Delhi Court September 2009 Judgments

Sanjiv Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 164(2009)DLT459

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The present appeal filed under Section 374 CrPC has been directed against the judgment dated 30/1/2003 passed in Sessions Case No. 135/1997, whereby the appellant husband of the deceased was convicted under Section 498A/304B Indian Penal Code, 1860 and order of sentence dated 30.01.2002 whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and 7 years, respectively.2. The factual matrix of the case, as set out in the appeal, is as follows:In the afternoon of 18/10/1996 when the appellant was at his shop, he was informed about the incident of suicide having been committed by his deceased wife Shobhana. The appellant on hearing, rushed to his residence and the Doctor PW7 Dr. Jagdish Chander Pathak was immediately called, who found the deceased in an unconscious state but was still breathing. The appellant took her to Khetrapal Hospital, but despite the best efforts of Dr. Anil Khetrapal, PW 12, the deceased did not survive. The parent...

Sh. Phool Singh S/O Shri Pema Vs. Sh. Rajinder Singh S/O Late Sh. Khem ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 162(2009)DLT679; (2009)156PLR33

V.B. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is against order dated 3rd February, 2009 passed by Additional District Judge Delhi, vide which application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code.) of respondents was allowed.2. Brief facts as alleged are that respondents are joint owners of suit land, being successor in interest of their respective ancestors, who were joint owners and in possession of the suit land. Land of Khasra No. 50 min. measuring 21 Bighas and 13 Biswas was owned and possessed by proprietors of Shamlat Thok of Village Himayun Pur, which was partitioned. Land measuring 2 Biswas and 16 Bighas was given a separate Khasra No. 50/1 and fell to the shares of ancestors of respondents.3. This land was acquired by Government of India for public purpose and award in respect of land measuring 2 Bighas and 3 Biswas, out of 2 Bighas and 16 Biswas was made in faovur of respondents on 31.1.1991. Award in respect of remaining 13 Biswas of land (suit land), could not ...

Sardar Harjit Singh Vs. Sardar Ravel Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 175(2009)DLT428

Manmohan Singh, J.1. The application IA No. 10911/2006 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff No. 1 when listed before this Court for disposal on 02.02.2009, Shri Kirti Uppal, appearing on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3, has raised an objection that in view of order dated 04.05.2006 and 03.01.2007, the suit itself is not maintainable and the question of maintainability of the suit should also be decided along with the application.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on both the aspects of the matter.3. The brief facts are that the two plaintiffs namely Shri Harjit Singh and Sh. Narender Singh, who are the sons of Sardar Ravel Singh, (defendant No. 1 herein, deceased now), and brothers of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, Shri Daljit Singh and Sh. Gurmeet Singh, have filed the suit for partition and permanent injunction praying therein that a preliminary decree for partition be passed declaring that the plaintiffs have one half share in part of...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aspentech India (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Del)172; [2010]187TAXMAN25(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. For the relevant assessment year, i.e., assessment year 2003-04, the respondent/assessee had filed the return declaring a loss of Rs. 2.48 crores. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs. 2.53 crores against a meagre income of Rs. 4,93,343. He, thus, raised certain queries to the assessee but was not satisfied with the explanation and, therefore, disallowed the aforesaid expenditure of Rs. 2.53 crores.2. We may note at the outset that this expenditure included salary paid to the employees in the sum of Rs. 1.72 crores, travelling cost of Rs. 30.61 lakhs and administrative and other operating expenses to the tune of Rs. 39.65 lakhs.3. Perusal of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer would reveal that the main consideration by which the Assessing Officer was swayed was that against the aforesaid huge expenses incurred by the assessee, he hardly generated any revenue. On this basis, he opined that the said expenses c...

Alberto-culver Usa Inc. Vs. Nexus Health and Home Care (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(41)PTC197(Del)

Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of the plaintiff's application being IA No. 12969/2007 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and defendant's application being IA No. 2415/2008 under Order VII Rule 11 and Order XXV Rule 1 CPC respectively.2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for relief of permanent injunction against the defendant and to restrain infringement, passing off, damages and/or rendition of accounts etc.3. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these applications are that the plaintiff is a company organized and incorporated under the laws of the USA. Mr. Gary P. Sschmidt, Senior Vice President and Secretary of the plaintiff is duly authorized to institute and file this suit, sign and verify its pleadings.Case of the plaintiff:4. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and trade of a wide range of cosmetics, toilet preparations, personal care products like hair care preparations, hair shampoos, hair conditioners, hair spray...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]138ITR173(Delhi); [2010]188TAXMAN7(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri , J.1. The assessee had filed its return on 01.11.2004 declaring loss of Rs. 10,38,98,405/-. Thereafter, revised return was filed on 05.10.2005 declaring loss of Rs. 7,20,50,041/-. The Assessing Officer, during the assessment proceedings, observed that the return was not signed and verified in accordance with the provisions of Section 140 of the Income Tax Act and revised return was also filed belatedly. In fact, the earlier return was filed by the Company Secretary of the assessee company and the revised return filed was signed by the Managing Director. On this ground, the AO, therefore, took the date on which revised return was filed as the date of filing return for the first time and proceedings that the return was filed belatedly, he did not take the same into consideration. The CIT upheld the decision of the AO. However in further appeal, the ITAT has held that signing of the return by the Secretary was a curable irregularity. Therefore, when the Managing Director singe...

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Yassin.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

M.L. Sahni, Member: 1. Vide impugned Order dated 31.7.2007 passed by the District Forum, the appellant Company has been directed to pay Rs. 3,00,000 towards insurance amount of the vehicle against total loss by way of theft of the vehicle and Rs. 40,000 on account of compensation for wrongfully rejecting the claim and Rs. 3,000 as cost of the litigation. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Case of the respondent before District Forum in brief was that the respondent was the owner of Tata Half Body Truck (Tatto Thela) bearing No. HR-38 G 9809, which was insured by the appellant on 5.1.2004 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000. On 12.4.2004 at about 10.00 p.m., the driver of the said truck came to the house of the respondent along with the truck and handed over the key and documents to the respondent and left for his house. On the next day, dated 13.4.2004 at about 7.00 a.m. the respondent found his truck missing. They tried to trace the truck but and on the same day lo...

R.K. Garg S/O Late Shri Kulwant Rai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through t ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 162(2009)DLT670

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The two principal issues that arise for our consideration relate to the interpretation of the proviso to Rule 9(2)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the validity of a non-speaking order passed by a disciplinary authority pursuant to a departmental disciplinary inquiry. In our opinion, the proviso to Rule 9(2)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 does not obligate the President or the disciplinary authority of a delinquent official to supply to him the report of the findings of the disciplinary authority before a final decision is taken by the President on the inquiry report in a departmental disciplinary proceeding. We are also of the opinion that, in law, a disciplinary authority is obliged to give reasons for taking an adverse decision against a delinquent official and imposing a penalty on him. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by a common order dated 27th May, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal...

Diwakar Engineers Ltd. Vs. the Income Tax Officer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN327(Delhi)

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking the relief of quashing of the notices issued under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as The Act) by the respondents with respect to the Assessment Years 1977-1978 to 1982-1983. One of the prayers in the writ pertained to seeking direction against respondent No. 1 to furnish a copy of the reasons for reopening of the completed assessments before issuing the impugned notices. This part of the relief has already become infructuous in as much as the respondents along with their counter-affidavit have furnished the reasons for initiation of the proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act. 2. The case of the petitioner is that for the Assessment Years 1977-1978 to 1982-1983, it duly submitted its return of income along with complete details necessary for making the assessments. The assessments orders were thereafter passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for these Assessments ...

Parekh Plantinum Ltd. Vs. Bifr

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. Heard on MA No. 258 of 2008. Appellant has filed MA No. 258 of 2008 for directions to the GSFC to restrain from taking possession of the machinery, Atomiser supplied by Silmet Ltd., Israel, in pursuance of the notice/letter dated 15-7-2008. 2. On this application, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have heard Shri Vivek Sibal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. It is submitted by Shri Sibal that, on 5-3-1998, GSFC and the applicant company executed a hire purchase agreement for the Atomiser and GSFC had sanctioned financial assistance of Rs. 150 lakhs to the applicant company for acquisition of machinery, i.e. Atomizer, to be supplied by Silmet Ltd., Israel, at a total cost of Rs. 182 lakhs. The applicant company has been utilizing the machinery covered under the said agreement. The applicant has paid Rs. 75.14 lakhs to GSFC against the hire purchase agreement dated 5-3-1998 and is unable to pay the balance amount to GSFC, though the company is still inv...