Delhi Court September 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.
A.K.G. Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Efesan Demir Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2009
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT341
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made by the applicant/ respondent No. 2 for modification of order dated 29th May, 2009 passed by this Court. The applicant has prayed that the name of the applicant/ respondent No. 2 be deleted from the array of respondent as it was not a necessary party being not a party to the agreement between petitioner and respondent No. 1. It is also prayed that the petitioner be asked to give security to the tune of US $ 155000 which was the value of the shipment to come with security for demurrage and detention charges accrued in relation to the subject shipment.2. It is submitted in the application that the applicant was neither a carrier of export/ import shipment in its own right nor the applicant had any role to play or responsibility in accordance with the transactions between petitioner and respondent No. 1 i.e. in regard to the shipment carriage of which was ...
Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Sh. Ashok Aushadhi Udyog
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC416(Del)
Manmohan Singh, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and their agents etc. from directly or indirectly dealing in ayurvedic tonics that are/may be deceptively similar to the labels of the plaintiff, a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and their agents etc. from using the impugned labels or any colourable imitation or substantial reproduction thereof; a decree of delivery up of all the infringing bottles, packaging, labels, dyes etc. to the plaintiff for erasure; a direction for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the defendant and a decree for damages in lieu thereof.Brief Facts2. The plaintiff is a Public Limited Company which has been carrying on trading activities of a wide range of pharmaceuticals, toiletries, ayurvedic and other such preparations since 1884. The present suit has been filed with relation to two ayurvedic tonics of the plaintiff - Dashmularishta, a ge...
Sunil Chopra and anr. Vs. Zamil New Delhi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT482
Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of three applications being I.A. No. 3331/2009 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, I.A. No. 6237/2009 filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC seeking vacation of the ad interim injunction order dated 13th March, 2009 and I.A. No. 6232/2009 filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.2. Brief facts are that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for mandatory injunction praying that a decree be passed against the defendant with a direction to register the Lease Deed dated 5th September, 2008 in terms of the covenants contained in the Letter of Intent dated 21st August, 2008.3. The case of the plaintiffs is that in the month of August, 2008 the plaintiffs were approached by the defendant through one property dealer for taking the suit premises on rent. After negotiations between the parties, the defendant agreed to take the suit premises on re...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N.i.i.T. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Del)521; [2009]318ITR289(Delhi); [2009]184TAXMAN472(Delhi)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. The present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are filed against the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Years 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The appellant/revenue has proposed the following question of law:(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT erred in holding that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax Under Section 194I of the Act in respect of the payments made to the Franchisee under the head 'Infrastructural Claims'?2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is a public limited company, inter alia, engaged in the business of providing computer education and training. During the relevant assessment year it was providing computer education and training through its own centres and also through franchisees who, are providing NIIT courses under a license from respondent. One of the models being adopted by the respondent to run its business mainly ...
All India Lawyers Union (Delhi Unit) Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2009
Reported in: 172(2009)DLT319
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. The present public interest litigation has been filed by All India Lawyers' Union seeking directions for ensuring free medical treatment in terms of the lease agreement dated 16th March, 1994 entered into between the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the GNCTD) and respondent No. 2, i.e. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd./Indraprastha Apollo Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the IMCL) to establish a multi-disciplinary super specialty hospital. The petition is, inter alia, directed against the inaction of the GNCTD and IMCL to provide free treatment and medicines to the poor and needy citizens at the respondent No. 2 hospital. It is contended inter alia that such inaction of both the respondents is adversely affecting the mandates of Articles 21, 39(e), 41, and 47 of Constitution of India. In course of proceedings, the Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority were also impleaded as party respondents. Before...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2009
Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Del)250; [2009]318ITR476(Delhi); [2009]184TAXMAN483(Delhi)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is preferred by the revenue against the order dated 9.5.2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the I.T.A.T.) whereby the Tribunal has held that the payment of an advance for a commercial purpose to the assessee company by its sister concern M/s Pee Empro Exports Pvt. Ltd. is not deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the business of dyeing and printing of cloth and was acting as an ancillary unit of M/s. Pee Empro Exports Pvt. Ltd. for the last several years. Both the assessee company and M/s. Pee Empro Exports Pvt. Ltd. have common shareholders/directors Mr. P.S. Uppal, Mr. P.M.S. Uppal, Mr. Surinder Uppal and so on. M/s. Pee Empro Exports Pvt. Ltd. also has a 50% shareholding in the assessee company. The said M/s. Pee Empro Exports Pvt. Ltd. in order to increase i...
indo Rama Synthetics (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2009
Reported in: [2010]321ITR340(Delhi); [2009]184TAXMAN375(Delhi)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. The present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed by the appellant company against the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2001-2002 whereby the Tribunal has held that for the purpose of computing 'book profit' under Section 115JB of the Act, the amount withdrawn from the revaluation reserve and credited to the profit and loss account is not to be reduced from the net profit as per the profit and loss account unless the book profit had been increased by the amount of the reserve in the year of the creation of such reserve.2. The appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacture of, inter alia, yarn and polyester. For the assessment year 2001-2002, the appellant company computed 'book profit' under Section 115JB of the Act, after reducing the net profit by the amount withdrawn from the revaluation reserve created on revaluation of the fixed assets. The Assessing Officer...
The Management of Hindustani Dawakhana and Ayurvedic Rasayanshala Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2009
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT257
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The management of the petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge an Industrial Award dated 08.07.2002 in ID No. 87/1990 directing reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages.2. The petitioner is Hindustani Dawakhana and Ayurvedic Rashayanashala which was an ancillary unit of A&U; Tibbia College. The petitioner was getting grant from the Delhi Government from time to time but w.e.f. 01.05.1998, the petitioner was merged into A&U; Tibbia College alongwith ancillary unit as per the Tibbia College Takeover Act, 1997.3. The respondent was appointed by the management of the petitioner as a helper on daily wages @ Rs. 21.60 per day with effect from 18.04.1988. He worked for short spell of time intermittently between 18.04.1988 till 31.03.1990. He was not granted any further extension beyond 31.03.1990 which was treated as his termination from service. Aggrieved there from, he had raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Governmen...
Parul Homeo Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Raj Rani Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC548(Del)
ORDER XXXIX1. XXX XXX XXX2. XXX XXX XXX3. Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party. - The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party:[Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, and require the applicant -(a) to deliver to the opposite party, or to send to him by registered post, immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injunction together with -(i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application;(ii) a copy of the plaint; and(iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies, and(b) to file, on the ...
S. Elhence Vs. General Manager (Operations) State Bank of India and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2009
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT142
Sunil Gaur, J.1. In the year 1981, Petitioner was a technical officer with Respondent - Bank and he had sought payment of the medical bills regarding his treatment and of his family and only upon legal notice, the payment against the medical bills was made to the Petitioner. Petitioner claims that in January, 1987, he was transferred to Meerut and due to riots in Meerut, he could not shift his family and he was granted permission by the Respondent - Bank to leave the Station on holidays to go to Dehradoon, where his family was residing. In November, 1989, Petitioner was charge sheeted for violation of Rule 50A(7) of SBI (Supervisory Staff) Service Rules, for committing serious irregularity in claiming reimbursement of false medical bills. In August, 1990, Petitioner was charge sheeted for committing irregularity in claiming reimbursement of false medical bills.2. Precisely, the imputation of the nine charges made against the Petitioner are as under:While posted as Technical Officer at ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »