Delhi Court August 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.
JaIn Steel and Power Ltd. Vs. National Environment Appellate Authority ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2009
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT504
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. The respondent No. 2, Mr. S.K. Naik, has filed an appeal under Section 11 of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 questioning the permission granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest to the petitioner-Jain Steel and Power Limited to set up a sponge iron plant at village Durlaga District, Jharsududa, Orissa vide order dated 29th December, 2008. Section 11 of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 reads as under:11. Appeals to Authority.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order granting environmental clearance in the areas in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the Authority in such form as may be prescribed:Provided that the Authority may entertain any appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days but not...
Sh. Sukhinder Singh S/O. Late Sh. S. Sohan Singh, Vs. Sh. Gurbux Singh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT433
V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed against order dated 3rd July, 2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi, dismissing the appellants application under Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as 'Code').2. Appellants filed a suit in this Court bearing (old number 487/75) on its original side jurisdiction in year 1975. Vide order dated 17th January, 1985, that suit was clubbed with another (Suit No. 235/66).3. (Suit No. 487/75) was treated as main suit. Common evidence was recorded in these two suits, after they were clubbed together. After conclusion of trial, both matters came at the stage of final arguments in year 1994.4. Due to the change of pecuniary jurisdiction in year 2003, (Suit No. 487/75) was transferred to District Courts, whereas, (Suit No. 235/66) remained in this Court.5. In (Suit No. 487/75), Additional District Judge, ordered for issuance of court notice to the appellant and his counsel, but despite service of court notice, no one turned...
The Crown Commercial House and ors. Vs. Icici Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT427
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. The present application is filed by the plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 CPC praying for a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No. 1 in the sum of Rs. 25,18,610/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred and Ten only) with pendente lite and future interest on the admissions made by the said defendant as mentioned in paragraph 23 of the present application.2. The case of the plaintiffs, which the plaintiffs state has been admitted by the defendant No. 1 in their written statement, is that in or about August, 2005, an oral agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 2 whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs agreed to sell and the defendant No. 2 agreed to buy a consignment of Mulbury Silk Fabric of Chinese origin to be shipped from Shanghai in China to New Delhi in India. Pursuant to the said agreement, the defendant No. 3 at the instance of the plaintiffs drew a Bill of Exchange on the def...
United Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Del)93; [2009]185TAXMAN374(Delhi)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. By this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the assessee challenges the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24.10.2008 whereby the Tribunal has reduced the Commission to be allowed for sale of the goods by the assessee to its sister concern from 8% as allowed by the CIT(A) to 5% and as against 11% claimed by the assessee and 3% allowed by the Assessing Officer.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of export of rice. A return of income for the year 2004-2005 was filed on 01-11-2004 declaring a total income of Rs. 87,47,807/-. In the profit and loss account filed along with the return the assessee firm had debited an amount of Rs. 1,26,45,614/- on account of trading discount allowed during the year under consideration and which amount was mainly on account of the trade discount of Rs. 1,25,05,062/- allowed to its sister concern M/s. United Overseas. The Assessing Officer requir...
Hb Stockholdings Ltd. Vs. Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT443
S. Muralidhar, J.IA No. 12820/2008 1. This is an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ('CPC') seeking rejection of the plaint. The case of the Plaintiff 2. The Plaintiff H.B. Stockholdings Limited ('HBSL') claims to hold 24.8% of expanded issued and paid-up capital of DCM Shriram Industries Limited ('DSIL'), Defendant No. 1 and thereby being its single largest shareholder. On 22nd September 2008, the Plaintiff received the Annual Report and audited accounts of DSIL for the year ending 31st March 2008, which had been approved by the Board of Directors of DSIL on 25th June 2008. According to the Plaintiff, the Annual Report and audited accounts revealed that they were 'grossly inaccurate and/or lacking in several material particulars' and 'do not reflect a true and fair view of the Company's affairs, apart from being in violation of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 ('Act'), the provisions of the Listing Agreement with the ...
Northern India Motor Company Vs. Commissioner Vat, Department of Trade ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST466(Delhi)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. The present appeal under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 28.02.2008 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, VAT rejecting the claim of the appellant for tax credit on transitional stock.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was carrying on business of resale of auto parts. It was registered with both under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The appellant claimed a tax credit of Rs. 49,424/- under Section 14 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, which Section allows tax credit on notified first point goods including auto parts dealt in by the appellant subject to the following conditions:(a) Stock held on 31.03.05 was of trading goods, raw material and packing material.(b) Stock related to goods purchased from a registered dealer during the period 01.04.04 to 31.03.05.(c) The stock had borne tax under Section 5 of Delhi S...
S.K. Mittal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: [2010]97SCL158(Delhi)
Anil Kumar, J.1. This is a petition seeking quashing of order dated 12-8-2008 passed by learned Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange in Appeal Nos. 335 to 337/2003 and directing the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merit without insisting upon the pre-deposit of the penalty amount of Rs. 2 lakhs.2. By order dated 12-8-2008 in Appeal Nos. 335 to 337/2003, the application of the appellant, Shri S.K. Mittal, was rejected and the petitioner was directed to deposit the penalty amount within seven days from the date of the receipt of the order dated 12-8-2008.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in titled S.K Mittal v. ATFFE [WPC No. 8355 of 2008, dated 5-5-2009] filed by the petitioner against the penalty amount of Rs. 6,41,18,065 imposed on him for contravention of Sections 8(1), 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. By order dated 5-5-2009, it was noticed that the petitioner has filed 178 appeals before the Appellate Tribunal for F...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Standing Conference of Public Enterpris ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: [2009]319ITR179(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This appeal was admitted on August 20, 2009, on the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the assessee-society is a mutual concern so as to claim exemption on the principle of mutuality ?(ii) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that only the rental income received by the assessee from non-members is chargeable to tax ?(iii) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that interest received by the assessee on FDRs/deposits was not chargeable to tax on the principle of mutuality.2. Since the counsel for both the parties were ready to address the arguments finally on the basis of records filed before us, we heard the arguments on that very day and reserved the judgment. We now proceed to answer the questions of law as framed.3. Minimal factual matrix, that is required for this purpose is recapitulated in the first instance, as under:4. The respondent/assessee is a society registered under the Soc...
JaIn Exports P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: 2010(250)ELT15(Del)
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner No. 1/Jain Exports Private Ltd. on the basis of additional import licence had imported empty oxygen cylinders as spares for artificial respiration apparatus under para 186(8) of the Import Policy for 1981-82. The petitioners have filed on record bill of entry for home consumption in which the import made by the petitioner No. 1 has been described as anti seamless steel cylinders for medical oxygen gas.2. The said imports were made by the petitioner No. 1 in the month of December, 1981 and cleared by the Customs Department on 27th February 1982.3. The Office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports issued letter dated 8th July, 1983 to the petitioner No. 1 calling upon them to explain and clarify validity of the import of empty seamless steel cylinders for medical oxygen gas. Subsequently, show cause notice dated 29th April, 1985 was issued to the petitioner No. 1 and several others, under Section 4(l) read with Section 4(i) of the Imports a...
Mahesh Chandra Agarwal Vs. Rameshwar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT684
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff in this Suit seeks declaration that he is a joint owner and in settled possession of a plot measuring 1184.4 sq. yds.; he also seeks cancellation of documents dated 18.03.1970, favoring the second defendant and a General Power of Attorney dated 24.03.1988 stating that they do not pertain to his property. An injunction consequential to the declaration, to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession is also sought. 2. The plaintiff contends that the suit property measures 1184.4 sq. yards and is a part of a plot admeasuring 1814.4 sq. yds, situated in Khasra No. 263/134 and 264/134, Village Zamrudpur, New Delhi. The plaintiff relies upon a coloured map annexed to the suit. It is alleged that some portions of the said plot are encroachments to the extent of 630 sq. yards, which are shown in black colour. It is submitted that the suit property is not a regular sized one, and is enclosed by several plots of varying sizes. Acc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »