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.
Rajinder Kishan Gupta and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor, Govt. of N.C.T. of De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2009
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT278
V.K. Jain, J.1. A Notification dated 24.10.1961 was issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, to acquire vast chunk of agricultural land in Delhi for planned development of Delhi. The notification covered land of the petitioners in Village Mehrauli. Declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the aforesaid land was issued on 4th January, 1969. After filing objections and claims pursuant to the notice dated 26.4.83, issued under Section 9 of Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1129 of 1983, challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioners having been dismissed by this Court on 15th April, 2004, they filed Review Petition No. 253 of 2004 which also was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13th August, 2004. The petitioner preferred Civil Appeal No. 2418-2419/2008 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 24.01.2005, the H...
Commissioner, Vat, Trade and Taxes Department Vs. International Travel ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST653(Delhi)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. This Sales Tax Appeal has been filed by the Commissioner, Value Added Tax, New Delhi against the order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax whereby the Tribunal has held that the respondent is providing services only and there is no transfer of the right to use the goods for levy of tax under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'DVAT Act'). The issue in the case pertains to the claim of the appellant to the applicability of the DVAT Act to the transaction in question which was of hiring of Maruti Omni Cabs by the respondent to a company M/s. New Delhi Power Limited (hereafter 'the NDPL').2. Two issues arise for determination by this Court:a) Whether the transaction in question is sale within the meaning of the expression in Article 366(29A)(d)?b) Whether the contracts in question are contracts for services and hence not assessable to tax under the DVAT Act? Putting it differently, is the appellant entitled...
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC336(Del)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The present appeal arises from the judgment/ order dated 23rd October, 2007 in CS (OS) No. 605/2007 titled as Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. and Ors. wherein according to the case set up by the appellant the learned Single Judge had refused injunction to the appellant/plaintiff even after coming to the conclusion that the appellant's Trade Mark 'Sugar Free' has acquired a considerable degree of distinctiveness amongst traders and consumers and accepting that the appellant's Trade Mark had achieved a secondary meaning. The respondent had also filed cross objections to a limited extent.2. The brief facts of the case as per the appellant are as follows:a) In 1988, Cadila Chemicals Ltd. an erstwhile company of Cadila Group developed and launched in the market, a product containing 'Aspartame' an artificial sweetener as a low calorie table-top sweetener, which is as sweet as sugar containing only 2% of its calories. b) The ap...
Shipra Srivastava and anr. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2009
Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Del)600; [2009]319ITR221(Delhi)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are husband and wife, and who are Doctors working in Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Ltd. (for short 'EHIRCL'). The facts of the case are that the petitioners/assessees filed a return of income for the assessment year 2005-2006 on 18.11.2005 and which was duly processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners were thereafter on 19.2.2007 issued notices under Section 147/148 of the Act. On request of the petitioners the reasons for issuing of the notices under Sections 147/148 were supplied and which are as under:Reasons for Reopening the Assessment 1. Name of the assessee : Dr. Mrs. Shipra Srivastava 2. PAN No. : AGZPS3647Q 3. Asstt. Year : 2005-06 4. Address : A-13, EHIRC Residential EHIRC, Okhla Road, N. Delhi:-110025Reasons for ReopeningReturns for A.Y. 2005-06 was furnished on 18.11.05 declaring total income of Rs. 5,40,990/-. This has been processed Under S...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.D. Farms
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2009
Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Del)500; [2010]187TAXMAN151(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. In all these appeals the respondent/assessee is same, namely, M/s J.D. Farms. It is in the business of poultry framing and the question is as to whether the business activity can be treated as manufacturing activity thereby giving the benefit of deductions under Section 80HHA and 80-I of the IT Act (in short 'the Act'} to the assessee. For the sake of convenience we shall take note of the facts from IT Appeal No. 740 of 2007. The assessee had filed return declaring income at Rs. 3,80,234 for the asst. yr. 1998-99. This return was filed on 30th Oct., 1998 in which the assessee had also claimed deduction under Sections 80HHA and 80-I of the Act claiming itself to be an industrial undertaking. Assessment was made. However, thereafter action under Section 147 of the Act was initiated against the assessee with reasons recorded vide order sheet entry dt. 17th April, 2002. The basic reason was that the assessee was not an industrial undertaking as it was not having any manufa...
The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shashi W/O Sh. Rak ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2009
Reported in: 165(2009)DLT17
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The issue raised in this case pertains to age discrimination. In our opinion, the Petitioner has impermissibly discriminated against Respondent No. 1 on the basis of her age and has thereby unreasonably denied employment to her. 2. The Petitioners had taken out an advertisement in 1996 for the appointment of primary teachers and nursery teachers. We are concerned with those applicants for the posts of primary teachers who belong to the OBC category. 3. In terms of the advertisement the age limit for recruitment as on 31st July, 1996 was 18 to 30 years generally with exceptions for lady candidates, SC/ST candidates, physically handicapped candidates, etc. 4. In response to the advertisement, the Petitioner appears to have received an extremely large number of applications from the general public. With a view to reduce the number, the Petitioner introduced short-listing criteria which included, inter alia, short-listing on the basis of the age of the applicant. It i...
Kavita Gambhir Vs. Hari Chand Gambhir and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT459
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. The present appeal is filed by an unsuccessful defendant in a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the two respondents herein in respect of House No. 220, Pocket-7, Block-C, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi- (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27th March 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby she has been directed to vacate the first floor of the suit property and also to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 3250/- p.m. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the pleadings and evidence of the parties, documents on record, as well as the submissions made before this Court by the counsel for the parties, may first be noticed. The elder son of the respondents, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the plaintiffs', got married to the appellant, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the defendant', on 4th July 1995. The 'doli' of the defendant after her marriage was brought to the house of Gambhirs in Ro...
State Vs. Maqsood Ahmed @ Ashraf Abbu Mujahid
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2009
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT39
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide judgment and order dated 18.5.2004 the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC; Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 4 of the Explosives Substance Act. It has been held that the prosecution has successfully proved that the appellant, a national of Pakistan, committed a terrorist act, in that intruded into the Central Reserve Police Force Camp at village Jharoda Kalan on 18.10.2001 at 11:00 PM and shot dead Const. Nitin Puttewar. Benefit of doubt has been given to the co-accused Mohd. Abdula Mir, a resident of Jammu & Kashmir, holding that no evidence incriminating Mohd. Abdula Mir had emerged.2. Vide order on sentence dated 21.5.2004 the sentence of death has been imposed upon the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302/120B IPC as also for the offence punishable under Section 27/120B IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Explosives Substance Act, sentence ...
Shri Kulwant Singh Vs. Dr. Laljee Kent and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT625; (2009)156PLR36
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The court proposes, by this order, to dispose of I.A. No. 510/2009, whereby the plaintiff seeks interim mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party rights in respect of the suit property, as well as a mandatory injunction to them to hand over physical possession of the entire ground floor portion of the suit property to him (i.e. the plaintiff).2. The facts, which emerge as undisputed, from the pleadings are that the plaintiff, a senior citizen, retired as an Accountant General; he had served with the Indian Audit and Accounts service. At the time of institution of the suit, he was 88 years; his wife is aged 76 years. The plaintiff purchased a 500 square yards plot, being C-31, Green Park, in 1958. He retired from service in 1978. There exists a three storeyed building (ground, first and second floor) on the plot; the plaintiff's daughter lives on the second floor; his second son, Willy Singh, lives on the first floor. The plaintiff ...
Kamlesh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2009
Reported in: 166(2009)DLT127
Ajit Bharihoke, J.1. Appellant Kamlesh has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, for having committed murder of his wife Mithlesh by setting her ablaze after pouring kerosene oil.2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 16.05.2004, ASI Jal Singh (PW10) was on duty at the PCR van in the area of Mundka along with Constable Surya Kant (PW11) and driver Constable Satbir. Around 9.20 PM, he received a call from someone informing that his wife had set herself ablaze with kerosene oil at Mangal Bazar Road, Swarn Park, Delhi. He immediately proceeded to the spot of occurrence and also conveyed the information to the Police Station, on basis of which, DD No. 36B is stated to have been recorded at Police Station Nangloi at 9.25 PM.3. DD No. 36B was entrusted to SI Jagminder Singh (PW15) for verification. He proceeded to the spot ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »