Delhi Court November 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 4 of about 90 results (0.020 seconds)Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-iv . Vs. Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
1. Questions of law raised in all these appeals arise in almost similar circumstances. In fact, in three appeals even the assessee is same. It is for this reason all these appeal were heard together and we now proceed to render common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we shall take note of the facts as they appear in ITA No. 1208 of 2008. Following two substantial questions of law were formulated in this appeal:a) Whether the interest paid on the late payment of the provident fund can partake the character or nature of the provident fund?b) Whether the provisions of Section 43B of the Act are applicable on the interest paid by the assessee on the late payment of provident fund?"2. We now narrate the facts under which these questions have arisen for consideration. The respondent-assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2001-02 declaring a loss of `6,75,38,576/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that there was delay in making pay...
Tag this Judgment!M/S D.V.H Industries Vs. M/S Hartley Knits
Court: Delhi
1. CM Nos. 10765/2009 and 10766/2009 in RFA 61/09 are (i) Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Order XLI Rule 3 (A) CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act and (ii) Application for condonation of delay in refilling the appeal under Chapter 1(A) Rule 5(1) of the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) RFA (OS) No.61/09 Page 1 of 92. A suit framed as a suit for mandatory injunction claiming a decree for $ 1,27,085.50 with interest @ 20% p.a. was filed by Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff). Vide Order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.5.2000, Respondent No.1 was directed to pay ad-valorem court fee on the amount for which the decree was sought in the plaint. The deficiency in the court fee was made good; Defendants 1 & 2 put in appearance. Vide Order dated 31.10.2006 the name of original Defendant No.1 was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties on the fin...
Tag this Judgment!Madhwi Sharma Ahluwalia Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1. This is a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of Probate/Letter of Administration with respect to the estate of Late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma, who expired on 2.5.2001. It has been alleged in the petition that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma had executed his last will on 30.10.2000 which was registered with Sub Registrar, CS(OS)NO.38/2001 Page 1 of 37 Delhi on the same date. The particulars of his estate are given in Annexure C to the petition.2. The petitioner is the daughter of Late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma, born from his first wife. Mrs. Asha R. Sharma, third wife of the deceased is his other class one legal heir. No other legal heir was left by the deceased.3. Objections have been filed by Smt. Asha R. Sharma primarily on the grounds that the Will set up by the petitioner was not executed by Late Sh. Ram Chandere Sharma and that he was not in a sound disposing mind at the time this will is alleged to have been executed.4. The following issues were framed on ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax . Vs. M/S Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. The question of law which has been raised in all these appeals, pertaining to different assessment years of the same assessee, is common one.2. To state in brief, the assessee herein had advanced certain Inter Corporate Deposits (ICD) to M/s Shaw Wallace Company. The interest thereupon could not be received by the assessee for more than six months. The assessee is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) and, therefore, is bound by the directions given by the Reserve Bank of India. These directions, inter alia, mandate a NBFC to declare such advances as Non Performing Assets (NPA) when the accrued interest therein is not paid by the debtor continuously for six months. In these circumstances, treating the said ICD as NPA, the assessee did not show interest income, which according to the assessee was not realizable. The Assessing Officer, however, added the interest as income of the assessee holding that it had "accrued" to the assessee even if it was not actually realized as the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Gaurav Gupta Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Another.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Kanwal Inder, Member: 1. This Complaint under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed on 7.8.2002 seeking Rs. 14,72,000 with interest and costs Rs. 25,000 from the OPs. 2. The prayer has been made on the allegations that on 16.1.2002 the complainant applied for/booked two Baleno cars with catalyser with the Opposite Party No. 2 and paid a sum of Rs. 6 lakh for each car totalling a sum of Rs. 12 lakh vide two cheques bearing Nos. 856963 and 856964 both dated 8.1.2002 for Rs. 6 lakh each. The opposite party No. 2 being the authorized dealer of the OP No. l issued two allotment Nos.002430 and 0024131 against the aforesaid bookings. 3. The aforesaid payments were made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No. 2 for and one behalf of the Opposite Party No. l and the delivery of the aforesaid cars were to be given to the Complainant by the Opposite Party No. l through Opposite Party No. 2 4. The Opposite Party No. l had represented to the Complainant that it would t...
Tag this Judgment!M/S J.J. Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Linkmark International (Hk) Lt ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.33 Lacs as damages. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and the plaint has been signed and verified and the suit has been instituted by Sh. Kesar Singh, who is the Director of the plaintiff company and is stated to have been duly authorized vide resolution dated 29th March 2007 to sign and verify the pleadings and institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff company. It is alleged that the defendant approached the plaintiff in the month of April 2006 at Delhi and placed various purchase orders for manufacturing various types of shoes. It is further alleged that defendant No.1 through defendant No.2 also opened an irrevocable Letter of Credit in favour of the plaintiff on 20 th May 2006 and the defendants also specified the dates by which the goods...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. (Mrs.) Vinod Prabha Bhanot. Vs. Mrs. Savitri Devi Chopra and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporters or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. The captioned suit brings to fore the neglect which senior citizens in our country face today. What makes matter worse for the senior citizens is that the neglect and callousness, towards their well-being, emanates from members of their own family. It is these very members of the family, who do not have the time of the day for their parents in their lifetime, gather around to claim rights in the estate of the deceased parents no sooner they pass away. It is perhaps a reflection of times we live in. There is crying need to provide for the health, security, and where necessary, shelter for senior citizens. With this preface let me briefly detail out the background in which the present suit has been filed.2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts in respect of the estate of he...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Chand. Vs. Central Buero of Investigation (Cbi)
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.DAI- 1990-A-0041/CBI/ACB/New Delhi under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) and the proceedings emanating therefrom.2. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the alleged incident of taking/accepting bribe of Rs.500/- by him had taken place on 10th September 1990 when he was working as Suptd. (Commercial) in the office of DRM, Northern Railways and a raid was conducted and he was arrested by CBI trap team for accepting and demanding bribe of Rs.500. He retired from service on 31st July 1994. CBI after completion of investigation asked for sanction from the office of petitioner, however, the off...
Tag this Judgment!Sakshi. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. This first appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the appellant against a judgment of acquittal dated 20th July, 2010 passed by learned ASJ, New Delhi in case FIR No.1154 of 2006 under Sections 363/366/376/109 read with Section 34 IPC police station Nazafgarh.2. The complainant had married with her cousin Akshay aged around 21 years on 16th February 2006 at Arya Samaj Temple at Yamuna Bazar, Delhi and filed an affidavit at the time of marriage before the Pandit at Arya Samaj Temple that she was above 18 years of age. This marriage was performed by her without consent or knowledge of her parents, although the parents of the boy knew about this marriage. It is her own case that the marriage was consummated at her in- laws house and thereafter she along with her husband went to Shimla. Her parents were informed...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Ace Printg and Pack Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Modern Food Industries.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes: MOOL CHAND GARG,J1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 16.05.2003 of the Learned ADJ whereby the Learned ADJ had set aside the award dated 18.08.2002 passed by the Arbitrator on the ground that the Arbitrator had failed to limit the award within the scope and jurisdiction of the reference to arbitration. Further by deciding that there was no validly concluded contract between the parties, the Arbitrator had gone beyond the scope of reference.2. Briefly stated, appellants are the manufacturers of corrugated boxes used for the packaging of goods. The respondent Company M/s Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. had invited tenders for the supply of corrugated boxes for packing their Nutro Biscuits. Appellant was one of the tenderer and his rates per box being the lowest, he became the successful tenderer...
Tag this Judgment!