Delhi Court January 2009 Judgments

Anil Nanda and anr. Vs. Escorts Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT697

Manmohan, J.1. The Appellants have filed the present appeal being RFA(OS) No. 44 of 2008 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as ' CPC' ) against the judgment and order dated 3rd July, 2008, by virtue of which the plaint filed by the Appellants has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 Clauses (a) and (d) of the CPC.2. It is pertinent to mention that the Appellants had filed the present suit praying for the following reliefs:1A. pass a decree of declaration declaring that no amalgamation of EHIRC- Delhi took place with EHIRC Chandigarh.a) in the alternative, pass a decree of declaration declaring the amalgamation of EHIRC-Delhi with EHIRC-Chandigarh as non-est, void and bad in law in view of the provisions contained in the Societies Registration Act, 1860;b) pass a decree of declaration thereby declaring the conversion of EHIRC- Chandigarh (post amalgamation) into a Limited Company under the Companies Act, 1956, as being void and contrary to...

Nidhi Kumar Gandhi Vs. the State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT472

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('CrPC') challenges an order dated 2nd February 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ'), Rohini, Delhi in an application for interim relief in Crl. Appeal No. 2 of 2008. By the said impugned order the learned ASJ stayed the operation of the order dated 20th December 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM') to the extent that the Respondent herein was directed to restore the status quo ante in relation to the Petitioner's possession of the portion of the house at No. C-36, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110034, as on 16th April 2007, a day prior to her eviction therefrom. The Petitioner was further restrained by the impugned order of the learned ASJ from interfering with the possession of the said house.2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the Petitioner on 5th October 2007 filed an application in the Court of the lea...

India Capacitors Ltd. Employees Union and Krishna Cell Links Pvt. Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]148CompCas768(Delhi); [2009]91SCL20(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. M/s. India Capacitors Ltd. (for short, 'the said Company'), a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the said Act'), was directed by an Order of the learned Company Judge dated 23.10.1997 to be wound up and the Official Liquidator (for short, 'OL') was directed to take possession of the assets of the said Company. The endeavours to revive the said Company had failed, but the Union of the Employees of the said Company filed an application on 05.05.2005 under Sections 529A and 546 of the said Act submitting a proposal for revival of the said Company along with one M/s. Cygnus Developers Pvt. Ltd. (for short, 'M/s. Cygnus').2. It is a case of the Employees Union that M/s. Cygnus was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lacs on 26.05.2005 with the further direction to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 65 lacs with the OL. It is further claimed that though a cheque of Rs. 65 lacs was given to the OL, the same was never presented...

Radhika Narang and ors. Vs. Karun Raj Narang and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 159(2009)DLT158

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This appeal by the wife and her two minor children who were the plaintiffs in a maintenance claim by her against her husband, Respondent No. 1, has been filed against the judgment dated 16th February, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in suit No. 1225 of 2003 wherein the interlocutory application bearing No. IA No. 6493/2003 seeking pendente lite maintenance was disposed of and this appeal only questions the quantum of maintenance granted to her by the learned Single Judge.2. The brief facts of the case as per the Appellants are that: (a) The Appellant No. 1 is the wife and Appellants No. 2, 3 and 4 are the children of Respondent No. 1 and the members of the Hindu Joint Family whose Karta or Manager is the Respondent No. 2. (b) As per the details given by the Appellant No. 1 of the description of the matrimonial home of the Appellants, the Respondents have a house at Dr. G.C. Narang Marg which is in 1.75 acres (Approx.) of land and the remaining portion of the ...

Jitender Singh Tyagi Vs. Director of Education and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT589

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This Review Petition has been filed by the Applicants/Respondents No. 2 and 3 seek review of the judgment/order dated 3rd October, 2008 passed by this Court in LPA No. 1991 of 2006 whereby the applicants were directed by the impugned judgment/order to implement the order dated 26th June, 2006 issued by the Director of Education.2. The Respondent No. 1/Appellant filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 13441 of 2006 before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the transfer order dated 14the December, 2005 and further seeking a writ of mandamus to implement the administrative direction dated 22nd June, 2006 issued by the Director Education, Delhi. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court vide order dated 12th September, 2006. The Respondent No. 1/Appellant aggrieved from the said order of learned Single Judge filed LPA No. 1991/2006.3. The Applicants filed their Counter Affidavit to the said LPA. The Division Bench of this Court on 3rd Oct...

Rehan Jailis Vs. Jitender

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 158(2009)DLT55

H.R. Malhotra, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is made to assail impugned order passed by Additional District Judge on 4.7.2007 whereby an application of the defendant/appellant herein made under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC for setting aside the decree dated 31.8.2006 was rejected.2. Brief facts as set out in the appeal as also noticed in the plaint are that the plaintiff/respondent herein filed a suit in the court below for a sum of Rs. 5,76,200/- under the provisions of Order 37 CPC.3. Summons in the prescribed form were sent to the defendant by the trial judge directing the defendant to enter appearance within ten days from the date of service. The defendant entered appearance before the trial judge on 24.11.2005, however, it came to the notice of the defendant that a decree had already been passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant on 24.12.2005 on the ground that the defendant failed to enter appearance within ten days of service of summo...

Smt. Nigam Chawla Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]28SOT503(NULL)

K.G. Bansal, Accountant Member1. These two appeals of the assessee emanate from a consolidated order passed by the CIT (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi, for assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 in Appeal Nos. 19 and 20/2005-06, dated 12-8-2005. Since the appeals emanated from a consolidated order of the CIT (Appeals), they were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned Counsel for the assessee and the learned DR. In view thereof, we think it fit to pass a consolidated order on these appeals. The assessee has taken an identical ground in both the appeals. The ground for assessment year 1999-2000 is to the effect that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that the similar addition made earlier in respect of assessment year 2001-02 was deleted. It is also mentioned that the amount was surrendered by the assessee un...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jmd Computers and Communications (P.) L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN485(Delhi)

ORDER1. The revenue has preferred an appeal against the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 21-4-2006 passed in ITA No. 141/Delhi/2003 pertaining to assessment year 1998-99. The revenue's grievance in the appeal is that the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'] deleting the addition of Rs. 54,50,276 made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases by the assessee.2. Briefly the undisputed facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in computer parts. The Department had received information that the assessee had made bogus purchases from certain parties. The information was received from the Assessing Officer of one Sh. T.R. Chadda at whose premises the department had carried out a raid. The assessee's case was picked up for scrutiny and during the assessment proceeding the assessee was asked to identify and produce confir...

Tata Teleservices Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash Seth.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On the allegation of having disconnected/withdrawn the facility of telephone connection installed at Ghaziabad address of the respondent though it remained functional for few days, the appellant has been, vide impugned order dated 6th August, 2008, passed by the District Forum, held guilty for deficiency in service and directed to refund the security amount of Rs. 1,000 and activation charges of Rs. 500 besides Rs. 25,000 as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the old man of 71 years and Rs. 20,000 as cost of litigation. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. The main plea being raised by the appellant is that telephone connection was meant for Delhi and not to be used at Ghaziabad. The learned Counsel also relied upon the document namely application form where the respondent had given his residential address as Brij Vihar, Ghaziabad and telephone was also installed at the said place and it was also being ...

Syndicate of the Press of the University of Cambridge on Behalf of the ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2009(2)60

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. This suit was instituted to restrain the defendants from selling books published by them and titled MBD English Guide B.A./B.Sc./B.COM Part I (Guru Nanak Dev University), MBD English Guide B.A./B.Sc./B.COM Part II (Guru Nanak Dev University) and MBD English Guide B.A./B.Sc./B.COM Part III (Guru Nanak Dev University) for the reason that they contained illegal and unauthorized reproduction of literary content of the plaintiffs' publication titled 'Advance English Grammar by Martin Hewings'. Vide ex parte order dated 10th November, 2004 the defendants were restrained from utilizing, incorporating the verbatim text taken from the plaintiff's publications. The defendants contested the suit. The application for interim relief was disposed of vide order dated 8th June, 2005 whereby the ex parte order dated 10th November, 2004 was confirmed during the pendency of the suit.2. Issues as under were framed on the pleadings of the parties:1. Whether plaintiff No. 1 is the o...