Delhi Court September 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 8 of about 113 results (0.021 seconds)income Tax Vs Jagat Diagnositics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.ORDER:1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 15th May, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "Tribunal") in ITA No. 800/Del/2009 for the Assessment Year 2004-05.2. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the addition of ` 49,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (in short "AO") under Section 68 of the Act, 1961.3. However, upon a perusal of the file we find that the said addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short "CIT(A)] and the Tribunal on the ground that the identity of the shareholders was not in doubt. In fact, the CIT(A) in its order has observ...
Tag this Judgment!Archie Comic Publications Inc. and ors. Archie Comic Publications Inc. ...
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? YesORDER.1. By way of the present appeal the Appellant lays a challenge to the order dated 20th April, 2008 whereby the application of the Appellant being I.A. No. 5271/2006 in under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint was dismissed and the application of the Respondents herein being I.A. No. 238/2006 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed, thereby returning the plaint of the Appellant for the purposes of filing before the competent Court.2. The Appellant had instituted a suit inter alia for permanent injunction, infringement of trademark, damages, against the FAO (OS) No. 260/2008 Page 2 of 24 Respondents claiming to be engaged in the field of printed matter, paper articles, newspapers, periodicals, books, comic magazines, cartoons strips, story books, films and a myriad of licensed products includ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.ORDER.1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") challenging the order dated 24th July, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in IT(SS)A Nos. 395/Del/2003 and 509/Del/2003 for the Block Period 01st April, 1989 to 10th February, 2000.2. Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the addition of ` 81,39,919/- and ` 3,38,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (in short, "AO") on account of unexplained expenditure on construction of farmhouse and flat on the basis of seized material. Mrs. Bansal further submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in holding that the entries recorded in the seized materials were mere projections.3. Havin...
Tag this Judgment!J.N.Uppal Vs Dr.H.Uppal and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes. may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be Yes. reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The applicant was the original Decree Holder, who had moved the execution proceedings, being no. 12/2004 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi. By the application, E.A. No. 354/2009 revival of execution proceeding is sought.2. Briefly the facts necessary for the present order are that certain inter se disputes existed between the parties. They were subject matter of the suit, being Suit Nos. 146/1994 and 528/1994. Apparently, during the pendency of those proceedings, the parties referred the disputes, through a written letter/agreement dated 28.10.2001, to the arbitration of one Sh. A.P. Malik. The undisputed facts are that on 25.11.2001, the arbitrator published his award. The award was in two parts; one dealing with the subject matter of claims in Suit No. 146/1994 and other in respec...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs Ifci Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes2. To be referred to Reporters or not Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest Yes ORDER.1. By this order I propose to dispose of the captioned application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC).2. In order to dispose of the captioned application the following facts require to be noticed :-3. The plaintiff, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Companies Act). In 1990, the plaintiff became a sick industrial company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA). Resultantly, the plaintiff filed a reference under Section 15 of SICA before the Board of Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as BIFR). The proceedings before the BIFR CS(OS) 1866/2009 Page 1 of 22 culminated, with a recommendation of the BIFR bei...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Singh . Vs State of Nct of Delhi.
Court: Delhi
ORDER.1. Learned counsel state that the entire relevant material/evidence necessary for the disposal of the present petition has been filed and is on record and the matter may be heard and disposed of. Accordingly, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.2. By the impugned order dated 14th December, 2009, learned Metropolitan Magistrate has decided two applications which were filed by Mintoo Kumar Singh and Santosh Singh that they were juvenile and the matter should be referred to Juvenile Justice Board in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). In the impugned order, it has been held that Mintoo Kumar Singh was a juvenile but the petitioner herein Santosh Singh was more than 18 years of age at the time of alleged offence i.e. 9th February, 2008 and accordingly, can be tried under the ordinary law.3. Rule 12 of the Juvenile J...
Tag this Judgment!Mcd, and ors. Vs S.L. Meena,and ors.
Court: Delhi
1.Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? MOOL CHAND GARG, J1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has filed the aforesaid writ petitions aggrieved of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dated 26.03.09 whereby the Tribunal has set aside the orders passed by the petitioners dated 07.04.06 in having dismissed all the respondents with immediate effect without holding any Departmental Enquiry as well as the Orders of the Appellate Authority dated 03.04.07 upholding the aforesaid order but converting dismissal to compulsory retirement.2. The orders dated 07.04.2006 were passed by invoking provisions of Section 95 (2)(b) of the DMC Act r/w Regulations 9(ii) of the DMC Services (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1959 and under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and which are similar in ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Paragon and ors Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest? YesORDER.1.The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer that the summoning order dated 13.12.2001 passed in criminal complaint case no. 4918/1/04 u/s 138 of N.I Act 1881 pending before the Trial Court be quashed.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 13.12.2001 has been passed by the Trial Court without application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the cheques in question were given by the petitioners to the complainant as security and these were not issued in order to discharge any liability and, therefore, the petitioners have wrongly been summoned by the learned Trial Court. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment titled Exports India & ...
Tag this Judgment!Yashpal Raikar and anr. Vs the State of Delhi.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest? Yes Bail Appl. Nos. 314/2009 & 315/2009 Page 1 of 4 S.L. BHAYANA, J These applications have been moved by the applicant, M/s Anirva Developers Pvt. Ltd., under Section 482 Cr.P.C, praying for cancellation of interim bail granted to the accused persons vide order dated 17.2.2009 as modified on 25.2.2009. 2. Arguments heard.3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on 17.2.2009, this Court had granted interim bail to the petitioners on the ground that they wanted to settle the matter amicably with the applicant. Accordingly, the matter was referred to Delhi High Court Conciliation and Mediation Centre where a settlement took place between the parties and the petitioners made payment in the sum of Rs.35 crores by way of cheques to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Rect. Mukesh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Present petition received from Honble Delhi High Court on transfer. 2. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that the order dated 02.03.2007 and 05.11.2008 being arbitrary, irrational and illegal may be quashed and respondents may be directed to reassess the percentage of disability of petitioner by holding his re-survey Medical Board and release disability pension to the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was enrolled in the regular Army 24.03.2005 as combatant soldier after having been found physically and medically fit in all respects. Petitioner was detailed to undergo for basic military training at Rajputana Rifles Training Centre at Delhi Cantt. On 02.06.2005, when the petitioner went to toilet at night, he was subjected to sexual assault by one of his instructor Hav. Bijender Singh. Petitioner scuffled and resisted but because of another Hav. Jalem Singh, the petitioner was over powered. Petitioner fainted after this incident. Petitioner was taken t...
Tag this Judgment!