Delhi Court October 2009 Judgments

Ongc Videsh Limited and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]321ITR266(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The Petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, a Government company and, therefore, it is not in dispute that assessee is also a Government undertaking. It is engaged in the business of exploration, development and production of hydrocarbons outside India to augment the oil security of India.2. In its return filed for the assessment year 2002-03, the Assessing Officer made substantial additions by disallowing various deductions made by the Petitioner, which amounted to more than 395.85 crore. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.3. The Petitioner preferred appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The said appeal was partly allowed granting certain relief to the Petitioner herein. Not satisfied, the Petitioner appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. This appeal was finally heard on 7th September, 2009 by the Tribunal and t...

Catholic Syrian Bank Vs. Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruct ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]152CompCas155(Delhi); 164(2009)DLT145

Veena Birbal, J.1. By way of present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 03.03.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'AAIFR') wherein it is held that respondent No. 2 is no more a sick industrial company under Section 3(1)(o) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'SICA') as its net worth has turned positive as such Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'BIFR') as well as AAIFR ceases to have any jurisdiction over the said company.2. Briefly the facts necessary for disposal of present writ petition are as under:On 22.06.1998, respondent No. 2, i.e., Dunlop India Ltd was declared a sick industrial company in terms of Section 3(1)(o) of SICA and IDBI (Industrial Development Bank of India) was appointed as the O.A. (Operating Agency) under Sect...

Prithvi Singh Kem Vs. Hon'ble Chief Justice, Delhi High Court

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT1

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The two writ petitions filed by Prithvi Singh Kem are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. In prolix and repetitive pleadings, the petitioner has projected his case in a mumbled jumbled manner and hence we may briefly note the turbulent course chartered by the petitioner after he was given employment in the Delhi High Court.3. On 26.05.1967 petitioner submitted an application for being appointed as a Clerk in the Delhi High Court on the basis that he had learnt that there was a post of Clerk lying vacant. Along with the application, the petitioner filed documents, inter alia, relating to his educational qualifications and caste. Copy of the CBSE certificate placed on record by him shows that his date of birth is 15.05.1944.4. After about two years of submitting the application, the petitioner was issued an appointment letter dated 14.05.1969 appointing him against a temporary post of Restorer. It was received by the petitioner on 15.05.1969. On...

Raj Kumar Bansal and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 164(2009)DLT508

Indermeet Kaur, J.1. Parvesh Kumari had been married to Raj Kumar Bansal on 16.11.1984 at New Delhi. Kanta Devi Bansal is the mother-in-law of Parvesh Kumari and Neelam Bansal was her married sister-in-law. Matrimonial home of the parties was at E-348, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi.2. On the occasion of the Rokna ceremony and thereafter again on the occasion of the 'Shagun' ceremony, C.L. Aggarwal the father of the Parvesh Kumari had paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Two days before the date of marriage Raj Kumar Bansal and his mother Kanta Devi Bansal demanded Rs. 31,000/- in cash failing which they would not solemnize the marriage. Since the preparations for the marriage had almost culminated, PW-3 succumbed to this pressure and agreed to make the payment of the aforestated amount of Rs. 31,000/- which was accordingly paid. At the time of marriage a double bed with beddings, dressing table, washing machine, sewing machine, radio, two wrist watches, pressure cooker, 21 sarees, two sets of go...

The Coca-cola Company Vs. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 164(2009)DLT59; 2009(41)PTC460(Del)

Manmohan Singh, J.1. This order shall dispose of four applications. Among these, two applications being I.A. No. 2861/2009 under Order VI Rule 17 and Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and I.A. No. 12490/2008 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code have been filed by the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 has filed I.A. No. 13904/2008 and I.A. No. 13905/2008 under Order VII Rule 11 and under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code respectively.2. Brief facts are that the plaintiff is the largest brand of soft drinks operating in 200 countries. The plaintiff appoints bottlers and grants licenses to them to use specific trademarks belonging to it for sale of beverages. The plaintiff also designates third parties to manufacture beverage bases for sale to the Bottlers.3. The defendant No. 1 (the erstwhile Acqua Minerals Pvt. Ltd.) used to be a part of the Parle Group of Industries. By a Master Agreement dated September 18, 1993 the defendant No. 1's owners Mr. Ramesh Chauhan and Mr. P...

Mindmill Software Ltd. Vs. Paragon Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT94

Manmohan, J.1. With the consent of parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.2. The present objection petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1996') challenging the Award dated 14th September, 2009 passed by the Sole Arbitrator.3. Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner-claimant submitted that the Arbitrator had not conducted the arbitral proceedings in a fair and impartial manner. In this context, Mr. Jagjit Singh referred to the application filed by the petitioner-claimant under Section 12 of Act, 1996 which reads as under:it has been recently learnt by Claimant that the Arbitral Tribunal is party to all such contracts resting by and between Respondent Company with various owners. There has been definite commercial understanding/vested consideration by and between Respondent and Arbitral Tribunal, in the past, present and is for future in definite period. Some details of executed and co...

Ms Shoes East Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 165(2009)DLT136

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The order which has been impugned in LPA No. 192/2000 dated 11.1.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing WP(C) No. 89/2000. The order reads as under:This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a peculiar relief that a writ of mandamus be issued restraining the respondents from reviewing the decisions of the Hon.ble Minister dated June 7, 1998 and July 13, 1998 and for a further writ for implementation of the decision given in favour of the petitioner on his representation. The learned Counsel for petitioner contends that there is no power of reviewing any order passed by the Minister and, in any case, if such an order is going to be reviewed, the petitioner is entitled to be heard in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The issue is not clearly justiciable and no orders can be passed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition as a consequence is dismissed in limin...

Tandav Films Entertainment P. Ltd. Vs. Four Frames Pictures and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(41)PTC515(Del)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. Both these applications by Defendant No. 2 UTV Software Communications Limited (UTV Software.) under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) seek reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration.2. CS(OS) No. 1456 of 2008 has been filed by Tandav Films Entertainment P. Ltd. (Tandav Films.) against M/s Four Frames Pictures ( Defendant No. 1) (Four Frames.), UTV Software ( Defendant No. 2), M/s Big Music and Home Entertainment (Defendant No. 3) (`Big Music.) and M/s Living Media India Ltd.( Defendant No. 4) (Living Media.) for a decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 3 and their agents and others acting on their behalf from reproducing, making a film or sound recording of, issuing copies of, publicly performing, communicating to the public, adapting or in any other manner infringing the Plaintiff's copyright in the music of the song Chak De Phattey or any other music from the Plaintiff's Hindi film Khosla Ka Ghosla...

S and S Industries and Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Bifr

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal filed by S and S Industries and Enterprises Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellant company) is directed against the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the BIFR) dated 17-1-2006 whereby the BIFR rejected the reference of the appellant company on the ground that the appellant company was not an industrial company within the meaning of section 3(1)(e) read with section 3(1)(f) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA) and the company, therefore, does not fall under the definition of the sick industrial company in terms of section 3(1)(o) of SICA. 2. Briefly, facts of the case are that the appellant company was incorporated in the State of Tamil Nadu on 12-10-1990 and was engaged in the manufacture of edible oil refining, oil seed processing, shrimp farming, etc. The appellant company commenced commercial production on 5-9-1991 and, on account of technical ...

Om Prakash Shrivastava @ Babloo Shrivastava Vs. State of Nct of Delhi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 164(2009)DLT218

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner against whom thirty-three (33) FIRs were registered for various serious offences during the period 1983-1995 was extradited from Singapore to India on 30.8.1995. The extradition was based on four (4) FIRs out of the said thirty-three (33) FIRs and in the subsequent period during 1995 to 1999 six (6) more FIRs were registered against the petitioner. On 2.1.2002 the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was extended to the National Capital Territory of Delhi vide GSR6 (E). Two (2) more FIRs were registered against the petitioner being FIR Nos. 33/03 and 125/03 though according to the petitioner they arise out of the same incident. On 29.12.2006, FIR No. 104/06 was registered at P.S. Lodhi Road under Section 3 of the said Act against the petitioner and another accused.2. The petitioner filed a writ petition, being WP (Crl.) No. 84/2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read wi...