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. Nanak Ram Jaisinghania
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2009
Reported in: [2009]317ITR302(Delhi)
1. The assessee filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 1,13,20,160 for the assessment year 2001-02. In the return the assessee had also claimed rent charges of Rs. 55,20,545.68 and extra bed charges, laundry, etc., at Rs. 12,24,480. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest on advances. He also disallowed the amount of Rs. 11,82,399.80 on sundry creditors on the assessee's failure to reconcile the balance and the disallowances. After disallowing the aforesaid charges, the income was assessed at a loss of Rs. 87,96,942 thus instead of the loss of Rs. 1,13,20,160 declared by the assessee. The loss was assessed at Rs. 87,96,942. The net effect in any case was that no tax was payable. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the assessee's appeal particularly sustained the additions on advances while deleting/restricting certain amounts. The Revenue went in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Cross-objections were filed by the assessee in ...
Subash Chand Vs. Mitsui and Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ787Del
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. This writ petition filed by the workman (petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated May 9, 2008 passed by Ms. Nisha Saxena, Presiding Officer, Labour Court VI, Fast Track, Delhi rejecting his claim for reinstatement and back-wages.2. The petitioner alleges his termination from the service of respondent being Mitsui & Co. Ltd. w.e.f. August 7, 1998. He had raised an industrial dispute with regard to his alleged termination which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication by the Labour Court. The Labour Court on the basis of evidence produced by the parties before it, has reached to a conclusion that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties warranting reinstatement of the petitioner as he was employed as a personal driver of the respondent's Group Project Manager, Mr. Krishan Khanna, who resigned from the service of respondent company on the same day, i. e., August 7, 2008 when the services of petitioner were allegedl...
Pvr Pictures Ltd. Vs. Studio 18
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC70(Del)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue summons in the suit and notice on the application. Mr. P.V. Dinesh accepts notice and summons; learned senior counsel for the defendants, Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, submits that the interlocutory application may be heard without a reply. He also submits that the suit is not maintainable, since the plaintiff does not have any right to sue for injunction. In view of the statement, counsel argued on both maintainability of the suit, as well as merits of the application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, for grant of ad-interim injunction. 2. The plaintiff sues the defendant for specific performance of its obligation under a Distribution Term Sheet Agreement, dated 8th September, 2008, in respect of a movie SHORT KUT, for the 'East Punjab' territory as known in the Film Trade, and further direction to the defendant to deliver the print and publicity materials for the movie, 'upon receiving advance payment by signing a fresh license of exploitation rights agreement'. Permanent...
Metropol India (P) Ltd. Vs. Parveen Industries India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(40)PTC600(Del)
ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. Suit No. 3877 of 1991 was filed by the Plaintiff Metropol India Pvt. Ltd. ('MIPL.) against the Defendant M/s. Parveen Industries India complaining of the violation of its trade mark 'Cleanzo' by the Defendant and also complaining of the infringement of its copy right and the passing off its goods by the Defendant as those of the Plaintiff. In the said suit an application, being IA No. 90 of 2000, was filed jointly by the parties for recording a compromise and for a decree to be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in terms of the settlement. Among the terms of the settlement which were set out in the application were the following: 1. The defendant acknowledges the plaintiff to be the registered proprietor of the trademark CLEANZO registered in class 3 under Registration No. 335807. 2. The defendant also acknowledges the plaintiff to be the owner of copyright in the label titled CLEANZO, as described in the plaint, bearing the registratio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.C. Fibres Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2009
Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN53(Delhi)
ORDER1. One M/s. Diamond Protein Ltd. subscribed to the share capital of the assessee-company. For this purpose, share application money, on three different dates, totalling a sum of Rs. 39 lakhs was given by M/s. Diamond Protein Ltd. to the assessee-company. The Assessing Officer after making enquiries of the assessee-company concluded that a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs subscribed by M/s. Diamond Protein Ltd. on 10-10-2002 with the assessee remained unexplained under Section 68 of the Act and added it to the income tax of the assessee. Against this order of assessment, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT (Appeals) which was allowed by the CIT (Appeals) thereby deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. This order has been affirmed by the ITAT in appeal preferred by the Income-tax Officer. It was argued before the ITAT that 111 deposits of Rs. 19,000 each in cash were made in the bank account of M/s. Diamond Protein Ltd. and were converted in drafts by M/s. Diamond Protein Ltd. ...
Maharaj Singh Vs. Principal, Iti and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2009
Reported in: 161(2009)DLT350; (2010)ILLJ744Del
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. This writ petition filed by the workman is directed against an award dated 11.04.2008 passed by Mr. S.K. Kaushik, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. XII, Delhi rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement or back wages holding that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties.2. Heard.3. The petitioner alleged to have worked as Pump Operator in ITI, Nand Nagri w.e.f. 01.01.1996 at a fixed salary of Rs. 1,500/- per month. He has further alleged that he was illegally terminated by the respondents (management) w.e.f. 08.03.2003. He raised an industrial dispute with regard to his alleged termination which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court vide letter of reference dated 20.04.2005 to decide as to whether the alleged termination of the petitioner was illegal and unjustified. The petitioner has made a claim for his reinstatement against three persons i.e. (i) ITI, Nand Nagri, (ii) Assistant...
Jagdish Prasad Aggarwal (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2009
Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN41(Delhi)
ORDER1. The petitioner herein is a HUF carrying on the business of export of readymade garments at New Delhi. For the assessment year 1974-75, the petitioner made following payments towards the advance tax:(a) 12-9-1973 Rs. 5,728(b) 11-12-1973 Rs. 5,728(c) 15-3-1974 Rs. 55,1062. Last payment was credited in RBI on 25-3-1974. In this manner, total advance tax paid was Rs. 66,562. The return for that assessment year was filed on 30-7-1974. As per this, he declared the income of Rs. 31,814. However, the Income-tax Officer assessed the income of Rs. 1,57,350 and raised a demand of Rs. 1,23,310 vide assessment order dated 2-7-1977. The petitioner went in appeal against the said order and the matter was taken up to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which passed the order in favour of the petitioner in June, 1981. As per the order of the Tribunal income was assessed at Rs. 39,905 of which tax payable was Rs. 16,038. Since the petitioner had paid advance tax of Rs. 66,562, a sum of Rs. 50,524...
Binod Engineering and Mechanical Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-2009
Reported in: 161(2009)DLT76; (2009)156PLR21
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.IA No. 9995 & 9996 of 20081. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been made by the applicant/Judgment Debtor for condonation of delay in moving the application being IA No. 9996 of 2008 under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree/judgment dated 15th March 2004.2. The arbitration award dated 25th March 1998 was filed in the Court by the Arbitrator and notice of the award was sent to the applicant. The applicant filed objections against the award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. However, the objections were dismissed by this Court for non prosecution as well as in default on 15th March 2004 and the award was made a rule of the Court on 15th March 2004 and the decree sheet was ordered to be prepared. The applicant made an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 14.08.2008 for setting aside order dated 15th March 2004 and also made an app...
Mona Modi Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-2009
Reported in: 161(2009)DLT110
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is to an order dated 8th May 2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), New Delhi discharging Respondent No. 2 in FIR No. 522/2003 under Sections 380/464/468/471 read with 34 IPC registered at P.S: Kalkaji.2. The petitioner Mona Modi was for a short while the Director of Parakram Technofab Ltd. (PTFL). She resigned in April 1999. PTFL was engaged in the business of trading and exporting of textile fabrics. The Respondent No. 2 Mukesh Gupta was also a Director of PTFL from 20th June 1996 to 1st July 1997. It is the case of the petitioner that Aditya Modi and her husband Rajiv Modi were also Directors of PTFL. She had a savings bank account No. 2679 with State Bank of India (SBI), Greater Kailash Part-II Branch, New Delhi. It is her case that used to keep some signed blank cheques with her husband at the head office of PTFL for dealing with financial emergenci...
Shri Vritra Kumar Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ740Del
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the Central Bank of India (respondent herein) on 01.06.1989. While working as Peon, he was promoted to the post of Clerk in the Bank on 15.01.1990 and was placed on probation for six months. While he was on probation, he absented from duty. However, his probation was extended by 76 days from 15.07.1990. He was advised to submit medical certificate but he did not do so. He was given memo dated 20.10.1990 by the Bank. The petitioner again absented unauthorizedly from duty w.e.f. 05.02.1992. The respondent bank communicated to him vide memo dated 13.08.1998 (at page 18 of the paper book) that he is deemed to have been voluntarily retired from service of the respondent bank w.e.f 21.05.1993. The petitioner did not take any remedial measure even after receipt of memo dated 13.08.1998 from the respondent bank stating that he is deemed to have been voluntarily retired from the service of the respondent bank w.e.f. 21.05.1993. He ra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »