as an incidence of service. The appellant worked at various locations and was serving in the Delhi Marketing & Service Office when on 17.9.1987 he was transferred to Pinjore and was required to report for duty. The appellant was relieved from his service at Delhi on 30.9.1987. The appellant, however, did not join at Pinjore. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant refused to accept the transfer order and submitted representations dated 2.10.1987 & 21.10.1987 against the transfer. The representation dated 2.10.1987 is by way of telegram while the second one dated 21.10.1987 is in the form of a letter and read as under:Dt. 2.10.87HindtoolsChandigarhGMG Delhi HMTL officials harassed me to receive reliving orders when joined 30.9.87 after sick leave (.) issued relived orders (.) sittin...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Triveni Engineering and Industries Limi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2009
Reported in: [2009]181TAXMAN5(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These three appeals pertain to the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1997-98 arising out of the common order dated 14.02.2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 294 and 295/Del/2003 and ITA No. 1961/Del/2004 respectively.2. The revenue is aggrieved by the fact that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the expenditure incurred by the assessee in connection with the modernization and expansion of, inter alia, its Deoband and Ramkola units by treating the same as expenditure of a revenue nature. The appellant/revenue is further aggrieved by the fact that the tribunal allowed the said expenditure although the assessee, in its books of accounts, had treated the same as capital expenditure. The appellant/revenue has also raised the issue that the tribunal had permitted deduction of administrative expenses incurred in the course of the renovation of the two units.3. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »