Delhi Court September 2009 Judgments

The Cpio, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 162(2009)DLT135

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requires the examination of questions and issues involving declaration as to personal assets of judges of the Supreme Court, made to the Chief Justice of India, pursuant to a Full Court resolution of the Supreme Court of India, made in 1997. The petitioners challenge an order of the Central Information Commission, dated 6th January, 2009, upholding the request of the respondent who had applied for disclosure of certain information concerning such declaration of personal assets, by the judges (of the Supreme Court). 2. The facts of the case are that the Respondent (hereafter 'applicant') had, on 10.11.2007 required the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India ('the CPIO'), nominated under the Right to Information Act (hereafter 'the Act') to furnish a copy of the resolution dated 7.5.1997 of the Full Court of the Supreme Court, ('the 1997 resolution') which requires every judge to m...

Modgill Hosiery Exports P. Ltd. and Modgill Fashion Exports Vs. Union ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2010(250)ELT25(Del)

ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. With the consent of the parties, these writ petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal.2. M/s. Modgill Fashion Exports is the petitioner in W.P.(C) 1409/2008 and M/s. Modgill Hosiery Exports Pvt. Ltd. is the petitioner in W.P.(C) 1408/2008 and 1411/2008. The petitioners have impugned the orders passed by the Apparel Export Promotion Council, the Textile Commissioner and the second Appellate Committee directing the petitioners that they were not entitled to waiver of forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the terms of the quota obligation.3. Prior to 1st January, 2005, the export of textiles and clothing was governed by the bilateral agreements entered into between the Government of India and United State of America, countries of European Union and Canada. In view of the said international agreements, policies were framed from time to time for allocation of quota amongst exporters to ensure the effective administration of the quota system and fo...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vishnu and Co. P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)230CTR(Del)62; [2009]319ITR151(Delhi); [2010]187TAXMAN316(Delhi)

1. The assessee filed the return of his income on September 28, 2001, in respect of the assessment year 2001-02. The last date for issuing of notice under Section 143(2) was September 30, 2002, i.e., within 12 months from the month in which the return had been filed.2. Admittedly, no steps were initiated by the Assessing Officer before September 30, 2002. The first ever notice under Section 143(2) was prepared on the last date, i.e., September 30, 2002, only for service upon the respondent/assessee. That too at the fag end of working hours and, therefore, steps were taken to serve the assessee after working hours. It was taken by the Inspector of the Department to the premises of the assessee and as per the report of the Inspector, itself, he reached the premises at 7.15 p.m. By this time the entire staff of the assessee-company had left the premises. It was thus clear from the report of the Inspector that at that time in the office only some security staff was there and that too, the ...

The Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Sub ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ383

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requires the examination of questions and issues involving declaration as to personal assets of Judges of the Supreme Court, made to the Chief Justice of India, pursuant to a Full Court resolution of the Supreme Court of India, made in 1997. The petitioners challenge an order of the Central Information Commission, dated 6th January, 2009, upholding the request of the respondent who had applied for disclosure of certain information concerning such declaration of personal assets, by the Judges (of the Supreme Court).2. The facts of the case are that the respondent (hereafter 'applicant') had, on 10-11-2007 required the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India ('the CPIO'), nominated under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter 'the Act') to furnish a copy of the resolution dated 7-5-1997 of the Full Court of the Supreme Court ('the 1997 resolution'), which requires every Judge...

Mohan Lal @ Tony and ors. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 174(2009)DLT399

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. These are the appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'Cr.P.C.') against the common judgment and sentence dated 20.02.2009 passed by the Additional Session Judge (FTC)/West/Delhi (in short the 'ADJ').2. The case of the prosecution is: On the night of 10th & 11th August 2000, an information was received at Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi by ASI Jora Singh (PW9) at about 2.10 a.m. from duty constable Kamal at Deen Dayal Upadhaya (in short the 'DDU') Hospital that one Jaswinder Kaur @ Gogi, wife of Mohan Lal, had been admitted to the hospital in an injured condition. This information was dutifully entered as DD Entry 23A (Ex. PW9/A). ASI Jora Singh (PW9) communicated this information to SI Naresh Kumar (PW19) for further inquiry.2.1 S.I. Naresh Kumar (PW19) along with ASI Prem Singh (PW3) visited the DDU hospital. Further inquiry revealed that the injured was Jaswinder Kaur (PW8). Jaswinder Kaur...

Deepak Negi and anr., Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 162(2009)DLT360

ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. The four writ petitioners above have impugned action of the Chief Election Officer in deleting their names in the 'list of candidates' for the Delhi University Students' Union (hereinafter referred to as DUSU, for short) Elections 2009-10.2. By Press Release dated 8th August, 2009, the schedule for elections to DUSU was announced by the Vice Chancellor in his capacity as the Patron. The Schedule of Election is as under:Schedule of Election-----------------------------------------------------------------------Last date for receipt of Nomination Tuesday, the 25thPapers August, 2009 upto3.00 p.m.-----------------------------------------------------------------------Scrutiny of Nomination Papers Tuesday, the 25thAugust, 2009 at3.15 p.m.-----------------------------------------------------------------------Publication of list of duly Nominated Tuesday, the 25thCandidates August, 2009 at5.00 p.m.-----------------------------------------------------------------------S...

Ajay Kumar Sanghi Vs. Delhi Police and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 165(2009)DLT74

V.K. Jain, J.1. By this common Order, we will dispose of both the Petitions referred above.The brief facts, as stated in the petitions, are as follows: The Petitioners are owners of land comprised in Khasra No. 97 of Tajpul Village on Mathura Road, Delhi. Initially, the Petitions were filed only by Shri Ajay Kumar Sanghi, impleading the other co-owners namely, Shri Akshay Kumar Sanghi, Shri Nitin Kumar Sanghi and Shri Ashwin Kumar Sanghi. Since it was admitted before us that the Petitioner and Respondents No. 4 to 6, namely, Shri Akshay Kumar Sanghi, Shri Nitin Kumar Sanghi and Shri Ashwin Kumar Sanghi, claim to be in joint possession of land in question and there was no lis between them as regards this land, we directed transposition of Respondents No. 4 to 6 as co-Petitioners. It was alleged in WP(C) 7641/09 that on 7.3.2001, Respondent No. 1 Delhi Police entered the property of the Petitioner without any authority of law and refused to vacate the same. From Newspaper Reports, the Pe...

Asha Sharma and ors. Vs. Sanimiya Vanijiya P. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 162(2009)DLT542

V.K. Jain, J.CM 5373/2009 & 11767/20091. This Appeal is diected against the Judgment dated 20.8.2008 in CS(OS) 1883/2006, whereby the plaint was rejected, under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. The Appeal was initially filed on 26.9.2008 but was returned with the following objections:(1) Caveat Report is to be obtained or at the time of each subsequent filing (1)(2) Scrutiny charges of Rs. 100/- is to be deposited. (2)(3) Opening sheet is to be filed and be placed just before the appeal.(4)(4) Court Fee is to be affixed according to valuation.(7)(5) It should be stated whether the annexures filed are part of trial court record.(9)(6) Certified copy of Judgment & decree is to be filed and stamped accordingly.(10)(7) Petition/applications/annexures/order/power of attorney should be stamped.(109)(8) Fair typed copy of dim annexure and hand written annexure to be filed (115)(9) List of dates to be filed.(10) Application for delay in refilling be filed.2. The ap...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajhans Aromatics

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN260(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The admitted facts in the present case are that a search was carried out at the premises of the assessee and restraint order was passed on 21-2-2002. Search again commenced on 26-3-2002 on which date restraint orders were revoked and Panchnama was prepared. One carton containing loose papers along with two CPUs and one Hard Disk were seized. However, notice under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act was issued to the respondent/assessee on 16-3-2004 and the assessment was completed on 30-6-2004. As per the Income-tax Act, the period of limitation for completion of assessment in the cases of search is prescribed as two years from the end of the month in which last of the authorization for search under Section 132 or for requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, is executed. If the two years period is to be counted from 26-3-2002 then admittedly the assessment orders passed on 30-6-2004 would be beyond the period of two years and therefore time-barred.2. The con...

Pvr Limited Vs. Ekta Jindal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. Mr. Vineet Mehta, Counsel present for the appellant. 2. The appeal has come up before us for hearing at the stage of admission. 3. Heard. 4. The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant respondent along with her father on 12.12.2003 had been to the appellant OP PVR Metropolitan Cinema at Gurgaon to see a Film Show. During the interval she purchased Tropicana juice and kit kat, the MRP price of which was Rs. 12 and 15 respectively but the Sales Man at the counter charged the price for Kit Kat Rs. 20 and for Tropicana juice Rs. 25 and Rs. 45 for the packed container of the cold drink Pepsi and refused to issue a cash memo. 5. She therefore filed a complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of O.P. cinema with a prayer to direct the OP to refund the excess money charged. 6. The District Consumer Forum decreed the claim for Rs. 23 + Rs. 20,000 towards compensation and Rs. 5,000 towards the cost. 7. That is ...