Delhi Court March 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.
Satnam Kaur and ors. Vs. Ashlar Stores P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: 158(2009)DLT62
Manmohan, J.1. Present revision petition has been filed under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act'), seeking to set aside judgment and order dated 17th January, 2000 whereby petitioners-tenants leave to defend application was dismissed by Additional Rent Controller on the ground that it did not disclose any triable issue and an eviction order was passed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of DRC Act in favour of respondent-landlord.2. Mr. Suresh C. Gupta, learned Counsel for petitioners, submitted that a company cannot file an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide need under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of DRC Act. He submitted that a company can only file an eviction petition under Section 22 of DRC Act for recovery of possession of premises. According to him, present eviction petition was not maintainable as respondent-company had no locus standi or authority to file the same. Mr. Gupta, further submitted that...
Dbs Financial Services Ltd. Vs. India Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi94; 159(2009)DLT256
ORDERHima Kohli, J.1. The present writ petition has remained on the regular board of this Court since 6-1-2009. However, the respondent has remained unrepresented. It is pertinent to note that when the Rule was issued in this writ petition on 11-10-1995, none was present on behalf of the respondent. Though the order-sheet reflects that counter affidavit was filed by the respondent, the same was not on the record. Counsel for the petitioner was directed to place a photocopy thereof served by the respondent on him, on the record. The petitioner was also directed to issue a letter to the nominated Counsel for ITDC requesting him to appear in this matter. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has filed a copy of the letter dated 22-1-2009 written to the nominated Counsel of ITDC, along with a copy of the counter affidavit, which have been duly placed on the record under index dated 28-1-2009 and 13-3-2009. Despite the same, appearance has not been entered on behalf of the respondent.2. The pres...
V.K. Bhandari Vs. Sheikh Mohd. Yahya and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 158(2009)DLT124
Manmohan, J.CM No. 3061/20091. For the reasons stated in the CM, the same is allowed. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.CM No. 3060/20092. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.RC.REV. 17/2009 & CM No. 3059/20093. Present petition has been filed under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act'), seeking to set aside judgment dated 12th September, 2008 whereby Additional Rent Controller after having granted leave to defend to petitioner-tenant has allowed respondents-landlords' eviction petition.4. Learned Counsel for petitioner-tenant contends that respondents-landlords have not disclosed the alternative accommodation available to them in Delhi. He states that there is no averment in the eviction petition that other family members of respondents did not possess or own any other reasonable suitable residential accommodation. He further contends that though respondents-landlords have been in possession of first and secon...
Sunair Hotels Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Registrar of Companies and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: [2009]151CompCas202(Delhi); [2009]92SCL11(Delhi)
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 in the Court of learned ACMM, Delhi under Section 374 of The Companies Act, 1956. The only short point involved in this petition is as to whether the complaint filed by the respondents was barred by limitation and as such was liable to be dismissed. 2. The petitioner has been called upon to appear before the Court of ACMM to face the aforesaid complaint filed by the Registrar of Companies under Section 200 Cr.P.C. disclosing commission of an offence under Section 374 of the Companies Act, 1956 for 13.10.2004. It is submitted that the ACMM has taken cognizance of the alleged offence vide her order dated 21.07.2004 without application of mind and has passed the impugned order in a most mechanical and casual manner. 3. It has been submitted by the petitioners that M/s VLS Finance Ltd. a subsidiary of the petitioner had bee...
Manmohan Nath N. Puri (Deceased) (Through Lrs Smt. Veena Puri W/O Late ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 158(2009)DLT43
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 30th May, 1989 passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal in Case No. 41/1989-CA being an appeal under Section 76 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972.2. Broadly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the nominee of his father, who was a member of the Cooperative Industrial Estate Ltd. (for short the Society). As a result of his membership, the Petitioner's father was allotted a plot bearing number J.-3 in the draw of lots held on 25th May, 1969. 3. The Petitioner's father expired on 24th March, 1970. At that time, the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 (for short the Bombay Act) was in force in Delhi and, therefore, the provisions of the Bombay Act were applicable.4. We were told by learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Petitioner's father defaulted in payments but it has also come on record that while the Petitioner's father was allotted a plot of 500 square yards, he had asked for a reduct...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Pahlad Tempo Service and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 158(2009)DLT58
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Plaintiffs have made this application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree on the basis of admissions made by the defendant.2. Brief facts relevant for deciding this application are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 27,81,519/- from the defendants under Section 8 of the Carriers Act, 1865. Plaintiff No. 1 is the Insurance Company and Plaintiff No. 2 is the party who booked its goods with defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2. The goods were to be transported by defendant No. 1 from IGI Airport to Okhla Industrial Area warehouse/godown of plaintiff No. 2. The consignment was loaded in the truck of defendant No. 1 bearing registration No. HR-38D-3370. The truck arrived at the warehouse of plaintiff No. 2 at about 2.30 a.m. in the night of 2.11.2003. As per the version of driver of plaintiff No. 2, in the FIR lodged by him, due to non-availability of plaintiff No. 2's labour, he parked the loaded truck containing 43 rolls of c...
Randhir Kumar Sharma and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 158(2009)DLT225
Siddharth Mridul, J. 1. These four petitions raise a common issue and seek similar reliefs and we are, therefore, proposing to dispose them of by this common order. 2. The facts as are relevant for the determination of the present writ petitions are briefly adumbrated as follows:(a) The Petitioners are displaced persons from Pakistan having migrated to India in the year 1947.(b) The Petitioners occupied land unauthorizedly before 15th August, 1950. The Petitioners started business from the site unauthorizedly occupied by them and are in occupation of the said unauthorized land uninterruptedly.(c) According to the Petitioners, the Government gave an assurance to displaced persons on the floor of the Parliament on the 29th September, 1951, whereby the said displaced persons who without being authorized to do so had occupied any public land or constructed any building on such land before 15th August, 1950, were not to be removed unless they had been provided accommodation on developed lan...
In Re: Ge Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas52(Delhi); 162(2009)DLT31
Gita Mittal, J.1. This joint application has been filed under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, by the applicant-companies seeking directions of this Court to dispense with the requirement of convening the meetings of the promoter/majority equity shareholder of the transferor company and secured and unsecured creditors of the transferor and transferee companies and for convening, holding and conducting of separate meetings of the minority equity shareholders of the transferor company and equity shareholders of the transferee company to consider and approve, with or without modification, the proposed scheme of amalgamation of M/s. GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferor company') with M/s. GE Capital Services India (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferee company').2. The registered offices of the transferor and transferee companies are situated at New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this court.3. The transferor company wa...
Reinz Talbros Limited Vs. Kostub Investments Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: [2009]96SCL108(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A winding up petition was filed against the appellant by respondent No. 1 on account of non payment of the amount due with interest at the time of redemption of fully paid up debentures. The appellant did not even care to file a reply and subsequently the petition for winding up was admitted and an official liquidator was appointed as the provisional liquidator.2. The learned company Judge in terms of the Order dated 25.01.2007 directed valuation of the properties of the appellant.3. It is the grievance of the appellant that the valuer appointed to carry out the task undervalued the properties. The appellant filed an application CA 666/2007 before the learned Company Judge inter alia challenging the valuation report and seeking to keep in abeyance the auction of the assets of the company. However, learned Company Judge acted in pursuance to the report of the valuer and directed auction of the property in open court on 12.07.2007 and finalized the auction of the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaipur Golden Transport Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: [2009]183TAXMAN480(Delhi)
ORDER1. This is an appeal preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against judgment dated 18-5-2007 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 195/Delhi/2005 pertaining to assessment year 2001-02.2. The only issue which has been raised before us is that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in deleting an addition of a sum of Rs. 2,34,30,000 made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had transferred its business to one Jaipur Golden Transport Company (Regd.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') for an inadequate consideration. The other issue with respect to disallowance of consultancy charges amounting to Rs. 9,76,350 was not pressed before us. In order to dispose of this appeal the following facts require to be noticed:2.1 The assessee had been carrying on business of a franchisee of the company for last 30 years. The company, on the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »