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. Denso India Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-2009
Reported in: [2009]318ITR140(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated March 24, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) whereby the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the deduction on account of expenditure incurred by the assessee for establishing a separate cell for developing import substitute components.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacture of auto electrical parts for which it was importing several components. The assessee-company considered that, instead of importing the components, it would be more beneficial to have the components locally procured and indigenously manufactured, and for this purpose a separate cell was set up for developing import substitute components. T...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Babu Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ516Del
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The short question that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the respondent workman who retired from service of MCD (petitioner herein) from the post of Mali in Horticulture Department w.e.f. May 31, 2004 was entitled to get his gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or under the CCS (Pension) Rules.The respondent on his superannuation was paid gratuity of Rs. 1,08,240/- under the CCS (Pension) Rules. He made a claim before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for payment of difference of the amount due to him under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and what has already been paid to him under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.2. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 vide its order dated March 13, 2007 awarded an amount of Rs. 39,360/- in favour of the respondent being the difference of the amount payable to him under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and that stood already paid to hi...
Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs. Ratna Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT622
Manmohan, J.1. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22nd November, 2006 passed in HMA No. 655/2006 whereby Additional District Judge has granted monthly maintenance to respondent-wife at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- and litigation expenses to the extent of Rs. 8,000/-.2. Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner-husband stated that respondent-wife is an able bodied educated person who is working as a teacher and earning almost Rs. 30,000/- per month from salary and tuition fees. In this connection, she referred to the statement of respondent-wife's brother, Mr. Abhishek, wherein he stated 'My sister is working as a teacher in St. Fiedelis School, Aligarh and is maintaining her expenses on her own.' She also referred to statement of respondent-wife's sister, Kumari Reena, wherein she stated 'My sister is working as a Teacher in St. Fiedelis School, Aligarh. The statement given by my brother Abhishek is my statemen...
Dtc Vs. International Avenues
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2009
Reported in: 161(2009)DLT16
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. 1. By this common order two proceedings are being decided. The first one is FAO(OS) 168/2009 and the second is CM 1497/2009 in FAO(OS) 448/2008. FAO(OS) 168/2009 has been filed against the order dt 2.3.2009 whereby the respondent herein was allowed, without notice to the appellant herein, to withdraw the OMP 452/2008 which was filed before the learned Single Judge of this Court by the respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 and without any directions for restitution of the benefit derived by the respondent under the exparte injunction order dt 29.8.08 passed in favour of the respondent. CM 1497/09 seeks revival of the appeal being FAO(OS) 448/08 and which FAO(OS) 448/2008 was filed by the appellant against the grant of the ex parte injunction order dated 29.8.2008 and which was not pressed after the orders were reserved by the learned Single Judge on the application of the appellant under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. 2. Both these appellate ...
Rajinder @ Lala Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ15
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.03.2001, the appellants, Baijnath @ Baiju, Ramesh @ Ramesh @ Vinod and Rajinder @ Lala have been convicted for the offence of having murdered Roshan Lal @ Chian (herein after referred to as the Deceased), for which offence they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.2. In a nutshell, case of the prosecution was that in the night of 24.10.1997 the deceased along with one Hemraj PW-1 and Kamal PW-2, were going to a market for purchasing pigs. On their way to the market, the aforesaid persons were met by the appellants who were gambling at that time; that the deceased also joined in the gambling while Hemraj and Kamal stood outside the slum-dwelling where the deceased and the appellants were gambling. After having won the entire stake money, the deceased was leaving the slum- dwelling in question when the appellants ...
Agency Sales Limited Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2009
Reported in: 2009(40)PTC269(Del)
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. This appeal has been filed by an unsuccessful plaintiff who had filed a suit for damages against the respondents herein but the trial Court vide judgment dated 19th January,2005 has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908('CPC' in short).2. The relevant facts are that the appellant-plaintiff, a Company having Registered office in England and run by Non Resident Indians, had purchased property No. 11/78, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi in a public auction conducted by the Income Tax Department on 15th February, 1995 to start its office in India also. The Company obtained its physical possession on 31-05-1995. After taking over the possession of the said property the plaintiff found that there was no electricity connection installed there and so to get the electricity connection it approached Delhi Vidyut Board, respondent No. 1 herein, sometime in the first week of August, 1995. The request of the plaintiff for sanction of electrici...
Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Ltd and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Delhi14; 161(2009)DLT28
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.RELEVANT FACTS1. The appellant is a distribution company engaged in distribution of electricity in its area of supply under a statutory licence issued by the respondent No. 2, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC for short). The respondent No. 2 is constituted and established under Section 17 of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1988 (for short the 'ERC Act'). The respondent No. 1, a company who is the original writ petitioner, purchased an industrial shed being Shed No. 1 Category-1, DSIDC Complex, Nangloi, Delhi. Initially connection No. 002-156-022/IP was sanctioned for a load of 89.52 KW in the name of the original allottee, Dev Arora. Inspection on April 22, 1997 allegedly revealed a connected load of 169.11 KW and, therefore, certain demands were raised. Dev Arora filed a suit in the civil court, that was eventually dismissed. In this connection a writ petition being CWP 715 of 2003 was also filed by Dev Arora which is pending in this Cou...
Lt. Col. Lalit Chawla (Retd.) Vs. Sh. Ashok Chawla and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2009
Reported in: 161(2009)DLT78
Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order, I propose to decide three applications being I.A.Nos.9244/08, 9741/08 and 9742/08.2. The brief facts are that the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 and 2 are the sons of Late Sh. G.C. Chawla, an eminent medical practitioner who died on 20th December, 1996. The wife of late Dr. G.C. Chawla Mrs. Shanti Chawla had pre-deceased him in January 1991.3. At the time of his death late Dr. G.C.Chawla was of the age of 93 years. He was bed ridden and not mentally fit in the years preceding his death due to old age and infirmity. According to the plaintiff, at the time of his death, he left behind the following assets:i) Property No. D-240, Defence Colony, New Delhi.ii) Inheritable tenancy rights in property No. A-31 and A-32, Connaught Place, New Delhi. iii) Negligible moveable assets in bank accounts.4. As averred by the plaintiff, late Sh. G.C.Chawla had executed a registered Will in 1975 giving the aforesaid three properties to all his three heirs, namely, the ...
Naz Foundation Vs. Government of Nct and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ94; 160(2009)DLT277
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by Naz Foundation, a Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) as a Public Interest Litigation to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which criminally penalizes what is described as 'unnatural offences', to the extent the said provision criminalises consensual sexual acts between adults in private. The challenge is founded on the plea that Section 377 IPC, on account of it covering sexual acts between consenting adults in private infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Limiting their plea, the petitioners submit that Section 377 IPC should apply only to non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non- vaginal sex involving minors. The Union of India is impleaded as respondent No. 5 through Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Respondent No. 4 is the National Aids Control Organi...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Delhi43; 161(2009)DLT55
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. This appeal is placed before this bench in view of the reference made by the Division Bench. The appeal arises from an order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition summarily on the ground that significant part of the cause of action could not be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court merely because the order under challenge had been passed by the Appellate Authority located within its territorial jurisdiction when the events leading to the filing of the proceedings before the Appellate Authority and the parties to such proceedings are located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The learned single Judge relying on various judgments including Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise : 2007(213)ELT323(SC) , Bombay Snuff (P) Ltd. v. Union of India : 2006(194)ELT264(Del) , Rajkumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director of Enforcement, Mumbai 154 (2008) DLT 28 and West Coast Ingots (P) Ltd. v. Comm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »