Delhi Court October 2009 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2009 Page 7 of about 89 results (0.020 seconds)Ex. Ct. Jasminder Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT21
A.K. Pathak, J. 1. Vide order dated 24th June, 1997 passed by the Disciplinary Authority Petitioner, a police Constable, was dismissed from service, without holding a regular departmental enquiry, by invoking Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The grounds of dismissal and dispensing with the departmental enquiry have been mentioned in the dismissal order dated 24th June, 1997 and, for the sake of ready reference, same are reproduced as under:One K.S. Rana was shot dead on 14.4.97 in Swroop Nagar by some unknown persons. A case FIR No. 289/97 Under Section 302/34 IPC PS Samay Pur Badli was registered. One Virender Singh was shot near Gole Market on 21/4/97 by car borne criminals. A case FIR No. 196. Under Section 307/34 IPC PS Mandir Marg was registered. On 7.4.97, a scooterist was robbed of Rs. 2.20 lacs in the area of PS Samay Pur Badli. Case FIR No. 266/97 Under Section 395/397 IPC was registered. One Davender Singhs s/o Mohender Singh r/o Poonth Kalan, Delhi reported at 10.30...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Deewan Arora Vs. Smt. Tara Devi Sen and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT520
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff (hereafter, Deewan), against the first defendant (hereafter, Tara Devi) seeking a decree of specific performance in terms of the Agreement to Sell dated 14.02.2008 that was allegedly executed by her in respect of C-515, Avantika, Rohini, Sector-1, Delhi-110085 (hereafter 'the suit property'), in Deewan's favour, along with a direction to the third defendant, GE Money Housing Finance (hereafter, GE Money), to hand over all the documents of the suit property on repayment of home loan taken by the defendant for the purchase of the suit property.2. According to the suit averments Tara Devi is the owner of the suit property, which is a freehold property that she had purchased through a valid sale deed dated, 27.07.2007 from one Tajinder Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, and had executed an agreement to sell on 14.02.2008 in Dewan's favour for a sale consideration of Rs. 23,50,000/-. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!U.S. Verma, Principal and Vs. National Commission for Women and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT557
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In W.P. No. 1730/2001, two inquiry reports dated 29.06.1999 regarding the alleged sexual harassment at Delhi Public School, Faridabad (hereafter the 'School') issued by the National Commission for Women (first respondent, hereafter 'the Commission') are impugned. The petitioner is hereafter referred to as 'Verma'. One report, as received by him, is alleged to be of a three-member committee and the other, of a four-member committee, received by the DPS Society; both these committees were constituted on 25.05.1999. It is stated that both committees were constituted to look into the same allegations made by the common complainants (respondents No. 3 to 6, who are petitioners in W.P.-1731/2001 and referred to as 'the teachers') in complaints dated 09.04.1999. Both the reports are similar in content and their conclusions are based on evaluation of common facts and statements of the same witnesses. The complaints were made before the Chairman of the Delhi Public School...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Col R.R. Chandra (Retd.) Vs. Mr. Sandeep Chandra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT50
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff seeks a decree for possession and consequent permanent and mandatory injunction against his son, the defendant, who occupies a portion of the suit property, being S-207, Greater Kailash II, New Delhi.2. The suit averments are that the plaintiff, a retired army officer, is the sole and absolute owner of the entire suit property, which he purchased with his funds and income. His wife is a medical doctor; she, like him is a senior citizen. Both are maintaining themselves with pension and rental income, received by letting out the second floor of the suit property. The defendant is their elder son. The plaintiff claims that the defendant was given the best education, having graduated in commerce honours from the Bhagat Singh College; he is also a diploma holder in personnel and marketing management, from Delhi University. He is also a management graduate (MBA) from the Faculty of Management Studies, Delhi University. It is contended that the entire expe...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. Vs. Usha International Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT73
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Arbitration proceedings were going on between M/s Usha International Limited and Shriram Pistons & Rings Limited in respect of dispute referred to the Arbitrator. During pendency of the arbitration proceedings M/s Usha International Limited, New Delhi got amalgamated with Jay Engineering Works Limited. The order of sanction under Section 394 of the Companies Act passed by this Court on 26.5.2008 provided as under:2(a) That all the liabilities and duties of the Transferor Companies be transferred without further act or deed to the Transferee Company and accordingly the same shall pursuant to Section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 be transferred to and become the liabilities and duties of the Transferee Company; and3(a) That all the proceedings now pending by or against the Transferor Companies be continued by or against the Transferee Company; and2. The petitioner by filing this application under Section 14 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act has contende...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Singh and Sons Pvt Ltd. Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT43
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The present order will dispose of an application IA 9263/2008 under Order 12, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for decree on admissions.2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff in the above suit seeks a decree for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the defendant (hereafter 'the New India') in respect of the first floor portion (rear wing) measuring 11276 square feet, Gulab Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg (hereafter called 'the suit premises'). The uncontroverted facts are that the premises were let out apparently sometime in 1974, to New India; the extent was increased later, on 1-3-1975. Additional space was occupied in 1978. With effect from 1-1-993, the parties agreed to a new arrangement, whereby the lease rent was to be Rs. 1,69,140/- per month for the total extent of 11,276 sq. feet.3. The tenancy or arrangement terms were indicated in New India's acceptance letter. The material part of the letter of New India, dated 8-2-1993, outlining ...
Tag this Judgment!Masyc Projects Private Limited Vs. Sterlite Industries India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT106
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. The contract in question was a contract whereby the petitioner supplied various Conveyors and also did related civil, electrical & instrumentation work at the Concentrate Warehouse of the respondent at Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu. The present petition is filed because as per the petitioner the total value of the contract is Rs. 7,22,88,413/- out of which according to the petitioner it has received only Rs. 6,36,66,404/- and consequently the petitioner claims inter alia a sum of Rs. 86,22,009/- in addition to the other claims as mentioned in para 7.8 of the petition. The respondent has entered appearance and has filed reply. The basic contention on behalf of the respondent is that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction in view of the agreed Clause 18 between the parties which reads as under:Arbitration and LawAny dispute, difference or claim arising out ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Rai Electronics Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Anand International Indi ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT317
S. Muralidhar, J.IA No. 8704 of 2008 in CS(OS) No. 915 of 2007 (under Order I Rule 10 CPC)1. In this application the Plaintiff states that on 16th July 2008 (wrongly typed as 15th July 2008) when an application IA No. 1400 of 2008, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, was listed before the Court a statement was made to the effect that the Plaintiff is not urging the ground of sub-letting. The order passed on 16th July 2008 reads as under:IA No. 1400/2008 in CS (OS) No. 915 of 2007Today the case was fixed for hearing on this application made by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Learned Counsel for defendant Nos. 1 to 6 states that defendant Nos. 7 to 9 remains to be served and, therefore, till they are served, this application should not be heard whereas learned Counsel for the plaintiff states that in view of the admission made by defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in their written statement, the plaintiff is ready to drop defendant Nos. 7 to 9 from the array of the plaint. Ordered as such. Amended ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dlf Power Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Del)27; [2009]185TAXMAN356(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 was filed by the respondent/assessee on 30.10.2002 declaring a loss of Rs. 4,70,68,429/-. The assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was passed on 28.2.2005 and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,03,91,000/- under Section 115JB of the Act. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and issued a notice to the respondent on 8.3.2007. The CIT was of the opinion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on the following grounds:(a) The deduction under Section 80-IA was allowed at Rs. 2427.79 lacs as against admissible deduction of Rs. 1962.55 lacs, i.e. to the extent of gross total income calculated under the normal provisions of the Act, meaning thereby, excess deduction to the extent of Rs. 465.24 lacs. The mistake resulted into over assessment of loss to th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hybrid Rice International Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2010]321ITR63(Delhi); [2009]185TAXMAN25(Delhi)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. This common order will dispose of the two ITAs 333/2008 & 338/2008. At the time of admission, following two questions of law were framed and which we answer by means of this judgment:1. Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing depreciation to the assessee on WDV on germplasm as on 31.03.2001 when the Department had challenged the said WDV computed by ITAT in assessment year 2001-2002?2. Whether the cost incurred by the assessee much before becoming an 'assessee' can still be treated as actual cost to the assessee in complete disregard to the peculiar circumstances of the case?2. The issue therefore pertains to the claim for depreciation on germplasm seeds which is a plant. That the germplasm seeds are a plant is undisputed by the revenue. The facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of producing superior quality hybrid seeds of rice for supply to farmers. For the purpose of producing hybrid seeds, the assessee is using paddy seeds, also refer...
Tag this Judgment!