Delhi Court April 2012 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Career Launcher India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
R.V. EASWAR, J. 1. These are three appeals filed by the CIT under sec.260A of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Tribunal has passed a separate order on 26th June 2009 for the assessment year 2004-05 in ITA No.1047/DEL/2008, whereas for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 it has passed a common order on 27th December, 2010 in cross-appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue in ITA Nos.4024 and 4925/DEL/2009 and ITA Nos. 523 and 524/DEL/2010. 2. On 28th July, 2011, this court framed the following substantial questions of law in respect of the assessment year 2005-06 in ITA No.911/2011: “I. Whether the respondent was not liable to deduct the tax at source for the relevant year on account of the payment made by it to its franchisees under Section 194C of the Act, as...
Rajeev Mittal and Another Vs. Sanjay Goel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 11.04.2012 and 13.04.2012; contention of the petitioner before this Court is the in pending proceedings which were proceeding for contempt, the directions as contained in the aforenoted orders could not have been passed by the trial Court as the power to initiate contempt under the provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is an inherent power vested with the High Court alone and the subordinate Court could not have issued the said directions; the said directions amounting to an illegality being beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned Court are accordingly liable to be set aside. 2. Arguments have been refuted. 3. Record shows that Sanjay Goel had filed suit No. 21/2012 seeking an injunction against the defendants Lions Club International District and others from conducting the election as scheduled for 25 and 26.02.2012; further to provide t...
R.L. Moria Vs. Chairman Cum Managing Director, National Aviation Compa ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACJ. 1. This intra-court appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 14.05.2010 of the learned Single Judge in three writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) Nos.7284/1999, 151/2005 and 6576/2005. In these circumstances, the appellant was required to file three LPAs. However, on the oral request of learned counsel for the appellant, since the pleadings and challenge is common in all the petitions, these are treated as three LPAs. The Registry is directed to assign proper numbers. 2. The particulars of three writ petitions which are decided by the learned Single Judge vide common judgment are as under: “(i) CWP No.7284/1999 filed by the appellant R.L.Moria challenging the order of his dismissal dated 11.8.1999. This writ petition was disposed of on the first date of listing i.e. on 6.12.1999 with direction to respondent to decide the statutory appeal of the appellant within eight weeks from the said date; liberty was granted to the appellant, if aggrieve...
Union of India and Others Vs. Sulekh Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ORAL: 1. The Union of India is aggrieved by the order dated 17.9.2008 passed in OA No. 2162/2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) by which the respondent’s said original application was allowed and the impugned order of penalty of reduction of pay for a period of six years was set aside. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner was also directed to restore the pay of the respondent in the original grade with all consequential benefits within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent was working as a Head Booking Clerk in the Northern Railways. He was stationed at Panipat, Haryana. On 29.9.2004, a vigilance raid was conducted and a decoy customer Som Pal proceeded to the counter where the respondent was booking tickets. The decoy customer asked for two railway tickets for a journey from Panipat to Darbha...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Anita Ahuja and Others.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 25.05.2010 passed by this Court on the ground that a sum of `137/- was charged (towards premium) for Riot and Strike whereas the same was taken towards third party liability by this Court in the impugned judgment. Thus, it is stated that the impugned judgment dated 25.05.2010 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and is liable to be reviewed. 2. The power of review can be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. A review cannot be claimed or asked for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for a correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. In M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372, the Supreme Court held as under:- “The...
D.D.a Vs. Pandit Construction Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Two issues are required to be reflected upon by us in the instant appeal. The first issue relates to the applicability of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, post amendment vide Act No.1 of 1997 with effect from January 08, 1997 and the second issue relates to the plea raised by the appellant before the learned Arbitrator, which plea was accepted by the learned Arbitrator, but reversed by the learned Single Judge, on waiver of the respondent to press for the claim by accepting payment under the final bill towards full and final settlement of its claim. 2. The facts in brief are that appellant invited offers by issuing a Notice Inviting Tenders for constructing a local shopping centre at New Rajendra Nagar. Respondent’s offer was accepted and this resulted in the party binding themselves to a contract as per agreement dated November 30, 1990. The stipulated date of completion was March 09, 1992 and admittedly the work lingered on till April 28, 199...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Urmila Devi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugns a judgment dated 16.12.2010 whereby a compensation of Rs.12,92,400/- was awarded for the death of Babu Lal, who died in a motor accident which occurred on 01.05.2007. 2. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant are:- (i) The deceased himself was standing near the rear gate of the bus and had fallen off the bus on account of a jerk. He himself contributed to the accident. The compensation is liable to be reduced by 50% on account of contributory negligence. (ii) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) assumed the deceased’s potential income as a student of MCA to be Rs.27,000/- per month. In the absence of any evidence as to the actual placement, the income taken was highly excessive or exorbitant. The compensation should have been awarded on the basis of the existing income of Rs. 5367/- per month. NEGLIGENCE 3. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that as per ...
Juliana Loieau Vs. British High Commission and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. Vide Ex.P-1, dated October 08, 1982, the appellant was offered appointment as a Nurse, Grade-III at the British High Commission Hospital by the British High Commission. 2. Clause 3, 5 and 6 of Ex.P-1 read as under:- “3. The appointment is temporary and is subject to 12 months‟probation. It carries no right to permanent appointment or promotion nor to pension or gratuity on its termination. The appointment may be terminated on or before the completion of the probationary period without notice or cause assigned. Thereafter it may be terminated by one month‟s notice in writing on either side. xxxx 5. On completion of one year of service, or such extended period as the High Commissioner may require, you will become a member of the British High Commission India Staff Provident Fund, a copy of the Trust Deed and Rules whereof is attached. 6. i. At the discretion of the High Commissioner you will be paid a terminal gratuity calculated on the f...
Yamaha Motor India P. Ltd. Vs. Seema Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. In the decision reported as 106(2003) DLT 708 (DB) „Jindal Aromatic vs. South Coast Spices Exports Pvt. Ltd. ‟, on the subject of novation and accord and satisfaction, in para 23 it was opined as under:- “The legal position which emerges from the aforesaid judgment is that an accord discharges the performance of obligations under the contract. A dispute pertaining to satisfaction furnishes a fresh and independent cause of action, until and unless it is provided that the performance of the satisfaction was a condition precedent for discharge under the contract. If promise is received in satisfaction, it is a good satisfaction, but if the performance and not the promise is intended to operate in satisfaction, then there will be no satisfaction without performance. Wherever there is an accord, obligations under the original contract would be discharged until and unless it is specifically provided that the performance of the satisfaction wo...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. High Polymer Labs Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
SANJIV KHANNA, J: ORAL: 1) In this appeal which pertains to assessment year 1996-97, the following two substantial questions of law were framed vide order dated 22.08.2006: “1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to reduce interest paid by it on bank overdrafts from the interest received on FDRs while calculating deductions under Section 80HHC read with Explanation (baa) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that profit from the sale of EDP receipts under the duty remission scheme cannot be excluded from the profits of business as per Explanation (baa) for purposes of computing the deductions under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2. High Polymer Labs Ltd., the respondent-assessee is a company, which is engaged in exports. For the assessment year in question they had claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act and for the purpos...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »