Delhi Court December 2009 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aimil Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Del)418

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Though the assessees are different in these appeals, the aforesaid question is common in all these cases, which falls for consideration in almost identical factual backdrop. In fact, it is a matter of pure interpretation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act'), particularly Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, in order to understand the implication, it would be necessary to take note of facts of one appeal. We, accordingly, are stating the facts as they appear in ITA No. 1063/2008.2. The case relates to the assessment year 2002-03. The respondent assessee had filed its return on 30.10.2002 declaring income at Rs. 7,95,430/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had deposited employers' contribution as well as employees' contribution towards provident fund and ESI after the due date, as prescribed under the relevant Act/Rules. Accordingly, he made addition of Rs. 42,58,574/- being employees'...

Umesh Kaushik Vs. Indian Bank and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT397

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The petitioner was working as a Senior Manager in Hauz Khas branch of the Indian Bank when he felt he had had enough of it thus calling it a day. Citing personal reasons, he gave three months. notice of his intention to resign with effect from the date of the letter which was dated June 01, 2005. It was addressed to the Chairman & Managing Director of the Bank at Chennai and was in terms of Regulation 20(2) of the Indian Bank (Officers.) Service Regulations, 1979. Simultaneously, he also sent a letter addressed to the Trustees, Indian Bank Employees. Provident Fund, irrevocably authorizing them to adjust all his liabilities to the Bank from his terminal benefits. On the same day the Assistant Manager of Hauz Khas branch forwarded his letter to the General Manager, Circle Office, New Delhi, for favourable consideration. Two days thereafter, i.e., on June 03, 2005, the General Manager, Circle Office forwarded it to the Head Office at Chennai, recommending its acceptanc...

Ritika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Omaxe Construction Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]153CompCas573(Delhi)

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. This is a petition under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of M/s Omaxe Construction Ltd, along with CA. No. 1553/09 for appointment of a Provisional Liquidator. The respondent company carries on the business of construction and is stated to have been incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 in 1989 and has its registered office in New Delhi.2. On 14th December, 2005, the petitioner company/Intending Lessee entered into an unregistered Agreement to Lease with the respondent company/Intending Lessor for opening a showroom in premises bearing No. FF-02, Omaxe Mall, Lawrence Road, Amritsar, Punjab, located on the First Floor, having a super area of approximately 220.306 square metres. The said Agreement has been annexed to the petition as 'Annexure B'. Clause 3 thereof states that the lease was initially for a period of 3 years, to be calculated from the date of the grant of a Completion Certificate by the concerned authorities, to be rene...

European Metal Recycling Limited Vs. Blue Engineering Private Limted

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]154CompCas35(Delhi); [2010]98SCL80(Delhi)

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. This is a petition under Section 433 and Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up the respondent company i.e M/s Blue Engineering Pvt. Ltd., along with an application under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956 praying for the appointment of a provisional liquidator in the matter. The petitioner's claim is based on certain invoices issued in respect of contracts stated to have been entered into with the Respondent company.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom, having its registered office at Sirius House, Delta Crescent, Westbrook, Warrington, WAS 7NS, UK. It is engaged in the business of recycling metal-rich waste streams arising from end-of-life vehicles/consumer products, industry and construction/demolition, resulting in sales of recycled commodities.3. The respondent M/s Blue Engineering Ltd, having its registered office at 46, Shardanand Marg, Delhi - 110046, is a company that was incorporated u...

Ssipl Retail Limited and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]24STT571

1. By the Finance Act, 2007, service 'in relating to renting of immovable property for use in the course or furtherance of business or commerce' was introduced within the definition of taxable service as Sub-section (zzz) to Section 65(105) along with corresponding insertions to Section 66 and 65(90a) thereto. Notification dated 22nd May, 2007 was thereafter issued making the aforesaid amendment effecting from 01.06.2007. The said notifications/amendments as well as circular was challenged by various tenants and landlords by filing various Writ Petitions. These Writ Petitions were decided by this Court on 18th April, 2009 in Home Solution Retail India Ltd. v. UOI and Ors. : (2009) 20 STT 129 by the said judgment this Court hold that aforesaid notification and circular were ultra vires the provisions of the Finance Act.2. Respondent No. 1 has filed Special Leave Petition No. 13850/2009 in the Supreme Court challenging the aforesaid judgment dated 18th April, 2009 rendered by this Court,...

M/S Salvia International Vs. Aimil Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

1. The plaintiff seeks recovery of Rs.48,54,472.87 in this Summary Suit, under Order-37, Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm, engaging itself in the business of advertising on behalf of its clients. The defendant, a limited company, had entered into a commercial transaction, under which, according to the plaintiff, various release orders were issued on 12.02.2005, 2.3.2005 & 7.6.2005, for advertisement and publicity of its products with a programme "BHAKTI ARADHANA" in the Doordarshan National Network. The plaintiff contends having ensured that the publicity and advertisement in the concerned channel was broadcast. 3. The plaintiff refers to 18 invoices issued from time to time on the defendant which are particularized in Paragraph-5 of the Suit, aggregating to Rs.58,23,859/-. It is contended that the defendant issued 57 cheques, 41 of which were for Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) and the other 16, for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh) each aggre...

Mohd. Imran Khan Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YESCrl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 1 of 33 : V.K. JAIN, J.1. These are two criminal appeals arising out of the judgment dated 29th May, 1999 and the Order on Sentence dated 31 st May, 1999 whereby both the appellants were convicted under section 366 of IPC read with section 34 thereof and under section 376 of IPC. Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each or to undergo SI for 2 months each in default under section 366 of IPC read with section 34 thereof. They were further sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- each or to undergo SI for 3 months each in default under section 376 of IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The FIR in this case was lodged by deceased Prabhu Dayal, father of the prosecutrix. He all...

Microsoft Corporation and anr. Vs. Dhiren Gopal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2010(1)85

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. These four suits have been filed by Microsoft Corporation against four different defendants alleging violation of the copyright on the ground of suspicion that the defendants were using pirated/illegally-copied software of the plaintiffs at their offices/work place. The suspicion is based on the investigation done by an alleged independent 'investigator' engaged by the plaintiffs, who through telephonic conversation with the employees of the defendants estimated the number of computers that may be installed at the office/work place of the defendants and thereafter matching the number of licenses of the software of the plaintiffs lawfully procured by the defendants. The plaintiffs also visited websites of the defendants to know the nature of work being done by them and the kind of software being used by the defendants and the claims being made by the defendants. On the basis of website information and the database maintained by the plaintiffs regarding sale of...

Sh. Ravindra Kishore Sinha Vs. Smt. Manjula Bhushan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT121

Sunil Gaur, J.1. Appellant's suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale of 31st March, 2005 in respect of second and third floor (including terrace) as well as servant quarters of Property bearing No. E-1, East of Kailash, New Delhi, has been held to be not maintainable by the learned Single Judge vide order of November 09, 2009, which is impugned in this appeal.2. Upon completion of the pleadings, at the stage of framing of issues, learned Single Judge has taken note of the objection of the Respondent regarding maintainability of the suit raised in the written statement, which is as follows:Para 15 is denied. No cause of action accrued at any time. The suit is not maintainable.3. In substance, preliminary objections taken in the written statement were as under:By taking back the earnest money - adjusting Rs. four lakhs meant for second and third floors in the sale deed of basement, ground and first floors - the agreement for second and third floor stood repudiated, abandone...

Sub Post Master Vs. Ashok Kumar and Another.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. An application form of the complainant for an admission in OP No. 2 IIT sent by speed post through OP No. 1 was not received, in consequence whereof the respondent complainant could not appear in admission test. The Post Office as well as IIT are both parties to the proceedings. The IIT says that it did not receive the application while the Post Office says it delivered the speed post. 2. The District Forum found that since the receipt produced by the Post Office does not bear the signature of the recipient it was not proved that the article was delivered. We endorse the finding of the District Forum in this regard because without identification of the person receiving the article and without the signature the delivery of the article cannot be upheld. The District Forum, however granted Rs. 10,000 towards compensation and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation. 3. The appellant OP No. 1 Post Office has therefore come in appeal before this Commission. 4. ...