Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 14 of about 223 results (0.018 seconds)Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Shashi Bala
Court: Delhi
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. Respondent was served by publication but has not entered appearance. She is accordingly proceeded ex parte.2. Petitioner claims that the respondent and the petitioner separated and an ex parte decree of divorce was passed by District Judge, Rajouri (Jammu) on 23rd September, 1987.3. Subsequently on or about 24th November, 2004, the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for short). In the said petition, there is no reference to decree of divorce and the petitioner has been described as her husband. It is further stated that the respondent was residing with her mother who expired in October, 1999 and the said respondent has been living on the mercy of her brothers and sisters and thereafter with some other relatives.4. The petitioner was served in that petition and had entered appearance through his lawyer, Mr. M.A. Khan, advocate. However, no reply to the petition was filed and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vinita Arora Vs. Escorts Securities Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Manmohan, J.1. Present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1996') challenging the arbitral Award dated 31st May, 2003 passed by Mr. K.S. Jaggi, Sole Arbitrator.2. Mr. Mukesh Anand, learned Counsel for petitioner-objector submits that the Agreement dated 17th January, 2000 executed between petitioner-objector and respondent-claimant is void as being violative of Punjab Registration of Money-Lender's Act, 1938 (in short 'Act, 1938') as well as Rules 8(1)(f) and 8(3)(f) of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (in short 'Rules, 1957'). He further states that if the substance and not the form of the Agreement executed between the parties is seen, the Court would find that it is in essence a money-lenders agreement rather than a credit facility Agreement. In this connection, Mr. Anand relies upon Hyco Product (P) Ltd. v. Shashi Hasija reported in 158(2009) DLT 351; Sobhag Narain Mathur v. Pragya Agr...
Tag this Judgment!Accord Alloys Limited Vs. Asia Minerals Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This order will dispose of an application for ad-interim injunction moved by the plaintiff (IA 6904/2008) and other related applications (IA Nos. 8121/2008, IA 8152/2008, both filed by the plaintiff) as well as IA No. 9521/2008, moved by the defendant, for vacation of interim stay.2. The plaintiff in the suit, seeks declaration that a request for arbitration, made to the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) made by the defendant, through a letter dated 18th October, 2007 and the directions, issued by the Arbitrator pursuant to the reference, on 22.05.2008 are illegal and void.3. The relevant facts, for the purpose of this order are stated as follows. The plaintiff (hereafter 'Accord Alloys') claims to have been incorporated in 1984, and is a globally recognized trading house which deals with various kinds of metals. The first defendant (hereafter 'Asia Minerals') is a Hong Kong registered private company, and the second defendant is the LCIA. The suit...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Siclair Exports Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 14.05.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the Assessment Year 1995-96 and it arises from the assessee's appeal before the Tribunal, being ITA No. 762/DEL/2008.2. The assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80HHC without reducing brought forward losses. In the quantum proceedings, the additions have been confirmed by the Tribunal. In separate proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) imposed penalty on the assessee. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by virtue of the impugned order, deleted the said penalty on the ground that the assessee's claim of deduction in 80HHC without reducing brought forward losses was passed in view of the three decisions of High Courts. The Tribunal further held that the matter was ultimately decided against the assessee by the Tribunal fo...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Vs. Ravi Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
J.R. Midha, J.1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 54,000/- has been awarded to the appellant. The appellant seeks enhancement of the award amount.2. The accident dated 28th November, 1995 resulted in grievous injuries to the appellant. The appellant suffered fracture of nasal bone. The appellant had to undergo surgery of nasal bone on which he spent Rs. 43,000/-. The appellant remained under treatment for more than two months.3. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 43,000/- towards medical expenditure, Rs. 4,000/- for loss of income for two months, Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 2,000/- for conveyance and special diet. The total compensation awarded is Rs. 54,000/-.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant urged following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:(i) The compensation for loss of income be awarded for four months.(ii) The compensation for pain and suffering be enhanced.(iii) Compensation for los...
Tag this Judgment!Natasha Kohli Vs. Man Mohan Kohli and ors.
Court: Delhi
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of the above applications made by the plaintiff and defendants respectively for interim injunction.2. Succinctly stating the facts relevant for deciding these applications are that plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against three defendants. Defendant No. 1 is the husband of plaintiff, defendant No. 2 is a company and defendant No. 3 is brother of her husband and director of defendant No. 2. In this suit, she prayed that a decree be passed injuncting defendant No. 1 and his servants etc from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing number 15-A, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi. The other prayer made was that defendant No. 1 be restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit premises or dispossessing plaintiff from the suit premises. She also prayed that a decree of permanent injunction be passed against defendant No. 2 from changing the share...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Kumar and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by Mr. P.N. Kumar and Jaypee Hotels Limited in respect of property tax assessment under the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short). Writ Petition(Civil) No. 1632/1988 pertains to a hotel in Rajendra Place and the petitioners have challenged and questioned the assessment order dated 4th September, 1987 fixing the rateable value of the property at Rs. 14,57,880/-with effect from 15th July, 1981. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3347/1987, the petitioners have challenged and questioned the assessment order dated 4th August, 1983 in respect of vacant land for a hotel in Vasant Vihar for the period 1981-82 (part), 1982-83 and 1983-84 (full). In both writ petitions, the petitioners have asked for refund of the property tax, which were paid.2. The two writ petitions were taken up together as the petitioners had challenged vires of Section 114 and other provisions of the Act on...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The facts in these four writ petitions are more or less similar and are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment.2. Each of these Petitioners was an agent with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), the Respondent herein. By separate orders dated 24th November 2005, the agency of each of the Petitioners was terminated and forfeiture of renewal commission was also ordered in terms of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, 1972 [hereinafter the 'Agents Rules'].3. Each of the Petitioners preferred an appeal to the Zonal Manager against the terminations and each of the appeals was rejected by separate orders dated 30th May 2006. The orders dated 24th November 2005, terminating the agency and the orders dated 30th May 2006 dismissing the appeal have been challenged by each of them by way of the present writ petitions. They were agents attached to Branch Unit 11-C.4. The Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 10426 of 2006, Mr. P.K. Singh, was appointe...
Tag this Judgment!Kiran Hasija Vs. Escorts Securities Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Manmohan, J.1. Present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1996') challenging the arbitral Award dated 31st May, 2003 passed by Mr. K.S. Jaggi, Sole Arbitrator.2. Mr. Mukesh Anand, learned Counsel for petitioner-objector submits that the Agreement dated 17th January, 2000 executed between petitioner-objector and respondent-claimant is void as being violative of Punjab Registration of Money-Lender's Act, 1938 (in short 'Act, 1938') as well as Rules 8(1)(f) and 8(3)(f) of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (in short 'Rules, 1957'). He further states that if the substance and not the form of the Agreement executed between the parties is seen, the Court would find that it is in essence a money-lenders agreement rather than a credit facility Agreement. In this connection, Mr. Anand relies upon Hyco Product (P) Ltd. v. Shashi Hasija reported in 158(2009) DLT 351; Sobhag Narain Mathur v. Pragya Agr...
Tag this Judgment!Mudra Communications Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner employer impugns the award dated 5th July, 1997 of the Industrial Tribunal holding the respondent No. 1 workman to be an employee of the petitioner and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No. 1 workman with full back wages. The respondent No. 1 workman claimed to be working/employed with the petitioner as a driver. It was the plea of the petitioner company that the respondent No. 1 workman was the personal driver of Mr. Karan Ahluwalia working as a General Manager with the petitioner company and which Mr. Karan Ahluwalia, as per the terms of his employment, was entitled to reimbursement of car expenses; that the respondent No. 1 workman was driving the car of the said Mr. Karan Ahluwalia and Mr. Karan Ahluwalia having left the employment of the petitioner, the petitioner had no obligation whatsoever towards respondent No. 1 workman.2. The Tribunal found that the witness of the petitioner employer in his cross examination had admi...
Tag this Judgment!