Delhi Court May 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.
Prem Power Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. and Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT610
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has prayed this Court to restrain the respondent by issuing an injunction from encashing the following bank guarantees:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl.No. Bank Description of BG Amount (Rs.) Valid uptoGuarantee No.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. 1057GTE00001607 Against mobilization 28,33,290/- 31.12.2008------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 1057GTE00001707 - do - 50,00,000/- 31.12.2008------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. 1057GTE00001807 - do - 25,00,000/- 31.12.2008------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. 1057GTE00001907 - do - 55,00,000/- 31.12.2008------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. 1057GT...
Sterling and Wilson Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Silicon Graphics Systems ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT634
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') the petitioner has made a prayer that this Court should direct the respondent to deposit the amount of the majority award which was subject matter of challenge under Section 34 of the Act before the Court. It is submitted by the petitioner that the respondent had filed frivolous objections against the award and was not arguing the matter. The respondent company was a 100% subsidiary of Indian Company and there was every likelihood of the respondent company winding up from India and turning the award into a paper decree. During arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court should at least ask for some security in the form of bank guarantee or property from the respondent. He submitted that due to recession many such companies as that of the respondent were leaving the country without discharging their liability.2. Learned Counsel ...
Geo Enpro Petroleum Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Del)244; [2009]315ITR153(Delhi); [2009]183TAXMAN374(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against a common judgment dated 04.05.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 3240/Del/05 and ITA No. 3551/Del/05 in respect of the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 respectively filed by the assessee and ITA No. 3634/Del/06 and ITA No. 3635/Del/06 in respect of assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively filed by the Revenue.2. The only issue which arises for our consideration is whether the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the commercial production, in the case of the assessee, had commenced in the assessment year 1996-1997 for the purposes of deduction under Section 80IB(9) of the Act . The assessee's case before us was that the commercial production had commenced in the assessment year 1999-2000. In order to dispose of these app...
Ram Chander Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4058
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid criminal appeal preferred by the appellant who was sent for trial in case FIR No. 20/1999 registered at P.S. Anti Corruption Branch Delhi, under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the complaint of Sh. Balwinder Singh. In the complaint Ex. PW5/A it was alleged, that the appellant while being posted as Resident Medical Officer in the Jail Hospital of Jail No. 3 of the Central Jail, Tihar, later posted as Resident Medical Officer w.e.f. 21.06.1999, demanded bribe from the complainant who was in judicial custody and was undergoing treatment in the Jail Hospital as an Indoor patient, on the threats of discharging him from jail hospital, unless and until the said complainant paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant and Rs. 5,000/- to one Dr. Krishan Kumar. Consequently, on 25.06.1999, the complainant met the Jail Superintendent Sh. Yashpal Garg PW-5, to whom he is s...
Abid Malik Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: [2009]93SCL177(Delhi)
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This second appeal raises the following questions of law:i) Whether the conviction of the appellant could have been based solely on the basis of retracted confession without there being any other corroborating evidence. ii) Once the retraction of a confessional statement takes place then who is to prove that the confession recorded was voluntary. iii) Whether the revision petition filed in this case was not within limitation. iv) Whether the penalty imposed upon the appellant is justified.2. This appeal has been filed under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (hereinafter reffered to as FEMA) which superseeded Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA)assailing the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the Foreign Exchange Appellate Tribunal holding the appellant guilty under Section 9(1)(a) of FERA and imposing upon him a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs).3. Section 9(1)(a) of FERA reads as under:9. Restrictions o...
M.M.T.C Vs. Al Bamar Company Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT513; (2009)155PLR13
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1 This appeal challenges the impugned order dated 25.10.2005 of the learned Single Judge, whereby, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the objections filed by the appellant to the award dated 31.01.2002.2. By the award, the respondent was held entitled to an amount of USD 52,913.97 being the balance of the freight charges payable by the appellant to the respondent with respect to a charter party agreement entered into between the parties. The award also granted interest at international lending rates (LIBOR) of 7% from the date of reference till the date of payment.3. Before the learned Single Judge, there were principally four objections which were raised by the appellant to the award:(i) that the counter-claim filed by the appellant has been wrongly dismissed as time barred and not permitting adjustment for the short delivery of goods,(ii) the respondent ought not to have been granted at least the freight charges on said short delivery of goods,(iii) t...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ534Del
V.K. Shali, J.1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged two orders dated 20th July, 2004 and 29th October, 2004 passed in ID No. 144/2003 in case titled Sunil Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority by learned Labour Court No. VII. By virtue of the first order, the learned Labour Court has held that the inquiry which was held against the petitioner was fair, proper and in accordance with principles of natural justice.2. So far as the award dated 29th October, 2004 is concerned, the learned Labour Court upheld the imposition of punishment of dismissal on the petitioner.3. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing the present writ are that the petitioner/workman was employed as a Sweeper with the respondent/management since January 1980. He worked till 22nd August, 1990. On 22nd August, 1990 it was alleged against the petitioner/workman that he tried to molest one lady officer Ms. Nivedita Pandey who was standing near the window. The petitioner had come to the windo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Exim Securities and Credits (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN311(Delhi)
ORDER1. By means of this appeal the revenue seeks to disturb concurrent findings of fact returned by the CIT(A) and the ITAT. The issues before the Tribunal were as follows:1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting addition of Rs. 10,60,000 on account of unexplained investment in capital share to Rs. 1,50,000.2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,000 made on account of consultancy charges.2. We pointed out to learned Counsel of the revenue that the High Court does not disturb findings of fact unless the findings are perverse. In response thereto it is being contended that there was a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, thereby resulting in a question of law having arisen. The argument is that since no opportunity was given to the Department at the stage of the proceedings before the CIT(A), not only had the relevant rules been violated but the conclusion may be termed as perverse. We are unable to accept this argument for simple rea...
Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra Aluminium Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT489; (2009)155PLR29
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 20,19,699/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% p.a.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a Government company and the suit has been filed through its Executive Director, Shri P.S. Gupta. The plaintiff appointed the defendant as its consignment agent vide letter dated 27.5.1985 for a period of 11 months starting from 2.5.1985 to 31.3.1986. The defendant, as per the terms of the Consignment Agency Agreement, was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 3 lacs as security with the plaintiff which was to carry interest @ 12% p.a. and the interest so accrued was to be adjusted annually against the supplies made. In further terms of the Consignment Agency Agreement, the defendant was required to raise and make invoices on customers in defendant's own name on behalf of the plaintiff in respect of the goods sold by the defendant and was made responsible to pay the ...
Prakash Tubes Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN467(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the issuance of a writ to waive the interest levied under Section 220 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act for short) pertaining to three consecutive years in respect of which the original Demand had already been paid. The Petitioner has contended that for the Assessment Years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, the Revenue has raised a demand of Rupees 2,84,546/-, Rupees 6,95,479/- and Rupees 15,23,079/- respectively in regard whereof Demand Notices were served on 30.03.1983, 27.04.1983 and 27.04.1983 respectively. The Petitioner was under a bonafide belief that he was entitled to some additional relief under the unamended provisions of Section 80-J of the IT Act. As a consequence it had moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India through a writ petition in the course of the hearing of which the operation and effect of the amended provisions of Section 80-J of the IT Act had been stayed. The Petitioner ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »