Delhi Court April 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.
Satish Chand Gupta Vs. the Presiding Officer, Delhi Co-operative Tribu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT497
Siddharth Mridul, J. 1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner, inter alia, prays for setting aside the order dated 24th October, 1995 passed by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal, Respondent No. 1 herein, confirming the order dated 25th April, 1995 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Respondent No. 2 herein, whereby the expulsion of the Petitioner from membership of Central Delhi Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited (in short 'Society?), Respondent No. 3 herein, was upheld as well as for seeking a declaration that the Petitioner is a member and continues to be a member of the Respondent No. 3-Society with all rights and privileges. 2. The facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that: a) The Respondent No. 3-Society was allotted land in Plot No. 1, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi-110085, for construction of residential flats for its members. b) The Petitioner had become a member of the Respo...
Ge Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Raj Tours Privat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT440
Hima Kohli, J.1. By these two applications/petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of a receiver to take possession of the assets let on loan to the respondent with liberty to the receiver to seek assistance of the local police in case any obstruction is put by the respondent in seizing the assets. The petitioner also prayed for restraining respondent and its employees etc. from wasting, damaging, alienating, selling, removing and disposing of the assets in the meantime and permitting the receiver to sell the vehicle.2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent approached the petitioner with a request for acquisition of Volvo B7R vehicles (bus) on loan. This request was considered by the petitioner. The respondent entered into loan agreements on 2nd January 2006 with the petitioner and under these agreements, the petitioner financed the Volvo B7R vehicles, which were registered as KA-01B 7498 and KA-01B 75...
Capital Land Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Shaheed Memorial Societ ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: 158(2009)DLT610
ORDERP.K. Bhasin, J: 1. Blatant violation by defendants 1 to 6 and 8 of the order dated 6.10.2006 passed in the present suit whereby these defendants were restrained from representing themselves as shareholders/representatives of plaintiff No. 1, M/s Capital Land Builders (Pvt.) Ltd.(hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Company), has been brought to the notice of the Court by the plaintiffs through four applications under Order XXXIX Rules 2A CPC and all those applications are now being disposed of by this common Order. 2. Relevant facts of the case, as reflected in the plaint and documents filed therewith by the plaintiffs and the pleadings of the defendants against whom action is being sought and about which there is no dispute between the parties, are these: Plaintiff No. 1 M/s Capital Land Builders(Pvt.) Ltd.(hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Company') came into existence in the year 1959 with the issued Capital of Rs. 1500/- only comprising of 15 equity shares of the face val...
Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN192(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against judgment dated 20.10.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No 654/Del/2000 pertaining to assessment year 1993-941.1 By the impugned judgment the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It is pertinent to note that by the very same impugned judgment the Tribunal has also dismissed the appeal of the Revenue being ITA No 889/Del/2000 which also pertained to the same assessment year, that is, assessment year 1993-94.1.2 Before us presently only the assessee is in appeal. After hearing the learned Counsel for the assessee Mr R. Santhanam as well as the learned Counsel for the Revenue Mr R.D. Jolly we had indicated to them that a substantial question of law as formulated below would arise for consideration of this Court and that with their consent, after framing a ...
Kesho Ram and ors. Vs. Joga Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi157
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 2/3/2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition without awarding any compensation.2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:3. On 12/9/1988 at about 4.55pm, the deceased Sh. Rajeev Kumar Sharma, aged about 25 years, boarded the bus bearing registration No. DEP 4391 plying on route No. 320 from Shahdara bus stand and he was to alight at Kariti Nagar bus stand near Swarn talkies'. As the bus started, a bomb blast occurred inside the bus as a result of which, Sh. Rajeev Kumar received grievous injuries on his person, which resulted in his death. A claim petition was filed on 10/3/1989 and an award was made on 2/3/2000. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.4. The sole ground on which the claim petition was dismissed was that the appellant claimant failed to prove the negligence of the driver.5. The counsel for the appe...
Home Solution Retail India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2009
Reported in: 2009BusLR378(Del); (2009)223CTR(Del)191; 2009(164)LC297(Delhi); 2009(237)ELT209(Del); [2009]17STJ143(Delhi); 2009[14]STR433; [2009]20STT129; (2009)22VST508(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions the legality, validity and vires of notification No. 24/2007 dated 22/05/2007 and circular No. 98/1/2008-ST dated 04/01/2008 issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi is challenged. It is alleged that by virtue of the said notification and circular a completely erroneous interpretation is placed on Section 65 (90a) and Section 65 (105) (zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Finance Act, 2007. It is further alleged that because of this incorrect interpretation, service tax is sought to be levied on the renting of immovable property as opposed to service tax on a service provided 'in relation to the renting of immovable property'.2. In essence, the petitioners have raised the question as to whether the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) envisages the levy of service tax on letting out / renting out of immovable property per se? According t...
Coca Cola India Vs. C.P. Malik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Delhi1; 159(2009)DLT753
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This application has been filed by the defendant, inter alia, contending that the plaintiff be not allowed to exhibit the documents which are inadmissible in evidence such as the alleged security deposit agreement dated 16.09.1996 and the alleged Lease Deed dated 16.09.1996. This prayer is made on account of the fact that these documents were not registered at the relevant time. The other relief prayed for in the application is for dismissal of this suit on account of plaintiff's failure to lead evidence by way of affidavit within the stipulated time. So far as the delay in filing the evidence by way of affidavit is concerned, the court had condoned the same and taken the evidence by way of affidavit on record subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- vide order dated 23.01.2009.2. Mr. Kathpalia, learned Counsel for the defendant submits that the aforesaid two documents not being registered are inadmissible in evidence and the plaintiff cannot be permitted to tende...
Econ Puri Consortium and anr. Vs. Puri International P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT458
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. This appeal challenges the interlocutory order dated 19.9.2007 of the learned Single Judge passed in the main petition being Arbitration Petition No. 154/2003 which was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'A & C Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator. By the impugned interlocutory order, the learned Single Judge in exercise of his powers under Order X Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter 'CPC' for short) has directed the personal appearance of the Managing Director of the appellant/respondent No. 1. The learned Single Judge passed this direction in order to put questions with respect to the pleadings and the issue in the case as regards the existence of the arbitration agreement. Though the impugned order does not refer to Order X Rule 2 CPC but the directions issued thereunder can be traced to the power under Order X Rule 2 CPC.2. This Court at the time of issuing notice in the pres...
Shri Chander SaIn and ors. Vs. J.B. Garments
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT18
V.K. Shali, J.1. The petitioners in the instant writ petition have assailed the award dated 17th October, 2008 passed by the learned Labour Court No. IX in ID No. 310/2003 in the case titled Sh. Chander Sain and Ors. v. J.B. Garments.2. By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Labour Court had come to the finding that the petitioners/workmen have miserably failed to establish relationship of employer and employees between the parties and accordingly, the reference of the appropriate government whether the services of workman as per Annexure 'A' have been terminated by the management illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect was answered in negative.3. That briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that the petition had involved 13 workmen on whom a reference was sought from the appropriate government as to whether their services were terminated on 17th February, 2002 as the petitioners/workmen h...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT589
V.K. Shali, J.1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the award dated 9th November, 2005 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court-II LCA No. 63/2000 in the case titled Shri Om Prakash v. General Manager, Northern Railway on 9th November, 2005.2. By virtue of the aforesaid award, the application of the respondent/workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was allowed and the respondent/workman was entitled to restoration of his pension as was claimed by him along with the arrears of reduction which was done by the petitioner.3. It may be pertinent here to mention that the respondent/workman had superannuated as Driver-A Grade on 26th March, 1984 from Jind Junction, Northern Railway in the pay scale of Rs. 550-700/- with a basic pay of Rs. 550/-. The total monthly emoluments of the respondent/workman inclusive of running and other allowances were Rs. 2500/-. On the basis of the said emoluments the pension of the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »