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.
Alka Gupta Vs. Narender Kumar Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT593
V.K. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated March 13, 2009 whereby CS (OS) No. 302 of 2007, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed. The brief facts, as stated in the pleadings are as under:2. Vide partnership deed dated April 05, 2000, the appellant / plaintiff and the defendant / respondent entered into a partnership for running an educational institute under the name and style of M/s. Takshila Institute. As per the terms and conditions of partnership, the place of business of firm was to be F-19, LAC, Bhera Enclave, Paschim Vihar, Delhi - 110 087 and / or other place or places as mutually decided by the parties. The fee etc. used to be collected by defendant / respondent, who was also maintaining books of accounts and managing the affairs of the firm. The defendant / respondent had been withdrawing money from time to time, from the accounts of the firm whereas no money, at all, was received by the plaintiff / appellant, as her share of the profit. A Ci...
A.N. Shukul Vs. Philips India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2009
Reported in: 165(2009)DLT58
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This suit seeks a declaration that the termination of the services of the Plaintiff by the Defendants was illegal and seeks a consequential mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff damages to the tune of Rs. 46,74,655/-.2. The Plaintiff joined the services of Defendant No. 1 Philips India Limited on 26th April 1971 as an Assistant. On 2nd July 1974 he got promoted from Grade EA-3 to EA-4 and on 4th January 1982 to the next Grade EA-5. He was promoted to Management Group-7 on 3rd June 1994. He was ultimately promoted to Management Group-6 on 15th May 1995. According to the Plaintiff he was called by the Branch Head, Defendant No. 2 on 2nd August 2002 and informed that he would have to quit the service within the next three months. According to the Plaintiff, 'he was shocked and depressed'. He informed the Branch Head that his financial commitments at that stage was such that it would not be possible for him to do so. On 9th September 2003 he...
Cit-ii Vs. Jagdamba Marbles Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2009
Reported in: [2009]138ITR154(Delhi); [2010]187TAXMAN307(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This is an Appeal under Section 260A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act. for short) assailing the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi passed on 4.7.2008 in respect of the Block Assessment period 1.4.1990 to 30.10.2000. Section 158BE(2b) prescribes that the period of limitation for block assessments shall be two years from the end of the month in which the notice under Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act came to be served on the assessee concerned. The ITAT has found that 'admittedly' the notice under Section 158BD dated 24.1.2002 was dispatched to the assessee on 28.1.2002 as per the postal receipt. The ITAT has further returned a finding of fact that this notice was served upon the assessee on 30.1.2002. The Block Assessment Order came to be passed on 5.2.2004 and ,therefore, lacked jurisdiction inasmuch as the last date on which it could have been passed was 31.1.2004. The Assessment Order records the address of the Respondent/Addressee as ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2009
Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Del)132; [2009]185TAXMAN296(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 31.5.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of the respondent in ITA No. 1563/Del/1999 for the assessment year 1995-96 whereby ITAT had allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of expenditure of Rs. 67,06,33,245/- incurred by way of forward contracts in connection with swapping of foreign currency funds for augmenting the rupee funds required by it for its business in the year under consideration.2. The question of law which, thus, falls for consideration is as under:Whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of Rs. 67.06 crores incurred in connection with swapping of foreign currency funds in the year under consideration, i.e. the assessment year 1995-96?3. The factual backdrop under which this question of law was framed consideration may first be recapitulated.4. The assessee is a financ...
Shri Hamid Ahmed Vs. Shri Asad Mueed and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT520
Anil Kumar, J.1. This is an application by the defendant No. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit should have been filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the suit for declaration and injunction in not maintainable and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The applicant has contended that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff Sh.Hamid Ahmed, one of the mutawalli of defendant No. 6, Hamdard Dawakhana Wakf alleging inter-alia that Chief Mutawalli has been running the Dawakhana in a wholly arbitrary and autocratic manner only with a view to benefit himself and his sons and has not constituted Majlis-e-Ayan and he has been handing over the entire working of the Dawakhana to his sons contrary to the wishes of Wakif Mutawalli and against the hierarchy as set by the Wakf Deed.2. The applicant has contended that solely on the basis of the averments made by the plaintiff and without in an...
Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2009
Reported in: [2009]19STJ83(Delhi); 2010[17]STR452
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner seeks a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the respondent/DDA to reimburse the service tax deposited by the petitioner and not to discriminate the petitioner.2. The request of the petitioner is to reimburse him the amount of Rs. 60,19,872/- on account of service tax along with interest at 12% from the date of first payment of the service tax which has been declined on behalf of DDA by office of the Executive Engineer, South Eastern Division No. 7 contending that as per terms and conditions of the agreement with M/s. Brahmputra Infrastructure Ltd./petitioner service tax is not payable by the DDA.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the letter dated 17th September, 2007 stipulating that the letter dated 25th July, 2007, 28th July, 2007 and 3rd September, 2007 shall form part of the agreement. Admittedly the written agreement between the parties does not stipulate that service tax shall be payable to the petitione...
Bright Electricals Vs. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Patel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC630(Del)
S.L. Bhayana, J.1. By this order, I propose to dispose of this application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint.2. The instant suit has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff for permanent injunction thereby claiming to restrain the defendants for passing off, infringement of trademark, copyright, damages etc. Plaintiff by way of this suit has claimed to be the user of trademark 'GOLD MEDAL LABEL' since the year 1987.3. By virtue of this applicant/ plaintiff is seeking amendment of plaint on the ground that the user claimed in the plaint as since the year 1987 is inadvertent mistake, in fact the plaintiff is using the said trademark since the year 1979-80.4. Learned Counsel of the applicant/ plaintiff argued that the mistake is apparent from the fact that the registered trademark 'GOLD MEDAL' under No. 449747 in class 9 was dated 17/2/1986, which is much prior to 1987.5. The applicant/plaintiff has also filed relevant Trademark journal pages under No. 518258 in...
Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Dropti Devi (Proprietor) an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2009
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT437
Rekha Sharma, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the appellant for the recovery of Rs. 4,16,081.07 paise was barred by the law of limitation. The learned Additional District Judge who tried the suit has held the same to have been instituted after the expiry of the period of limitation. The appellant feels it was filed within the period of limitation. 2. Before I come to the point in issue it is necessary to refer to a few facts:The appellant company grows, processes and sells tea throughout India. It has been supplying the same to respondent No. 3 also which is a sole proprietorship concern of respondent No. 1 against orders placed on it through respondent No. 2 who is the attorney of respondent No. 1 and 3. The appellant says that till December 1997 it has been receiving payments from the respondents but thereafter no payment was received. Hence, a legal notice dated March 17, 1998 was sent to the respondents demanding ou...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sharda Motor Industrial Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2009
Reported in: [2009]319ITR109(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The respondent/assessee had filed the income-tax return on November 27, 2003, declaring income of Rs. 10.36 crores under the MAT scheme. Within one year, i.e., on October 28, 2004, this return was revised. Income shown was the same as shown earlier. In this revised return, however, the assessee had claimed additional depreciation at 15 per cent. of the actual cost of addition of a new machinery under Section 32(1)(iia)) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act'). The Assessing Officer (AO) did not dispute that there was an addition of new machinery. However, he disallowed the claim of additional depreciation only on the ground that in the original return filed by the assessee, the assessee had not furnished Form No. 3AA. This decision of the Assessing Officer was reversed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the ground that even the revised return was filed within the limitation period and, therefore, this could not be a ground for disallowance. The I...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ramsons Organics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2009
Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Del)502
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The assessee is engaged in running 100 per cent exports oriented unit at Dhoka, Gurgaon and dealing in the business of processing of stone, marble, granite etc. and exporting the same around the world. The assessee filed its return of income on 1st Nov., 2004 declaring nil income for the assessment year in question and same was assessed under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee had claimed deduction under Section 10B of the IT Act, which claim was turned down by the AO in his order while framing the assessment order dt. 1st Dec, 2006 holding that the assessee was neither engaged in the business of export of 'computer software' nor engaged in the 'manufacture or produce of article or thing', which was necessary ingredient to qualify for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The Tribunal, however, set aside the order of the AO holding that the activity of the assessee amounted to manufacture or produce of article or thing and thus, satisfy the req...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »