Delhi Court August 2009 Judgments

Kaveri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Jal Board and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT715

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present writ petition is the tenth round of litigation between the parties on the same subject, over a short span of two years. The petitioner company has sought quashing of the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the respondent, Delhi Jal Board (DJB) debarring and blacklisting the petitioner from participating and/or being considered for any fresh tender to be issued by the DJB till such time, the outcome of the investigations being carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is made known to the DJB whereafter, the said decision would be reviewed. The second prayer in the writ petition is for directions to the DJB to consider the petitioner company for applying for tenders that may be floated by it, subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria.2. As the case has a chequered history, before proceeding to deal with the issues raised, it is necessary to encapsulate the relevant facts and revisit the earlier series of litigation. The petitioner company car...

Rajiv Narula Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 162(2009)DLT688

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, filed by Rajiv Narula (hereinafter referred to as the first appellant) and by his mother Smt. Sunita Narula (hereinafter referred to as the second appellant) mother-in-law of deceased Suman Narula, who was married to the first appellant according to Hindu rites and customs on 22.11.87 and died an unnatural death by committing suicide on 23.8.88.2. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment dated 6.9.1997 and the order of sentence dated 9.9.97 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge has convicted both of them under Section 498A/306/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years besides payment of fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 3 months under Section 306/34 IPC. Under Section 498A they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years besides payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 2 months with...

S.K. Mittal Vs. Kalinga Estate (P) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 162(2009)DLT341

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff sues the defendant for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property, being Ground Floor of B-31, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi (hereafter 'the suit property').2. The suit averments are that the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants, on 21st July 1996, whereby the former agreed to purchase the suit property. The Plaintiff alleges having agreed to purchase the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,17,000/- (Rupees one crore, seventeen thousand only). The agreement has been marked as Ex. PW-1/1-A. It is submitted that, a sum of Rs. ten lakhs seventy thousand (Rs. 10,70,000/-) was paid in cash, and Rs. One lakh (Rs. 1,00,000/-) was paid through pay order, drawn on Karnataka Bank, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi, at the time of signing of the agreement to sell. Copy of the receipt has been marked as Ex. PW-1/2. The terms of this agreement, also stipulated that the balance amount was to be paid by the plaintiff, by 5t...

Y.K. Sethi Vs. Basf India Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ493Del

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This is a suit for declaration that an order dated 4th July 2006 passed by the defendants terminating the services of plaintiff is liable to be set aside with all consequential benefits. The plaintiff has also claimed Rs. 1 crore as damages together with interest at 24% p.a. with effect from the date of filing of the suit. 2. By an order dated 11th April 2008 this Court permitted the plaintiff to amend the prayer clause for a declaration that Clause 8 of the appointment letter dated 11th July 1997 is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. After completion of pleadings, this Court by an order dated 26th November 2008 framed the issues. The first issue was whether Clause 8 of the appointment letter dated 11th July 1997 is null and void in view of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court further directed that this issue should be treated as a preliminary issue. The submissions of counsel for ...

Sonia Magu Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]185TAXMAN402(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. In all these cases, only one question of law has arisen for consideration under the same factual back drop.2. Admit.3. Following substantial question of law arises for consideration in all these cases.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition as an unexplained investment in jewellery of the assessee during the block period in spite of its finding that the disputed jewellery stood fully explained?4. Filing of paper book is dispensed with.5. With the consent of the parties, we have heard the matters finally and proceed to decide the aforesaid question of law. For the sake of convenience, we shall take note of all the facts as they appear in ITA No. 721/2008.6. On 17.01.2002 a search and seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred as the Act.) at the premises of M/s Indair Carriers Pvt. Ltd. and also at the residential premises of its Directors, Shareh...

Commissiioner of Income Tax Vs. Sophisticated Marbles and Granite Indu ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)225CTR(Del)410; [2010]187TAXMAN251(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The question that arose for consideration before the Tribunal was as to whether the process activity undertaken by the assessee would fall within the expression 'manufacturing process'. Manufacturing process is not defined in the Income Tax Act though Finance Amendment Act, 2009 defines this expression. In the case titled as Aspinwall and Company Limited v. CIT : 251 ITR 323 the Supreme Court opined that in the absence of any expressed definition of the word 'manufacture. it has to be given a meaning as is understood in common parlance. It is to be understood as meaning to be the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities or combinations whether by hand labour or machines. If the change made in the article results in a new and different article then it would amount to manufacturing activity. Applying the test in the said case, the Apex Court held that process of manufacturing coffee beans from raw berries...

Saga Departmental Stores Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]188TAXMAN27(Delhi)

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.8.2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (I.T.A.T). According to us, no substantial question of law arises and the appeal is therefore, liable to be dismissed.2. The only issue in this case pertains to the claim of the assessee of expenditure incurred by it for payment of commission to taxi drivers, guides and other commission agents. The assessee carries on the business of departmental stores in which various handicrafts items, carpets etc. are sold to tourists. For the Assessment Year in question i.e. 2005-2006, the assessee claimed expenditure towards commission paid to the taxi drivers, guides and other commission agent to the tune of Rs. 11,45,47,937/-. The Assessing Officer allowed Rs. 1,21,55,213/- as expenditure out of the aforesaid amount claimed by the assessee. The assessee declared a total income of only 1.43 crores on a turnover of Rs. 55,45,91,631/-. The declared gross profit rat...

Rajesh Gupta Vs. Mcd

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT581

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing the letter dated 06.05.2009 issued by the respondent proposing to take certain actions against the petitioner including debarring him from tendering with the respondent/MCD for a period of five years.2. The main grievance raised by the petitioner in the present proceedings is that the impugned decision, communicated to the petitioner has not been passed by the Enlisting Authority which, in the case of the petitioner, is a committee chaired by the Additional Commissioner (Engineering). An earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent MCD, registered as WP(C) 5738/2008, was allowed vide order dated 22.01.2009 and the earlier circular dated 07.10.2008 issued by the respondent blacklisting the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing was quashed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, a fresh notice dated 25.03.2009 was issued to the pe...

Mcd Vs. Raj Birbal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT656

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.09.2003 passed by the learned ADJ in HTA No. 160/2002 entitled 'Raj Birbal v. MCD'. By the impugned order, the learned ADJ allowed the appeal of the respondent/assessee, filed under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the demand dated 29.11.2001 raised by the petitioner, pursuant to an assessment order dated 09.05.2001 passed by the Assistant Assessor & Collector, MCD, in respect of property No. A-110, Swasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi. By the aforesaid assessment order, which was passed on the basis of a notice issued by the petitioner/MCD under Section 126 of the Act, proposing to fix the rateable value of the property at Rs. 1,25,080/- w.e.f. 01.04.2000 on account of 'additions at the first floor and second floor', rateable value of the property was fixed at Rs. 86,980/- w.e.f. 01.04.2000. In the assessment order, the valuation report...

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sneh Lata Bansal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. Vide Order dated 1.5.2006 the District Forum held the appellant guilty of deficiency in service in not reimbursing the respondent for the gold chain which was snatched from the neck of the respondent. The appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000 to the respondent together with Rs. 3,000 towards compensation and cost of litigation. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the chain in question was not covered under the policy and as such there was no deficiency in service on its part in repudiating the claim. 3. In order to appreciate the above contention of the appellant, it is necessary to narrate brief facts of the case as presented before the District Forum. 4.The respondent Mrs. Sneh Lata Bansal had obtained a Household Articles Insurance Policy from the appellant on 22nd December, 2000 which covered all risks for loss of jewellery and valuables up to a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac un...