Delhi Court March 2009 Judgments
Jay Polyehem (India) Ltd. Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi187
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') the petitioner has sought the relief that this Court should restrain the respondent from proceeding further under notice dated 16th October 2008 and a letter dated 2nd February 2009, either itself or through committee constituted by it.2. Vide letter dated 16th October 2008, the respondent, through its head office in Mumbai, informed the petitioner that the petitioner was in willful and deliberate default in making payment of the dues of respondent bank despite having adequate cash flow and capacity to pay. The respondent, therefore, proposed to classify the petitioner as a 'willful defaulter' under the Scheme of 'Disclosure of Information on Defaulting Borrowers of Bank and Financial Institutions' introduced by the Reserve Bank of India vide circular dated 23rd April 1994, as amended from time to time. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner as to w...
Tag this Judgment!Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Dr. Shyam Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2357
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This order shall dispose of an appeal filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (hereinafter NCB) under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) assailing the judgment dated 30.04.1997 passed by an Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge whereby the respondents were acquitted by the learned Special Judge in Sessions Case No. 76/88 titled as NCB v. Dr. Shyam Lal and Ors. for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 22 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act'). The leave to file the appeal was granted by a Division Bench of this Court who heard the appeal initially vide order dated 20.11.1997.2. Briefly stating it is the case of the appellants that:a) That on a specific information received by the Officers of Narcotics Control Bureau, the premises of the respondents, i.e., Shop-cum-residence of Shyam and Company were raided in the morning of 31.7.1987 at Ladwa at 11.0...
Tag this Judgment!Agro Tech Foods Ltd. Vs. Sudha Churiwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Reported in: 2009(40)PTC33(Del)
Manmohan Singh, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their partners, directors or proprietor etc. from infringing the trademark of the plaintiff 'Sundrop' and for passing off, dilution, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up etc.2. The Plaintiff submits that it is a company duly incorporated in 1986 and is among the leading manufacturers, processors and sellers of edible oil under the well known trademark 'Sundrop', which was originally adopted by M/s ITC Limited in 1988. The Plaintiff and its predecessors got the trademark 'Sundrop' registered and various devices of the same with regard to refined sunflower oil including Registration No. 482516 of Class 29 [TMJ # 1198(s)] and many others.3. By virtue of a Deed of Assignment dated 16.10.97, all the 'Sundrop' trademarks and devices were assigned in favour of M/s ITC Agro Tech Ltd. which was later changed to Agro Tech Foods Ltd.4. The Plaintiff further submits that due to long ...
Tag this Judgment!M.L.B.D. Books International Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Del)298; [2009]184TAXMAN276(Delhi)
ORDER1. The assessee has preferred an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment dt. 11th Sept., 2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in ITA No. 4193/Del/2006 pertaining to asst. yr. 2003-04.2. The assessee is aggrieved primarily on account of the fact that a certain sum out of the payments made to a sister concern, that is, M/s. Moti Lal Banarsidass Publisher (P) Ltd. (in short MBPPL) have been disallowed on the ground that the payments were 'excessive' and 'unreasonable1'. In this respect the Department has resorted to the provisions of Section 40A(2)(a) r/w Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The payments disallowed on this account which have been treated as excessive and unreasonable are in the sum of Rs. 4,98,917 (being 5 per cent of the total purchase) out of the total payments made to MBPPL being a sum of Rs. 99,78,344. The other disallowance pertains to commission paid...
Tag this Judgment!Sher Singh Vs. Naresh Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Reported in: 2009ACJ358
J.R. Midha, J.1. The appellant has challenged the award dated 28.9.2004 passed by the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 31,000 has been awarded to him. The appellant seeks enhancement of the award amount.2. On 28.2.1999, the appellant and his son were travelling in a rickshaw cycle from Mangolpuri for taking a bus to New Delhi Railway Station when jeep No. DL 8C-B 8918 came from opposite direction and hit the rickshaw resulting in serious injuries to the appellant. The appellant was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and thereafter shifted to Military Hospital, Delhi Cantt. He remained hospitalised till 10.6.1999. The appellant was also treated at All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The appellant suffered permanent disability of 25 per cent of left lower limb due to post-traumatic deformity of left lower limb with restricted range of motion of left hip joint.3. The appellant was 43 years of age at the time of the accident and was working as Havaldar in Indian Army...
Tag this Judgment!Narender H. Chandwani Vs. M.C.D. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2009
Reported in: 158(2009)DLT234
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This writ petition had been heard and finally disposed of on 4.7.2008. The petition had been filed to seek a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the MCD contained in its circular dated 19.5.2008 which reads as under:The Commissioner, MCD vide orders dated 06.05.2008 has removed M/s Sona Consultant & Contractors, Prop. Sh. Narender H Chandwani, R/o H. No. O-55, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-24 from the approved panel of the contractors of MCD on account of none execution of work awarded against work orders No. 453/EE (Br.)-I/TC/CS/06-07 dated 25.01.2007.This is notified & circulated to all concerned for information and necessary action.2. On 25.1.2007, the petitioner had been awarded two works under the Unit Rate Method (URM) Scheme, whereunder the MCD awards petty works to its registered contractors. The estimated value of such works, at the relevant time did not exceed Rs. two lakhs. The petitioner did not carry out the said works. The respondent accordingly is...
Tag this Judgment!D.M. Jawhar Merican Vs. Engineers India Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi104
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (The Act) is directed against the order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP No. 232/2005 whereby the objections preferred by the appellant to the arbitral award dated 18.01.2005 were dismissed on the ground that the objections were barred by limitation.2. The claimant / appellant is a Malaysian national. He, inter alia, provides consultancy and engineering services to the oil, gas and fertilizer industry. The appellant's services were engaged by the respondent. Disputes arose between the parties and litigation followed. During the pendency of litigation the parties agreed to appoint Mr. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy(retd.) Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The learned Arbitrator announced his award dated 18.01.2005, which was communicated vide proceedings dated 16.1.2005. We may note that this aw...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Jaspal Vs. Savita Gulati and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2487
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 25.05.2005 dismissing his application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. filed after a period of more than 4 years of the summoning order dated 04.07.1997 on a complaint instituted by deceased Shakuntala Devi now represented by Shri T.S. Gulati Respondent No. 1.2. The respondents had filed the said complaint against the petitioner and other accused persons including accused No. 1 & 2 on 07.12.1996 under Section 191/192/406/420/448 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof, along with Section 340 Cr.P.C. as accused No. 1 & 2 delivered the possession of the property to accused 3 & 4 after delivering possession of the same to the respondents somewhere in May 1992 under an agreement to sell and executing the relevant documents in their favour duly registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar without the consent of the complainant.3. In the complaint, it was also alleged that after the execution of...
Tag this Judgment!Hyco Product (P) Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Sh. S.S. Aggarwal ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi96
V.B. Gupta, J. 1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23rd October, 1989 passed by Addl. District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 584/1988.2. The brief facts of this case are that respondent herein, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 59,800/- and for mandatory injunction against the present appellant on the allegations that she is the proprietor of M/s Paul Traders and appellant through its Managing Director Sh. S.S. Aggarwal entered into a collaboration-cum-agency agreement with her on 18th October, 1992 as per terms and conditions mentioned therein. Sh. S.S. Aggarwal admitted the contents of the said agreement as correct and signed the same in the presence of attesting witnesses. Said agreement was for 36 months from 1st October, 1982 ending on 30th September, 1985. Appellant despite the expiry of said period, failed to remove its machinery, parts, etc. from the business place of the respondent despite repeated request and demand made by the respondent. A...
Tag this Judgment!Sanyog Sharma Vs. Suresh Goel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT530; (2009)155PLR10
Veena Birbal, J.1. By way of present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, appellant has assailed impugned order dated 24.10.2008 passed by learned ADJ, Delhi, in civil suit No. 127/2007 by which application of the appellant for restoration of suit has been dismissed.2. It is stated that the appellant i.e. plaintiff in the court below had filed a suit for declaration of account against the respondent. Respondent i.e. defendant before the trial court had filed written statement on 12.7.2007. Replication thereto was also filed by the appellant/plaintiff on 20.11.2007. On 15.3.2008 interim injunction application was disposed of as not pressed and the matter was adjourned to 25.4.2008 for admission/denial of documents and framing of issues. On the said date, ld. ADJ was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 23.5.2008. On that date the suit of the appellant was dismissed in default as there was no appearance on behalf of appellant-plaintiff. It is alleged that counsel for appellant had go...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »