Delhi Court November 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhajan Singh Samra Vs. M/S.Wimpy International Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 433(e) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Act') stating that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debt allegedly amounting to ` 50,00,000/- as well as interest. 2. The facts as stated in the petition are that in the year 1994, petitioner was approached by the respondent-company's management for lending money to it at an attractive rate of interest. According to the petitioner, as he was looking for an opportunity to invest in India, he agreed to give an interest bearing loan of ` 50,00,000/- to the respondent-company. The petitioner issued a cheque/draft of ` 50,00,000/- dated 05th December, 1994 from his account in Allied Irish Bank payable at Bombay in favour of the respondent-company. The said cheque was handed over to the respondent-company's management on 08th December, 1994 and a receipt for the said cheque was issued by the Accounts officer of the respondent-company. The receipt dated 08t...
Sandaya Educational Society and anr Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
1. Vide CM Appl. 5607/2004 the applicant (who was the petitioner in W.P.(C)3596/1987) seeks review of the judgment dated 26th March, 2004 on the limited ground. Other application is for interim stay. Before we advert to the ground on which review of the aforesaid judgment is sought, it would be appropriate to take into account the subject matter of the writ petition and the decision which was rendered thereupon.2. The petitioners had filed the aforesaid writ petition with a prayer to quash the notification No. F.8(1)/80- l & b: (1) dated 22nd December, 1987 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They had also prayed for quashing the proceedings initiated pursuant to the aforesaid notification and to declare that the land of the petitioner no.1 Society cannot be acquired.3. It was the case of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 had purchased the said land on 19th December, 1987 (mere three ...
Maxopp Investment Ltd and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
1. This is a batch of twenty one (21) appeals under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Eleven (11) of these have been filed by assessees and ten (10) by the revenue. Eight of these appeals - four by assessees and four by the revenue -- have been admitted and questions have been framed in them. The other appeals were tagged along therewith. It was, however, clearly understood by all the counsel appearing on both sides that the appeals which had not been formally admitted would be deemed to have been admitted for hearing and it was on this basis that arguments were addressed. All these appeals are concerned with section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In particular, we are called upon to examine as to whether interest paid on funds borrowed for investing in shares of operating companies for acquiring and retaining a controlling interest therein is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) and is not hit by section 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961...
Dr. Anand Makker and ors Vs. Iit,delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
1. By means of this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants challenge the validity of common judgment dated 10th April, 2001 passed by the Learned Single Judge in five writ petitions. The learned Single Judge has dismissed all these writ petitions. Though these five appellants had filed five separate writ petitions, in view of the commonality of the issue they are disposed of by the learned Single Judge by one common judgment. In these circumstances, it was necessary for the appellants to prefer separate appeals. However, having regard to the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant no1 has agreed to pay the court fee in each of the appeals is accepted, the Registry is directed to give five appeals numbers i.e. LPA 262/2011, 262-A/2001,262-B/2001, 262-C/2001 and 262-D/2001.2. The brief factual matrix leading to the filing of the writ petitions and consequentially instant appeals is recapitulated hereunder.3. All the appellants were appointed on different dates as Senior ...
Cit Vs. Sumangal Overseas Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
1. Penalty of `73,85,322/- imposed upon the respondent assessee by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was affirmed by the CIT (A). However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) has reversed the view taken by the AO and the CIT (A) and deleted the said penalty. It is under these circumstances, present appeal is preferred by the Revenue questioning the wisdom of the Tribunal contained in its order dated 30.10.2009 and the appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT erred in law and on merits in deleting the penalty of Rs.73,85,322?- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"2. The reason for initiating penalty proceedings was that the AO in the assessment order framed on 29.12.2006 in respect of assessment year 2004-05 held the view that the assessee had falsely clai...
Hindoe Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
1. The present appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 30.4.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) for the assessment year 2006-07. Briefly stated, the appellant/assessee is into the business of providing CAE/design services to various customers in Indian and abroad. It is the case of the assessee that the assessee company was started by four ITA No.411 of 2011 Page 1 of 9 persons, who were also its Directors, viz.,(i) Mr. Ambuj Sharma, who has a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from IIT Roorkee;(ii) Mr. R. Srinivasan, who has a Bachelors Degree in Production Engineering from Bharathiar university, Coimbatore;(iii) Mr. S. Nakkeeran, who has a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering in Designs from Anna University, Tamil Nadu and (iv) Mr. B. Sridhar, who has a Bachelor degree in Electricals and Electronics from BITS, Pilani (Rajasthan).2. Vide Board’s resolution dated 21.3.2005, the followin...
The Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Vs. Moderate Leasing and Capital Serv ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
1. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:"Whether the findings of ITAT are perverse in holding that the loss on sale of shares holding as investment in the books of accounts was revenue loss and not capital loss?"2. The respondent-assessee is a limited company and engaged in the business of leasing, investment in shares and to act as Managers to issue and offers, to give financial assistance in order and abroad, to act administrator or manager of an investment, trust, of fund, to give guarantee or other financial assistance for development of new enterprise, etc. The assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year in question, i.e., 2004-05 and the same was assessed under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).3. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted from the Profit & Loss Account of the assessee that the assessee had debited loss on sale of s...
Shri I.P. Dhawan Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
1. The petitioner belongs to Delhi Administration Subordinate Service (hereinafter referred to as ‘DASS’). In the year, 1986, he was working in various Departments of erstwhile Delhi Administration. In the Jail Department, some vacancies for the posts of Assistant Superintendents were created and the Service Department vide letter No.F.10(2)(84)-SIIP dated 17.4.1986 asked for nomination from amongst the members of DASS for selection to the said posts. On the basis of Annual Confidential Report (ACR) dossiers and interview, 24 certain officials including the petitioner were selected for the post of Assistant Superintendent (Jail) against the newly created posts vide order dated 19.6.1986. The petitioner was, at that time, in the pay scale of `330-560/- and on promotion, he was placed in the pay scale of `425-700/-, which was attached to the post of Assistant Superintendent. The pay of the petitioner was fixed vide letter dated 12.8.1986 in the said pay scale under FR 22(1).2...
Sumer Singh Salkan Vs. Reema Salkan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent has filed an petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance way back on 16.07.2003 and the petitioner was directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to respondent. 2 It is further submitted that thereafter, the respondent has filed the evidence by way of affidavit but despite opportunity being granted she has not come forward for cross-examination and therefore, the petition under Section 125 Cr.PC. is liable to be dismissed. 3 The trial court vide order dated 19.10.2011 has observed as under:- Reproduce order dated 19.10.2011. MT. Case No. 108/11 19.10.2011 Present :- None for petitioner. Respondent alongwith counsel Sh. K.C. Jain Be awaited. JUDGE-02/FAMILY COURT ROHINI : DELHI : 19.10.2011 Called again Present :- Petitioner in person. Respondent alongwith counsel as before. Petitioner submits that she does not wish to offer herself for cross examination as she wants to prefer an appeal against the order of t...
Govt of Nct of Delhi Vs. S.N.Bansal (Since Deceased)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal and the cross objections are that the respondent’s suit claiming decree in sum of `25,81,635/- has been decreed with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decree till realization. The claim was based upon three invoices Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 dated 27.04.1999, 29.04.1999 and 02.05.1999 in the sum of `10,66,790, `8,27,762.25 and `2,40,027.75 and pre-suit interest in sum of `4,48,056/-. The appellant challenges the decree and the respondent, by way of cross objections, seeks rate of interest to be enhanced from 9% per annum to 18% per annum and suffice would it be for us to note that when appeal was argued, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the cross objection may be disposed of as not pressed.2. The facts leading to the filing of the suit as claimed by the respondent are that the respondent is the sole proprietor of the concern Bansal General Stores and was engaged in the business of supply...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »