Delhi Court November 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 3 of about 90 results (0.020 seconds)Pfizer Products, Inc and anr. Vs.
Court: Delhi
1. This is a suit for grant of permanent injunction, rendition of accounts and damages. Plaintiff No. 1 is a wholly owned US subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., whereas plaintiff No.2 Pfizer Limited is the Indian Subsidiary of Pfizer Inc. Pfizer is a large multinational pharmaceutical company which enjoys a global reputation for the high quality and CS(OS)NO2244/2007 Page 1 of 17 efficacy of its product. The research and development budged of Pfizer was estimated at about US$ 7.5 billion in the year 2004 and it manufactures a number of pharmaceuticals products, including vitamin, supplements, antibiotics and cardiovascular products. COREX is one of the top selling products of the plaintiff and is a highly sought after drug for treatment of cough and in allergic or infective conditions of the respiratory passage. This product is being sold in India since 1964 and the mark COREX is registered in India since 1963 in Class 5 vide Trademark No. 213825. The trade mark is owned by plaintiff No.1 Pfize...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.T. InvoifIn India (P) Ltd and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. In all these appeals, common question of law arises for determination. The question of law which was framed in ITA 811/2007 runs as follows:-"Whether on the facts of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.8,67,010 made as undisclosed income of the assessee for assessment year 1999-2000 under Section 158BC of the Act?"2. Except the difference of amount which is deleted in other cases, the question of law is identical. Therefore, we are proceedings to discuss the question of law on the basis of facts appearing in ITA ITA 811 OF 2007,ITA 818 OF 2007,ITA 378 OF 2008, Page 2 of 14 ITA 742 OF 2007ITA 416 OF 2008 811/2007. Record of factual matrix does not need a large canvas. Succinctly stated, the facts are that on 13th January, 2000, a search and seizure operation was carried out on Shyam Telecom Group of Companies (to which these assessee group of companies belonged). There was no specific search warrant in the name of the assessee company. H...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Sekhri and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. The challenge in these two writ petitions is to a common order passed on 20th July 2010 by the Company Law Board (CLB) in CA No. 469 of 2009 in CP No. 78/ND/2009 (Vijay Sekhri & Ors. v. Tinna Agro Industries Ltd W.P.(C) Nos. 7558 & 7559 of 2010 Page 1 of 7 & Anr.) and CA No. 468 of 2009 in CP No. 79/ND/2009 (Vijay Sekhri & Ors. v. Tinna Oils and Chemicals Ltd. & Anr.). By the impugned order common to both petitions, the CLB allowed the applications filed by the Respondents under Section 45 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (AC Act) in the above matters and referred the disputes arising out of both CP Nos. 78 and 79 of 2009 for arbitration as contemplated by the share holders agreements (SHAs) dated 21st April 2004 and 28th February 1998 respectively.2. In this Court while Writ Petition (C) No. 7558 of 2010 corresponds to CP No. 79/ND/2009 concerning Tinna Oils and Chemicals Ltd. (TOCL), Writ Petition (C) No. 7559 of 2010 corresponds to CP No. 78/ND/2009 and concerns Tinna ...
Tag this Judgment!Brahma Nand Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. These two Appeals have been preferred against a common Judgment dated 3rd February, 2004, whereby the Appellants were convicted under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "P.C. Act" for short) and Order on the Point of Sentence dated 7 th February, 2004, whereby they were sentenced to undergo 18 months Rigorous Imprisonment on each count and to pay a fine of ` 5,000/- on each count. Crl. Appeal No. 110 of 2004 and 126 of 2004 Page 1 of 102. Facts leading to conviction of the two appellants are that Smt. Jaipali was working as a safai karamchari (Sweeper) in M.C.D. She retired on 30th September, 1993. Her dues after her retirement were to be paid to her. Appellant Brahma Nand was U.D.C. working in Shahdara Zone, MCD, where Jaipali used to work as Sweeper. In her complaint she reported that Brahma Nand was responsible for payment of post retirement dues to her. She was forced to lodge a complaint Ex. PW2/A wi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ocl India Limited
Court: Delhi
1. This appeal was admitted on 26th October, 2010 framing the following substantial question of law:-"Whether ITAT was correct in law in sustaining addition only to the extent of 20% out of total payment of ` 47, 25,000/- made by the assessee to M/s Feedback Strategic Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., treating the same as in capital field and allowing balance 80% as revenue expenses?"Since both the counsel for the parties were ready to argue the matter finally, we heard the counsel for the parties and reserved the judgment on the same day.2. The payments made by the assessee to M/s Feedback Strategic Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Consultant) for detailed study on cement market in India etc. is to be treated as revenue expenditure or the capital expenditure, is the question posed for determination. The Assessing Officer held the view that the entire expenditure was in the capital field and, therefore, treated is to be the capital expenditure. He thus disal...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Kumar Vimal Vs. Secretary (Health) and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. At the outset it may be noted that of the 3 writ petitioners who had filed WP(C) 5396-98/2005, only 1 i.e. petitioner No.3 Sh.Dushyant Kumar Garg, survives to litigate as stated at the Bar by Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate who appears for the petitioners in the said writ petitions and thus we hold that qua petitioners No.1 and 2, the relief being granted would not enure to their benefit and the writ petition qua them is treated as having been dismissed as not pressed.2. We may additionally note that all the writ petitioners who had joined in a common action in respect whereof LPA No.1653- 58/2005 has been filed have not joined in further litigation. Of the 12 writ petitioners only 6 have joined in the Appeal and hence the benefit of this order would enure only to the credit of the 6 appellants in LPA No.1653-58/2005.3. It may be noted that on LPA No.1653-58/2005 and WP(C) 5396-98/2005 being dismissed by this Court, the matter was taken by way of further challenge before the Supreme Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Pranav Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Responding to an advertisement to fill up 117 vacancies to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial), petitioner submitted an application and with respect to information vide Sl.No.15 of the application form, which required the petitioner to inform if he had ever been arrested or an FIR had been registered against him or he had been tried for an offence in a court of law or convicted by any court, he filled up N.A. Undisputably, the petitioner was an accused in FIR No.523/1999 under Section 307/34 IPC P.S. Moti Nagar in which he had been acquitted on 21.8.2001.2. It be noted that the application form was filled up by the petitioner on 9.10.2006 while applying for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial).3. Having successfully cleared the selection process the petitioner was called upon to fill an attestation form which he did. It be noted that the attestation form had to be filled up in duplicate and the petitioner did so on 11.7.2008.4. The requirement to fill up two attestation for...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax . Vs. M/S. Devsons Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. These appeals relate to the assessment year 1995-96 and was admitted to hearing on 20th March, 2006 when the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration: - ITA No. 367/2004"1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a change in the method of accounting introduced by the assessee without any justifiable reasons?2. Whether finding recorded by the ITAT that there was no evidence regarding payment of ` 36,17,980/- by the assessee to the sub- contractor in connection with the execution of the garbage collection work is perverse?"1. Whether the ITAT was correct in law in deleting the penalty of ` 36,07,220/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"2. The necessary facts available on the record are that the appellant derives income as a contractor with the Jaipur Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the JMC) for lift...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S John Tinson and Com (P) Ltd. and or ...
Court: Delhi
1. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-"Whether the ITAT was correct in law and on facts in holding that the order of the AO imposing penalty is barred in view of the provisions of Section 275 (1) (a) of the Act?"By this order, we propose to decide the aforesaid question.2. The factual matrix that needs to be noticed may first be narrated keeping in view the commonality of the question, the parties and the impugned order of the Tribunal. Instead of referring to the facts of each case, our purpose would be served by taking note of the facts from ITA 418/2009.3. This appeal relates to the assessment year 1993-94. For this year, the respondent-assessee had filed return of income declaring loss of ` 3352/-. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the aforesaid return as filed by the assessee. Instead, he framed the assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act by assessing the income at ` 12,05,724/- vide orders dated 18th July, 1996. In the process,...
Tag this Judgment!Bijender Kumar Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. These two Appeals have been preferred against a common Judgment dated 3rd February, 2004, whereby the Appellants were convicted under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "P.C. Act" for short) and Order on the Point of Sentence dated 7 th February, 2004, whereby they were sentenced to undergo 18 months Rigorous Imprisonment on each count and to pay a fine of ` 5,000/- on each count. Crl. Appeal No. 110 of 2004 and 126 of 2004 Page 1 of 102. Facts leading to conviction of the two appellants are that Smt. Jaipali was working as a safai karamchari (Sweeper) in M.C.D. She retired on 30th September, 1993. Her dues after her retirement were to be paid to her. Appellant Brahma Nand was U.D.C. working in Shahdara Zone, MCD, where Jaipali used to work as Sweeper. In her complaint she reported that Brahma Nand was responsible for payment of post retirement dues to her. She was forced to lodge a complaint Ex. PW2/A wi...
Tag this Judgment!