Delhi Court October 2009 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2009 Page 6 of about 89 results (0.021 seconds)Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Lloyds Steel Industries
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT295
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act', for short) has been made by the applicant/petitioner with a prayer of appointing a sole arbitrator from amongst the penal of arbitrators nominated by the applicant and mentioned in the petition to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.2. Facts in nutshell for deciding this petition are that the applicant awarded a contract for the design, supply, fabrication, erection, stress relieving, testing etc and associated civil, structural and electrical works of five (5) Nos. Horton Spheres of size 12M Diameter for the applicant's Mathura Refinery by issuing letter of acceptance of tender dated 21st November 1994 to the respondent. The formal contract was signed between the parties on 24th November 1994 for a total nominal value of Rs. 10,29,73,770/-. The Resident Construction Manager (RCM) of Engineers India Ltd (EIL) was appointed as the Engineer-in-charge for the projec...
Tag this Judgment!Emmpac Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]319ITR379(Delhi); [2010]188TAXMAN58(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Appellant, who is engaged in the business of trading in music/video/audio cassettes, CD's, VCD's, DVD's etc. filed return for the assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04 (out of which these two appeals arise), and in these returns he had shown payment of license fee in respect of premises at 42, Vasant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi taken on license. In addition to the license fee paid in respect of the aforesaid premises, the appellant had also claimed business expenses paid @ Rs. 1,41,000/- per month to M/s Raas Consultants & Company for purported consultancy services in connection of running of aforesaid music shop. M/s Raas Consultants & Company is the sole proprietorship concern of Mrs. Hina Jetha. She is the wife of Mr. Vimal Jetha who is the landlord/owner of premises No. 42, Vasant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.2. The Assessing Officer, in order to ascertain as to whether any consultancy service was provided by Mrs. Hina Jetha, sent notice to her. However, she did not...
Tag this Judgment!Wheels India Vs. S. Nirmal Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC529(Del)
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this order, it is proposed to decide IA No. 6889/2006 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and IA No. 7705/2006 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.2. The plaintiff's case is that the business of Wheels India was started by Mr. Trilok Singh in April, 2001 as its sole proprietor. With effect from April, 2006, the said proprietorship firm was converted into a partnership by induction of the wife of the plaintiff, namely, Mrs. Satpal Kaur as partner. Since April, 2001, the plaintiff had been using the distinctive trademark 'PRINCE' and this trademark was filed for registration on 27.09.2004 under Number 1311254 in respect of accessories for use in cars included in Class-12. Prior to the registration, the mark was advertised in the Trademarks Journal No. 1328(S-3) dated 21.02.2005 for inviting public objection, if any. The certificate of registration was issued on 31.10.2005, which registration is valid and subsisting till 26.09.2014.3. The plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Bharat Alumunium Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN111(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. All these appeals are filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the same assessee, viz., Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. There are various common issues, which have arisen in these appeals relating to different Assessment Years. It is for this reason all these cases were grouped together, though the arguments were heard specifically on all the issues involved in these appeals. We now proceed to discuss and decide these issues one by one.2. ITA No. 532 of 2006We may mentions at the outset that some of the issues raised in this appeal as well as other connected appeals have already been decided in ITA No. 1018 of 2005. Leaving those issues aside, the learned Counsel for the parties accepted the position that the questions that survive for consideration in this appeal on which notice was issued, is as under:1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the amount of Rs. 3.76 Crores (wrongly written by ITAT as 3.76 lacs) being capital expen...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Amira Foods (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT27
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. OMP 319/2003 is the objection petition filed by M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the award dated 9.5.2003 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of 3 Arbitrators. There are two awards, one by the majority of Hon'ble Mr. R.S.Pathak (Retired Chief Justice of India) and Justice J.K.Mehra (Retired Judge of this Court) and a separate award has been rendered by the third Arbitrator Sh. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate and which also decides all issues in accordance with the majority award except that in respect of the issue with regard to the survey report, the matter has been remitted for preparing a fresh survey report.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/non-objector company sought an insurance policy for its stocks which were to be in different locations i.e. at different ports/godowns. The policy was also required keeping in view the total overall value limit of the policy, although there would be changes in the value of stocks and sub-limits in d...
Tag this Judgment!Jan Chetna and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 184(2009)DLT752
ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 15th May 2009 passed by the National Environment Appellate Authority ('NEAA') dismissing the Appeal No. 8 of 2009 (Jan Chetna v. Ministry of Environment and Forests) on the ground of limitation.2. The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 filed the aforementioned appeal against the environmental clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment & Forests ('MoEF'), New Delhi on 5th November 2008 to M/s. Scania Steel & Power Limited (Respondent No. 3 herein) for expansion of its integrated steel plant and captive power plant at Chattisgarh.3. Under Section 11 of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act 1997 ('Act'), the appeal against the order granting environmental clearance is to be filed within 30 days of the order. The delay thereafter up to 90 days can be condoned by the NEAA upon the Appellant showing 'sufficient cause.' Section 11(1) of the Act reads as under:11. Appeals to Authority - (1) Any person aggri...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Madhu Sudan S/O Sh. Satyanarayan Vs. Smt. Valsala Jayamani W/O Sh ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 165(2009)DLT1
V.B. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by appellant against order dated 28.3.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi. Vide impugned order application of respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) was allowed.2. Brief facts of this case are that respondent is the owner/landlord of suit property. Appellant was inducted as tenant in this property after having executed lease dated 19.7.2006. The rent payable was Rs. 20,000/- per month with effect from June, 2006. It is alleged that appellant paid rent only upto September, 2006. Three cheques issued by appellant with effect from October, 2006 to December, 2006 have been dishonoured and complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against appellant is pending in the court. Appellant has not paid rent with effect from October, 2006 till April, 2007 and is thus an unauthorised occupant of the property. It has also been alleged that appellant filed forg...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Shaukat Rai (D) Through Lrs. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 184(2009)DLT748
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the Union of India against the order dated 19/10/2006 passed by the Additional District Judge in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the Award No. 883 pertaining to the revenue estate of the village Mohd. Pur Munirka, Delhi.2. The relevant facts for the purpose of the present appeal may be noted. The land of the respondents was acquired by the Government and an award was passed in pursuance thereof and compensation was awarded. Feeling dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded, a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was sought by the claimants and the Land Acquisition Collector made the Reference to the District Judge.3. The Reference was however dismissed in default on 27/05/1976 due to non-appearance on behalf of the claimants. Upon an application dated 4/8/1980 made by the respondents herein the reference petition was restored on 6/8/87. (Copy of the order date...
Tag this Judgment!Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Mr. Uttam Khan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC545(Del)
Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of CS (OS) No. 2378/2007 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's copyright and for damages.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing audio cassettes, video cassettes, compact disks, televisions, CD Players, fans, mineral water and various other products. The plaintiff is the proprietor of T-Series, which is a household name as regards the music industry in India. As per the plaintiff, T-Series is solely responsible for the upward rise of various creative artists, be it in the field of music or television or films. The plaintiff has listed the names of many artists from all these industries, submitting that it has made significant contribution to the cultural wealth of the country.3. The plaintiff submits that it ...
Tag this Judgment!Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. Vs. Mr. Anupam Aggarwal and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC523(Del)
Manmohan Singh, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, damages, delivery of accounts etc. The plaintiff, Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. is a company organized and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 in the year 1989 as ASIC Technologies having its registered office at 139/25, Ring Road, Domlur Bangalore 560 071. The present suit is being filed through Mr. G. Venkatesh who is the authorized signatory of the plaintiff and is duly authorized to sign and verify the pleadings and institute the suit on its behalf.2. The plaintiff's line of operation includes wireless software products and software services to leading semiconductor manufacturers, wireless handset developers, network equipment and test and measurement companies and service providers globally. It is pleaded that the company Silicon Automation Systems Limited, later changed to Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd., has over 3000 employees...
Tag this Judgment!