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.
Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Chandra Paints and Brush Industry and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2009
Reported in: LC2010(1)71
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This order will dispose I.A. No. 8463/2008 (filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2) and I.A. No. 11439/2008 (filed by the first defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4) in CS (OS) No. 1365/2008.2. The brief facts necessary for deciding these applications are that the plaintiff, Asian Plaints Ltd. filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's registered trade mark/logo 'Asian Paints Apcolite Premium Gloss Enamel' and the copyright in the artwork in the said mark/logo. It is alleged that the defendants have come out with products under the marks 'Great Asian Premium Glossy Enamel', 'Great Asian Hi-Gloss Synthetic Enamel' and 'Super Asian Premium Synthetic Enamel' which are deceptively similar, in terms of the trade mark/logo, the trade mark and the artwork, to the plaintiff's well known product.3. The plaintiff submits that it is engaged in the business, inter alia, of manufacturing and marketing paints,...
Jaypee Institute of Information Technology Society Vs. Director Genera ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2009
Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Del)124
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is running an institute known as 'Jaypee Institute of Information Technology' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute'). According to the petitioner, the object with which the petitioner institute was registered is to impart formal education and the institution exists only for the said educational purpose and there is no element of profit involved, as envisaged under the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is also declared as a 'deemed university' by the University Grants Commission (UGC) vide Notification dt. 1st Nov., 2004 issued under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. It is registered under Section 12A as well as Section 80G of the Act. However, its application for registration under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act has been rejected by the respondent vide its order dt. 26th March, 2008. The main reason given by the respondent is that edu...
Arun Kumar Vs. State Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT647
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the seizure / detention of vehicles belonging to the petitioner, bearing registrations numbers, RJ- 09-PA-0065, RJ-09-PA-0465, RJ-09-PA-0665, RJ-09-PA-0865, RJ-01- PA-2265, RJ-01-PA-2465, RJ-01-PA-2665, RJ-01-PA-2865. The seizure/detention of the said vehicles has been challenged on the ground that they have been seized / detained under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), without there being any rules for the same framed by the Central Government. In the same breath, the petitioner has challenged the Delhi Motor Vehicles (Second Amendment) Rules, 2004, whereby Sub-rules (7), (8), (9) and (10) have been added after Rule 123(6) of the Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993. The said Sub-rules (7), (8), (9) and (10), which have been inserted by virtue of the Delhi Motor Vehicles (Second Amendment) Rules, 2004, are as under:(7) Any police officer(s) or the person(s) appointed a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shravan Kumar Gurjar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2009
Reported in: [2010]186TAXMAN291(Delhi)
ORDER1. The assessee herein is engaged in booking railway parcels/luggage booking business specially for Delhi-Ahmedabad route. In a search operation conducted on 3rd March, 2004, cash, silver and gold jewellery were found in the luggage/parcels booked with the assessee by the Police. Police reported that matter to the Income-tax Department as well on the basis of which the proceedings under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act were initiated against the assessee in respect of assessment year 2004-05. Keeping in view the value of the aforesaid goods seized which aggregated to Rs. 1,65,23,783, income was assessed at that amount and Income-tax/penalty in the sum of Rs. 61,44,777 was demanded from him. It may be pointed out at this stage that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had given names and particulars of 14 parties who had made the bookings of the aforesaid articles/goods with him. These 14 parties were duly identified. When they were sent summons by the Assessing Office...
Bhatnagar's Coop.House Building Society Ltd. Vs. Shri Tarun Bhatnagar ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT510
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By an order dated 12.05.2009, the parties had been referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for settlement. The report of the mediators, dated 18.08.2009, indicates that no compromise could be arrived at and hence the matter was sent back to this Court.2. Both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing together. In WP(C) 6533/2007, filed on behalf of Bhatnagar's Cooperative House Building Society Limited, the grievance is against the order dated 18.12.2006, passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. We may point out that the order dated 18.12.2006, passed by the Tribunal, was the subject matter of two review petitions, being review petition Nos. 17 and 18/2007, which were also dismissed by an order dated 09.07.2007, passed by the said Tribunal, on the ground that the Tribunal did not have the power to review. The order dated 18.12.2006, passed by the Tribunal, was itself passed in an appeal under Section 76 of the Delhi Cooperative Soc...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Del)304; [2009]183TAXMAN291(Delhi)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. The following two questions of law have been framed for determination by this Court:(a) Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter 'ITAT') was correct in law in directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the depreciation after reducing scarp value of the assets, which have been discarded and written off in the books of accounts for the year under consideration from the WDV of the block of asset?(b) Whether provisions of Section Sub-clause (iii) to Section 32(1) R/W Section 43(vi)(c)(B) are applicable to the present case when the assessee had not complied with the primary conditions for eligibility of depreciation?2. The crux of the matter is: what is the meaning to be ascribed to the expression 'used for the purposes of the business' as found in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision of Section 32 pertains to depreciation. The contention of the Revenue is that with respect to any machinery for which depreciation is claimed under Section ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2009
Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Del)435; [2009]318ITR347(Delhi); [2009]185TAXMAN387(Delhi)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'ITAT') dated 2.11.2007 whereby the ITAT has deleted the disallowance of expenses prior to 1.02.1996 made by the Assessing Officer and which was confirmed by the CIT(A), on the ground that the assesse's business could be said to have been set up only on 1.2.1996 when the bank account was opened and not prior thereto.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee company was incorporated on 27.7.1995 as a financial enterprise, with its main objects according to the memorandum of association, to carry on the business of financing of all kinds of goods including consumer goods and consumer durables etc., to purchase or finance all kinds of financial instruments, to finance private industrial enterprise in India by way of loans or advances and so on. The first board meeting was held on 12.08.1995 in which additional directors, executives and auditors were appointed. On 4...
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Park Hotel Private Ltd. a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT335; (2010)ILLJ626Del
V.K. Jain, J.1. This is a petition challenging the order dated 3rd June, 1999 passed by respondent No. 2, Presiding Officer, Employees. Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, whereby he has set aside the order dated 19.11.1996 passed by the petitioner Under Section 14(B) of Employees. Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.2. It has been alleged in the petition that respondent No. 1, Park Hotel Private Limited started in New Delhi in November, 1992, as a branch or department of its registered office at 15, Park Estate, Calcutta. On 10th May, 1993, respondent No. 1 applied for allotment of Code No. , suppressing the fact that its head office was already covered under the Act in West Bengal. Respondent No. 1 also concealed the fact that its office at Pragati Bhawan, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi as well as Park Hotel at 15 Parliament Street, New Delhi already stood covered under the provisions of the Act. On the application dated 4th May, 1993, submitted by respondent No. 3, it wa...
Naresh Gaur and ors. Vs. Uma Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT25
S. Muralidhar, J.1. Seven Plaintiffs have joined together to file the present suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 18th October 1994 in respect of an industrial Plot No. 34 measuring 360 sq.m. in the Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi-110092 (hereafter 'suit property'). The parties to this agreement were Plaintiff No. 1, the predecessor-in-interest of Plaintiffs 2 to 7 late Shri Suresh Gaur who was the elder brother of Plaintiff No. 1 and the Defendant.2. The background to the filing of the present suit is that on 20th March 1990 an allotment was made by the Industries Department of the aforementioned industrial plot in favour of Shri Bhagwan Das Gupta. A Will was executed on 27th June 1990 by Shri Bhagwan Das Gupta. Under the Will one half of the undivided share of the plot was bequeathed to Smt. Laxmi Devi Gupta, the wife of Shri Bhagwan Das Gupta and the other half of the share was bequeathed to the Defendant. It was provided in the Will that ...
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Mr. Punit Goenka and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC1(Del)
Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being I.A. No. 5670/2009 and IA No. 8067/2009 filed by the defendants under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for deletion of the name of defendant No. 1 from the array of the parties.2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of copyrights in the sound recordings (audio or visual), musical works and cinematograph works (which also include visual songs or sound recordings) owned by the plaintiff. The brief factual matrix can be summarized in the following manner:3. The plaintiff claims to have built up a repository of copyrighted works which are collectively licensed to the broadcasting channels.4. The plaintiff supports its claims of having built up a repertoire of music and its contribution towards the music industry by boasting of several music artists who have been introduc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »