Delhi Court May 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 7 of about 157 results (0.020 seconds)Dhanesh Gupta and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (C) and ors.
Court: Delhi
V.K. Jain, J.1. The petitioner before this Court is a firm of Chartered Accountants. The Assessing Officer of respondent No. 3, Sahara India Financial Corporation Limited, in the course of assessment proceedings, sought approval of respondent No. 1, Commissioner of Income Tax, to get the accounts of respondent No. 3 audited under Section 142(2A) of Income Tax Act for the Financial Years 2002-03 and 2003-04. While granting requisite permission, respondent No. 2 determined the fee, payable to the petitioner on the basis of the scale prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter called 'the Institute') for such work. According to the petitioner, before nominating it as the Special Auditor, respondent No. 1 called its Senior Partner, Shri Dhanesh Chand, sought acceptance of the assignment and fixed remuneration at the scale prescribed by the Institute. However, in the Appointment Letters issued to the petitioner there was no mention of the remuneration payable ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Sushma Bhatnagar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of the above two appeals assailing an order dated 6th May, 1994 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Tribunal for short). The first appeal being FAO 161 of 1994 was preferred by DTC whereby DTC has assailed the order of Tribunal on the ground that the learned Tribunal wrongly came to conclusion that the accident was caused by the driver of DTC bus. It is submitted that the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased who was trying to cross the crossing at red light when signal was red by overtaking the bus.2. The other grounds taken by the appellant are that the Tribunal did not calculate the compensation properly as per the law laid down in various judgments and the Tribunal wrongly computed the compensation. The Tribunal gravely erred in not reducing the damages by Rs. 80,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- received by the dependents on account of group insurance scheme, gratuity and payment for death...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Om Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, who is a head constable in Delhi Police, has challenged the order dated 22nd May, 2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA 2134/2008 titled as Sh. Hari Om v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through its Chief Secretary and Ors., dismissing his Original Application filed by the petitioner challenging the punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service permanently awarded to him and treating the suspension period from 14th December, 2005 to 18th January, 2006 as 'not spent on duty' by order dated 20th June, 2007 and dismissal of his appeal by order dated 30th June, 2008.2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes raised by the petitioner are that he was posted at Police Station, IGI Airport, New Delhi during 2005. On 14th December, 2005, Inspector Dharambir Singh Joshi, SHO/IGIA called SI (Record) and other staff including the petitioner for ascertaining certain information relating to the references which were pending with Re...
Tag this Judgment!Harpal Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Appellant Harpal Singh faced trial for the offence of having murdered his wife Sushila and son Harshit on 24.06.2003 at around 9.00 PM in the residence of the parties, being flat bearing Municipal No. A1/183-B, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. 2. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.02.2008, the appellant has been held guilty of murder(s) for which offence he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs. 10,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.3. Case of the prosecution was that on 25.06.2003 at about 8.15 AM the appellant came to PS Paschim Vihar and informed HC Subhash PW-23, that along with his wife Sushila and son Harshit, he resides at flat bearing Municipal No. A1/183-B, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. That there used to be domestic quarrels since a considerable period due to which he got hassled and thus murdered his wife and son by strangulating them. That thereafter he consumed '...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Kochhar Vs. Saphire Sales and Service Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The short facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a washing machine on 1.1.2003 for Rs. 6,990 from Sargam Electronics who is the dealer of OP manufacturing company Samsung India Electronics Ltd. On 24.1.2008, there was an agreement between the complainant and the OP Samsung for consideration of Rs. 674 that the OP Samsung will maintain washing machine for one year. The said agreement expired on 23.1.2009. 2. The complainant thereafter wrote letters to the OP for giving maintenance service to the machine of the complainant which the OP did not reply. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum alleging the unjustified refusal of the AMC on the part of the OP saying that the OP had refused AMC to continue because the policy of the company did not allow them. 3. The District Forum after hearing the complainant dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no cause of action against OP. 4. That is what...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
S. Muralidhar, J.1. Interesting questions of law concerning powers and jurisdiction of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (I RDA), Respondent No. 2 herein under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 (hereafter 'Insurance Act') and the powers of the Central Government, Respondent No. 1 herein, as the Appellate Authority under Section 110H of the Insurance Act, arise for consideration in the present writ petition.Background Facts2. The Respondent No. 3 M/s J.P. Exports, having its place of business in Renigunta at Andhra Pradesh, is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of Red Sanders Wood. Respondent No. 3 took a Fire Policy from the Petitioner for the stock of Red Sanders Wood in its godown at the premises located in Srikalahasti Road, Renigunta, Andhra Pradesh. The fire policy for the period 29th March 1996 to 28th March 1997 covered stocks furniture and fixtures stored at its premises for a sum of Rs. 29.5 crores. The sum ensured was enhanced by 2.25 crores on 4...
Tag this Judgment!V.L.S. Finance Limited and anr. Vs. High Court of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. The issue raised in the present petition by the petitioner is if the Law Officer as mentioned in Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the Act or the said Act) refuses to grant permission to initiate action for criminal contempt, then, if a petition is filed thereafter in the court for seeking initiation of criminal contempt under the Act, is not such a petition bound to be listed on the judicial side for hearing. Putting it differently, the petitioner contends that when a petition is filed seeking initiation of proceedings of criminal contempt, although permission is refused by the Law Officer under Section 15 of the Act, then such a petition cannot be treated only as an information to the court and the same has to be treated as a substantive petition which cannot be dealt with by this Court on the administrative side.2. The issue canvassed arises for determination because the petitioner had sought permission of the Law Officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court on Its Own Motion Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Dipak Misra, C.J.1. Albert Schweitzer, accentuating on Glory of Life had uttered 'reverence for life offers me my fundamental principle on morality'. One may understand the aforesaid utterance to have an individualistic perception of a great personality but understood in the complete sense, it really denotes, in its essentiality, and connotes, in its very macrocosm, the basic perception of a thinker about the respect life commands. It is easy to think that life is a spark of light or, for that matter, a 'brief candle' but everyone loves the said brief candle and would not like it to be extinguished by the cruel hand of others. Not for nothing, it has been said 'the earth belongs to the living, not to the dead'. Hence, some call life a bliss, some name it a feeling of ecstasy and none wants that it should be nasalized or fossilized. On one hand, no one has the right to take the life of another and on the other, the authorities who are in charge of persons who have been found guilty in l...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Srivastav and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By these two appeals, the appellants have assailed order of the learned Tribunal dated 21st August, 1997 whereby the claim petition of the appellants were dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the appellants had failed to prove that bus No. HR-10- 4363 was involved in the accident or the accident took place due to negligence of the bus driver.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding above two appeals are that on 11th August, 1991 Sh. Suresh Behari Srivastav and his wife Smt. Saraswati Srivastav were travelling on motorcycle No. DL-2S V. 6445. When they reached near Chandgiram Akhara on Ring Road, an accident took place and both of them got badly injured. Smt. Saraswati Srivastav died on reaching the Hospital and Sh. Suresh Behari Srivastav succumbed to his injuries on 17th August, 1991 in the Hospital.3. There is no doubt that at the time of accident aforesaid bus was also at the place of accident and in FIR, it was alleged that bus was bein...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Hpl India Ltd. Vs. the Secretary (Labour), Govt. of ...
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The Petitioner HPL India Limited by this writ petition impugns the award dated 31st July, 2001 of the Labour Court 'against the petitioner company because it was never a party to the adjudication of the industrial dispute of the respondent/workman' and for the reason that it was not impleaded as a necessary party or even summoned by the Labour Court. The petitioner, in the writ petition has pleaded that the respondent No. 2 workman was not employed with the petitioner; no industrial dispute was raised by the respondent No. 2 workman against the petitioner. It is further pleaded that M/s. Amrex (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s Amrex') (and which has not been impleaded as a party to the writ petition) against whom the award of the Labour Court is, has been closed down w.e.f. 31st March, 1995; that even though the said fact was brought to the notice of the Labour Court and a letter dated 23rd May, 1995 written by the said M/s. Amrex was filed bef...
Tag this Judgment!