Delhi Court July 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-2009
Reported in: [2010]320ITR410(Delhi); [2009]185TAXMAN243(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The present appeal of the Revenue under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act impugns the order dated 30.5.2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee against the order of CIT(A) which authority upheld the order of the Assessing Officer(AO) whereby the AO made an addition to the return filed by holding the assessee liable with respect to accrued income not actually received on the ground that the assessee was maintaining books of accounts on mercantile basis.2. The order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is a very detailed one running into over 51 paragraphs. The ITAT has in substance held that no tax is payable unless the interest income is a real income and not merely accrued income more so when the principal amount is written off as bad debts in the subsequent years. The ITAT relied upon, inter alia, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT : (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC) and judgme...
Shri Harsaran Singh Vs. the Managing Director, Modern Food Industries ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT794
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. This writ petition filed by the workman (the petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated 05.09.2008 passed by Ms. Renu Bhatnagar, POLC X, Delhi rejecting the reference relating to alleged illegal termination of the petitioner from the service of the respondent for want of territorial jurisdiction.2. The petitioner was appointed as Mechanic (Air Conditioning and Refrigeration) by the management of the respondent w.e.f. 03.11.2007 and in the course of time, he was promoted to the post of Fitter Grade I w.e.f. 27.03.1987. At the time of his initial appointment and also at the time of his promotion, he remained employed in the Head Office of the management respondent at Delhi. Due to administrative exigencies of work, the petitioner was transferred from Delhi to Faridabad w.e.f. 24.10.2002 and from there his services were terminated by the respondent w.e.f. 19.12.2003 because of closure of Faridabad Unit of the respondent. The petitioner raised an industrial d...
Asharfi Lal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: 161(2009)DLT277
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present writ petitions have been filed by the erstwhile dwellers of the jhuggi cluster situated at the Railway Crossing Chowki No. 3, Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar, Delhi praying inter alia for directions to the respondents to provide suitable/alternative shelter to the petitioners for rehabilitation on account of the demolition action undertaken by them on 8.9.2005.2. The case as set up by the petitioners is that they were residing at the site of the jhuggi cluster in question since the year 1964 and that various documents including ration cards, Photo Identity Cards and proof of existence of electricity connections have been filed by them to establish that they were given permanent rehabilitation at the site since the year 1994. While the ground floor of the structures constructed by them was used for running shops from where they were carrying on the trade of vending vegetables, the petitioners were residing on the first floor. It is stated that on the assurances give...
Naresh Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC228(Del)
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner, Mr. Naresh Kumar Jain, has impugned the order dated 30th November, 2006 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board dismissing his application dated 31st May, 2006 for placing on record additional documents in the rectification application.2. The aforesaid rectification application was filed by the M/s. Shiva Tobacco Company, respondent No. 2 herein in 1997 in Delhi High Court and was registered as C.O. No. 11/1997. In the said rectification application, issues were framed on 29th July, 2002 and the parties were given time to file list of witnesses and additional documents, if any, within 4 weeks thereafter. The rectification application was being tried as a civil suit.3. Additional documents were not filed by both the parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein, as recorded in the order dated 9th September, 2002 of the Joint Registrar. While the case was pending, the respondent No. 2 herein filed an application for transfer ...
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT246
S.N. Aggarwal, J.CM No. 724/2009 in WP(C) No. 7050/20081. This is an application under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the workman seeking directions to the management to pay him full wages as last drawn by him admissible to him under the Rules till the decision of the present writ petition.2. Reply to this application has not been filed by the management. Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar learned Counsel appearing on the behalf of the management on instructions from his client says that the Court may pass appropriate order under Section 17-B even without waiting for reply of the management.3. The management in this writ petition has assailed an award dated 05.09.2008 passed by Mr. S.K. Kaushik, POLC XII, Delhi directing reinstatement of the workman (respondent No. 2 herein) with 40% back wages. The award has been challenged on various grounds including on the ground of jurisdiction of the court below to entertain the reference. The objection of jurisdiction taken by the man...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Farzana and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: 2009ACJ2763
J.R. Midha, J.1. The appellants have challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby the compensation of Rs. 3,62,500/- has been awarded to the appellants.2. The accident dated 10th May, 2000 resulted in the death of Master Farman aged 7 years. The parents of the deceased filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The deceased was a student of IInd standard in P.D. Public School. The learned Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 22,500/- and applied the multiplier of 15 to compute the loss of dependency to be Rs. 3,37,500/-. Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded towards medical expenses and Rs. 5,000/- each has been awarded towards transportation of the dead body, funeral expenses and loss of estate. The total compensation is awarded Rs. 3,62,500/-.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has not made 1/3rd deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased while computing the compensation. The second ground submitted...
Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Vs. Anchor Health and Beautycare
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT314
ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. This is an application by the Plaintiff under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC.) seeking condonation of delay in filing the amended plaint.2. The background to the filing of the present application is that the Plaintiff/Applicant filed the aforementioned suit CS (OS) No. 1908 of 2002 against the Defendant/Respondent inter alia seeking an order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale toothbrushes, samples of which are attached to the plaint, allegedly infringing the registered design of by the Plaintiff in respect of the said toothbrushes.3. Against the order passed by this Court on 15th April 2004 declining an interim injunction, the Plaintiff /Applicant filed an appeal, FAO (OS) No. 75 of 2004, which came to be disposed of by the Division Bench on 24th October 2008. The Division Bench in the said order recorded the agreed terms ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaipur Jewellers (Exports)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2009
Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN169(Delhi)
ORDER1. The Assessing Officer in his assessment order had made three additions of the following nature:(a) The GP ratio was taken at 29.25 per cent as against 17 per cent given by the assessee and on that basis addition of Rs. 15,76,504 was made.(b) Addition of Rs. 11,58,598 was made against unexplained credit entries in the bank account.(c) Addition of Rs. 1,38,77,174 on the ground that the sum was on account of sundry creditors wrongly shown.2. The assessee filed an appeal against this order of the Assessing Officer. The CIT (Appeals) vide its judgment dated 28-3-2005 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The addition of Rs. 15,76,504 was reduced to Rs. 3,00,000. The CIT (Appeals), while doing so, accepted the explanation of the assessee that the GP ratio of 29 per cent in earlier years was because of the reason that assessee had sold the jewellery, in those years, at the counter of the five star hotel whereas for the assessment year in question there was no local sale and the s...
Tagore Education Society Regd. Vs. Kamla Tandon and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2009
Reported in: 161(2009)DLT232
Manmohan, J 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') challenging the orders dated 17th July, 2007, 19th September, 2008 and 13th April, 2009 passed by Additional Rent Controller (in short 'ARC.) in eviction petition being E No. 342/07/06 & M-13/08. 2. By order dated 17th July, 2007, ARC granted petitioner- tenant leave to defend restricted to one issue, namely, whether tenanted property was let out for residential purpose or for composite purpose and/or even if it was let out for composite purpose, whether the dominant purpose was residential or not. Subsequently, by order dated 19th September, 2008, ARC allowed respondents-landlords. eviction petition after relying upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By LRs v. Union of India and Anr. reported in : AIR2008SC3148 . Thereafter, by order dated 13th April, 2009, ARC dismissed petitioner.s review application holding that petitioner ...
Sh. Vijay Singh Yadav Vs. Smt. Rajesh Yadav and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2009
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT414
V.K. Shali, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 07.4.2008 passed by Ms.Kiran Bansal, MM, Delhi in M.P. No. 372/3/03 Under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner herein to pay an interim maintenance @ Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent No. 1 w.e.f. December, 2003 till the disposal of the main petition.2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are not in dispute except the quantum of earnings of the petitioner. It is admitted by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 Smt. Rajesh Yadav is his wife. It is admitted that the marriage took place between the parties on 26.2.1973 and from the said wedlock, they were blessed with two sons namely Sameer Yadav and Goldi Yadav. It is also not in dispute that from 1993 onwards, the respondent No. 1 was living separately along with her sons. The respondent No. 1 Smt. Rajesh Yadav has made all...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »