Delhi Court February 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vasu Tech Limited and ors. Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT591
Aruna Suresh, J.1. By way of this common order I shall deal with five petitions seeking quashing of Complaint Cases; Nos. 1745/1 of 2007, 1748/1 of 2007, 1751/1 of 2007, 1747/1 of 2007 and 1746/1 of 2007 filed against the petitioners under Section 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act') read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), proceedings conducted therein and the summoning order dated 16th July, 2007 passed thereunder as they arise out of the same transaction involving the common question of law.2. Complainant M/s. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (respondent herein) had been advancing loan to the petitioners for funding its capital requirements for the purposes of development of a chip called 'VSU' totaling sum of Rs. 54,08,93,273/-. A substantial portion of these amounts were advanced to Vasu Tech Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner company') as short term loan repayable after one year and in certa...
Durham Careline India Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Mr. Swa ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT740; (2009)156PLR14
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 20,57,350/-. The suit was filed on 18.12.2003. The defendants have filed an application being IA No. 10765/2007 for dismissal of the suit being barred by limitation.2. Heard.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and it runs its business of restaurants under the name and style of Copper Dome and a Pub under the name and style of Nevilles Cross Free House at Nevilles Cross Complex, Darlington Road, Durham City, County; Durham, London (U.K.).4. The plaintiff wanted furniture to renovate its restaurant at London. The defendants are stated to be manufacturer of furniture in India. The plaintiff in order to renovate its restaurant at London placed purchase order on the defendants for purchase of some furniture. The purchase order was placed in November, 1999. The terms and conditions of supply of furniture by...
Cit Vs. Hindustan TIn Works Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN298(Delhi)
ORDER1. This is an appeal preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to in short as the Act) against the judgment dated 7-12-2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to in short as the Tribunal) in ITA No. 1101/Del/2005 pertaining to assessment year 2001-02.1.1 In this appeal, the revenue has essentially raised two issues. The first issue being that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in deleting the disallowance of a loss of Rs. 19,67,450 claimed by the assessee on account of purchase and redemption of units of Kothari Pioneer Mutual Fund, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to in short as the mutual fund). The second issue pertains to the rejection of the plea of the revenue for permitting it to canvass submissions with reference to Section 14A of the Act.2. At this stage, we may also point out that in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal there is a reference to a submission made on behalf of the revenue to...
Hindustan Prefab Ltd. Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: 158(2009)DLT229
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This case is a typical example of how public money is wasted by Public Sector Undertakings litigating frivolously on utterly technical issues. To avoid the wastage of public funds the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stressed for resolution of disputes through a mechanism of Committee of Secretaries in a judgment titled as ONGC v. CCE . On 20.11.2008, this Court had directed the consideration for early resolution of disputes involved in the present case by the Committee of Secretaries. Today when we asked the learned Counsel for the appellant to tell us the date on which the matter was referred to the Committee of Secretaries, the counsel was not able to convey the date. Accordingly, taking into account the fact that the dispute involved in the case is narrow, as it involves the interpretation of the arbitration agreement between the parties, we decided to take up the matter rather than adjourning it as the matter is pending in this Court for more than two years. 2. Hindust...
Smt. Sudershan Kumari JaIn Vs. Sh. Pran Nath JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT626
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell and for possession in respect of property bearing No. 135 Block H, Vir Nagar Colony, G.T. Road, Gur Mandi, Delhi measuring 250 square yards for a total consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-.2. It is the case of the appellant that a written Agreement of Sale was executed on 03.08.1977, a copy of which was filed along with the plaint, but the original was alleged to be in the custody of respondent No. 1.3. The respondent No. 1 is stated to be a perpetual sub lessee of the property in question having acquired the said rights in pursuance to a deed dated 30.09.1967 by the Land and Housing Department, Delhi of the Delhi Administration in favour of respondent No. 1 duly registered on 16.01.1968. In view of the Agreement to Sell, the respondent No. 1 (original defendant) is stated to have applied for sale permission of the suit property to the Delhi Development Authority as in terms of the sub leas...
S.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT647
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The question whether disputes/claims under an agreement with respect whereto a receipt of full and final settlement has been given or a settlement agreement has been signed, are arbitrable or not has been repeatedly vexing the Courts. Two streams of judgments/precedents exist. While one stream takes the view that a claim for arbitration cannot be rejected merely or solely on the ground that a settlement agreement or discharge voucher has been executed by the claimant, if its validity is disputed by the claimant; the other stream takes the view that upon performance/discharge, the contract stands discharged and nothing remains neither any right to sign performance nor any obligation to perform, resultantly there cannot be any dispute and consequently there cannot obviously be reference to arbitration of any dispute arising from a discharged contract. Naturally, the two views are on distinguishable facts of their respective cases.2. I am, personally, of the view ...
Vimal Bhai and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: 158(2009)DLT477
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This is an application filed by the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 17682 of 2005, seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the order dated 29th September 2005 passed by this Court disposing of the said writ petition. By the said order dated 29th September 2005, this Court had directed the respondents 'to take requisite steps for clearing the proposals' related to the appointment of the Chairman and other Members of the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) constituted under the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 ('NEAA Act').Background2. The aforementioned writ petition was filed in this Court by social activists engaged in the field of environment. Initially, the petitioners approached this Court questioning a decision dated 20th May 2005 of the NEAA dismissing their appeal on account of delay. In the said appeal, the petitioners had challenged the environment clearance granted by the Government of India on 8th February 2005 for th...
Sh. Mahavir Singh Vs. Narang International Hotel (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT754; [2009(121)FLR506]; (2009)IIILLJ439Del
V.K. Shali, J.1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the part of the award dated 18th August, 2006 passed by the learned Labour Court No. IX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No. 1865/1994 titled as Workman Sh. Mahavir Singh v. Narang International Hotel (P) Ltd.2. By virtue of the aforesaid award, though the learned Labour Court has arrived at a finding to the effect that the workman had rendered more than three years of service with the respondent/Management and that the service contract Ex.WW1/M1 to MW1/3 are sham documents and his termination of service with effect from 24th August, 1993 was illegal and unjustified and therefore, he was entitled to protection under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') yet the learned Labour Court did not grant him the benefit of either Section 25(F) or the reinstatement back into the service on the ground that the petitioner had of his own saying admitted that after termination ...
Sap Aktiengesellschaft and anr. Vs. Parginsys and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(40)PTC619(Del)
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff, a German Company/firm having an Indian subsidiary company with registered office at Bangalore, in respect of infringement of copyright and for damages and delivery and rendition of accounts against the defendants who are stated to have their office in Nagpur, Maharashtra and committed infringement in Maharashtra.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff learnt about the defendants' organization and came to know about the defendants offering to provide training services in the plaintiffs' software programme. The plaintiff made discreet inquiries and planted a decoy student to get the training who obtained a receipt of payment of fees at defendants' office in Nagpur and found out that the training was being imparted on a pirated software and the defendant was infringing copyright of plaintiff at Nagpur. The Plaintiff's agent got an FIR registered, being No. 303 on 19th November 2008 registered against the defen...
Saroj Devi and ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: 2009ACJ2096
J.R. Midha, J.1. The appellants have challenged the award dated 6.5.2005 of the learned Tribunal whereby the compensation of Rs. 7,33,488 was awarded to them. The appellants seek enhancement of the compensation.2. On 15.7.2003, deceased Sultan Singh was walking on the road near Bus Stand, Sanjay Enclave, Jahangirpuri, Delhi when he was hit by a truck bearing No. DL 1-G 9481 driven rashly and negligently by its driver causing grievous injuries which resulted in his death.3. The deceased was aged 48 years at the time of accident and was working as a conductor in D.T.C. drawing a salary of Rs. 8,367 per month.4. The deceased was survived by his wife, one daughter, two sons and mother who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Appellant No. 1 appeared in the witness-box as PW 4 and deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,500-Rs. 9,000 per month as salary. Senior clerk of D.T.C, PW 3, appeared in the witness-box and proved the certificate of salary as Exh. PW3/A. In cross...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »