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.
Yogesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: 158(2009)DLT16
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals which arise out of the common judgment dated 13.12.2006 delivered by the Special Judge in CC No. 48/01, whereby the Special Judge has convicted the appellant, Yogesh Kumar, under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and appellant, Neeraj Dutta under Section 7 & 13(2) of the Act. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.12.2006, the Special Judge sentenced Yogesh Kumar to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for three months, while Neeraj Dutta, has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for six months, under Section 13(2) of Act, she has been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years & fine of Rs. 5000/- & in default S.I. for 4 weeks. 2. The genesis of the prosecution's case lies in the complaint Ex. PW5/A recorde...
Parwati Devi and ors. Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT467
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the respondent/DDA to allot a suitable alternative Janta Flat to them in Rohini Zone in lieu of the flat allotted to the deceased registrant, their predecessor-in-interest, in the year 1992, at the cost as per the policy applicable in that regard.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, Shri Sujjan Singh, was registered with the DDA under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (in short 'the NPRS 1979') for allotment of a Janta Flat. At the relevant time, when Shri Sujjan Singh applied for registration, he was living at Jor Bagh, New Delhi. However, after the year 2000, he shifted his residence to E-100, Sector 36, Noida, UP. Much before that, in the year 1992, Shri Sujjan Singh was declared a successful allottee of a Janta Flat in a draw of lots, bearing No. 202, Ground Floor, Pocket-7, Sector 16, R...
Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar Vs. Sh. Rati Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: 165(2009)DLT71
V.K. Shali, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the ex-parte award dated 9th December, 2002 passed by the learned Labour Court No. IV in ID No. 100/1997 in the case titled Sh. Satya Sai Vidya Vihar v. Sh. Rati Ram. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appropriate Government had made a reference on 12th June, 1997 to the learned Labour Court in the following terms:Whether the services of Sh. Rati Ram have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what direction are necessary in this respect?2. On the basis of this reference the notices are purported to have been issued to the respondent/workman as well as the petitioner. The respondent/workman appeared before the learned Labour Court and filed his statement of claim wherein he stated that he is working with the petitioner/management from August 1990 as a gardener and drawing a salary of Rs. 1750/- per month. It is further alleged that his services were illegally...
Excel Casting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cogent Ventures India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: (2010)157PLR5
Shiv Narain Dhingra, J.1. This application/petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents with a prayer that the respondents be restrained from disposing, selling or creating third party interest in property No. 810/2, Chattarpur Extension, New Delhi till the arbitral award was made, and in case the award being in favour of the petitioner, till it was fully satisfied.2. The petitioner had entered into a Tripartite Agreement with the respondents and under this Tripartite Agreement the petitioner was to renovate/construct/reconstruct building at the above premises and to do interiors and other maintenance. It is submitted that the petitioner successfully completed its part of the obligation as per the agreement and renovated the structure at the ground floor including interiors, flooring, POP, glass-work etc. in accordance with directions and consent of the respondents. However, the respondents failed to make ...
Yum! Restaurants (India) Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Del)383; [2009]180TAXMAN8(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee-company under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment dated 31.01.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 3234/Del/2005 pertaining to assessment year 2001-02.2. The assessee-company is aggrieved by the disallowance of a sum of Rs 27,61,882/- on account of accrued marketing expenditure, which is in the nature of, incentive paid by the assessee-company to its franchisee calculated at 2% of the sales made by the franchisee for the period December, 2000 to March, 2001.2.1 The other issue with which the assessee-company is aggrieved is the disallowance of a sum of Rs 44,44,002/- by the Assessing Officer. The claim of the assessee-company arose on account of the contributions towards advertising, marketing and promotional activities (hereinafter referred to as the 'APM activities') made by the assessee-co...
Yum! Restaurants (Marketing) Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Del)392; [2009]180TAXMAN27(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee-company under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment dated 31.01.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 3235/Del/2005 pertaining to assessment year 2001-02.2. The only issue which arose in this case is with respect to the taxability of Rs 44,44,002/- being excess amount of income over expenditure. The said surplus had arisen on account of advertisement contributions received from the holding company of the assessee-company which remained unexpended.2.1 The broad facts with respect to the above case have been delineated in the connected appeal entitled Yum! Restaurant (India) Pvt Ltd v. CIT being ITA No. 192/2009 which was heard alongwith the present appeal. Judgment was reserved in both the appeals.3. Briefly, the parent company, that is, Yum! Restaurant (India) Pvt Ltd (in short 'YRIPL') formerly...
Mahesh Gupta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2527
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This order shall dispose of a bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. who is facing trial in FIR No. 100/2008 under Section 365/302/201 IPC, P.S. Punjabi Bagh, West District, Delhi. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 19.03.2008, i.e., from the date of his arrest. 2. The case of the prosecution started with an FIR lodged by the wife of the deceased on 13.03.2008 alleging that the whereabouts of the deceased was not available since 09.03.2008 when the deceased called his wife at about 4:30 pm.3. On the basis of the statement made by the wife of the deceased an FIR was registered under Section 365 IPC wherein the police added the offences under Section 302/201/34 IPC despite the fact that the dead body of the deceased has not yet been recovered, the petitioner was arrested on 19.03.2008 without there being any direct evidence about his involvement in the aforesaid case. It is his case of the appellant that there is not even an iota...
National Research Development Corpn. Vs. Abs Plastics Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: 168(2009)DLT177; 2009(40)PTC613(Del)
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 25,34,964.62 as royalty amount under license agreement dated 23rd July 1975 between the parties and interest accrued thereon as well as for rendition of account.2. Plaintiff alleged that under one of its sponsorship schemes of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Shri Ram Institute of Industrial Research developed a process for the manufacture of Terpolymers of Acrylonitrile Butadine (ABS Resigns) using what was known as emulsion technology. This process was got patented vide Patent Nos. 110090 and 118359 and assigned in favour of the plaintiff by a deed of assignment dated 28th May 1974. The assignment was duly registered with the Controller of Patents and Designs. The plaintiff entered into a deed of license with the defendant on 23rd July 1975 in respect of the above patent. By this license deed, the defendant acquired a non exclusive license for a term of eight years w.e.f...
Chd Developers Ltd. Vs. Sh. Rajinder Prasad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT86; (2009)IVLLJ86Del; (2009)156PLR8
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned award dated 14.11.2005 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 329/2003.2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are as under:As per the petitioner/management, the respondent/workman was appointed on 1.7.2001 on probation initially for a period of one year vide an appointment letter of the even day. As per the respondent/workman he was appointed on 1.7.2000 but appointment letter was issued on 1.7.2001 and his last drawn wages were Rs. 4100/-. As per the petitioner the services rendered by the respondent were not satisfactory and consequently his period of probation was not extended. The respondent was thus terminated from his service vide letter dated 29.6.2002. As per the respondent he availed leave from 19.6.2002 to 25.6.2002 and during this period he fell sick and treatment continued upto 11.7.2003 and when he reported for...
Pro Interactive Service (India) Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: 166(2009)DLT117
V.K. Shali, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for disposal.3. This order shall dispose of not only the main writ petition bearing No. W.P.(C) No. 9218/2006 but also the CM No. 13042/2008 under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before disposing of the main writ petition on merit the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is taken up for consideration.4. Section 17-B lays down that where in any case the Labour Court by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceeding against such award in the High Court or the Supreme Court the employer shall be liable to pay to the workman during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court the full wages or the wages last drawn by him inclusive of maintenance allowance admissible to him under the rule, if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during the said period and an affidavit ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›