Court : Delhi
1. These petitions, both under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugn the common order dated 14th February, 2007 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi exercising jurisdiction as an Appellate Authority under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) allowing PPA No.188/2005 and PPA No.189/2005, filed by the respondent in CM(M) No.635/2008 and CM (M) No.636/2008 respectively, thereby setting aside the order dated 3rd October, 2005 of the Estate Officer of the petitioner Land and Development Officer (LandDO) of eviction of the respondent in both the petitions from the premises measuring 3255 sq. ft. situated at Plot No.1, Block No.124, known as 12 Partap Singh Building, Janpath Lane, Janpath, New Delhi. 2. Notice of both the petitions was issued and vide orders dated 8th April, 2009, the petitions admitted for hearing. The petitions are being listed together since entail the same facts and emanate from the common or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit to claim the following reliefs: A. Pass decree of permanent and mandatory injunction restraining defendant No.5 through itself or through any other defendant from selling/ transferring/ alienating/ mortgaging/ changing the nature of and/ or creating any third party interest in respect of properties belonging to defendant No.5 company at Sector 77, Faridabad, Haryana, and/ or; B. Pass decree of permanent and mandatory injunction restraining defendant No.5 from altering the shareholding pattern of the company in any form and manner; and/ or; C. Pass decree of permanent and mandatory injunction restraining defendant No.3 from selling/ transferring/ alienating/ mortgaging and/or creating any third party interest in respect of the shares of defendant No.5 company held in its name; and/ or; D. Pass a decree of declaration that share purchase agreement dated 15.02.2010, and all related transactions between the defendants with regard to the shares ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. Nortel Networks India International Inc. (hereafter the Assessee ) has preferred the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act ) against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ITAT ). ITA Nos. 669/2014, 671/2014 and 672/2014 are appeals preferred by the Assessee against a common order dated 13th June, 2014 passed by the ITAT in ITA Nos. 1119, 1120 and 1121/Del/2010, which were appeals preferred by the Assessee against a common order dated 22nd December, 2009 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter 'CIT(A)'] in respect of Assessment Years (AYs) 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. The common order dated 22nd December, 2009 passed by CIT(A) disposed of the appeals preferred by the Assessee against two separate assessment orders both dated 18th December, 2006 passed by the Assessing Officer (hereafter 'AO') under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act in respect of the AYs 2003-04 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. Unitech Holdings Limited (hereafter 'the Assessee') has filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugning a notice dated 11th December, 2014 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'the Act') initiating re-assessment proceedings for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. The Assessee further impugns an order dated 9th November, 2015 disposing of the Assessee's objections to the initiation of re-assessment proceedings. 2. The Assessee is a Non Banking Financial Company (NBFC) and is wholly owned subsidiary of Unitech Limited, a widely held public company, which is engaged in, inter alia, the business of construction and development of real estate. 3. The Assessee filed its return of income for AY 2010-11 on 12th October, 2010 declaring an income of Rs.35,22,210/-. The said return was picked up for scrutiny and, thereafter, an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 26th March, 2013 assessing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. Introduction 1. The common question in this batch of matters pertains to the constitutional validity of Section 28 (11) of the Customs Act, 1962 ( Act )which was inserted by the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 ( Validation Act, 2011 ) with effect from 16th September 2011. In terms of Section 28 (11) of the Act, all persons appointed as Customs Officers under Section 4 (1) of the Act prior to 6th July 2011 shall be deemed to have and always had the power of assessment under Section 17 and shall be deemed to have been and always had been the proper officers..... 2. Section 28(11) of the Act states that the provision would take effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court of law, tribunal or other authority. However, this amendment adversely impacts the Petitioners herein in that it seeks to validate the show-cause notices ( SCNs ) issued prior to 6th July 2011 by not only officers of the Custom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 07.07.2011 passed by Mr. S.S. Malhotra, Additional District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by virtue of which the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of six months delay in filing the appeal has been dismissed. 2. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Bansal, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Sudhinder, Advocate on behalf of the respondent. 3. Before dealing with the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be pertinent here to give brief background of the case. 4. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming himself to be in possession of a land bearing Khasra No. 367 min., measuring 3 bighas 4 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village Kondli, illaqa Shahdara, Tehsil Preet Vihar, Delhi. It was alleged by the respondent/plaintiff that the appellant/defendant DDA has no right, title or interest in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Though arising out of two separate proceedings and two separate orders being challenged in the above captioned appeals, the factual backdrop though different but giving birth to the same legal issue, is the reason why the two appeals are being decided by a singular decision. Whereas Videocon Industries challenges the order dated July 21, 2015 passed in CS (OS) No.2074/2015, wherein the learned Single Judge has, in an anti-suit injunction matter, directed the Arbitral Tribunal comprising Hon ble Justice (Retd.) G.T.Nanawati, Hon ble Justice (Retd.) J.K.Mehra and Sh.Soli J.Sorabjee, Senior Advocate to hold arbitral proceedings only at Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) and has restrained the Tribunal from holding a hearing at Colombo (Sri Lanka); Cairn India Ltd., Ravva Oil (Singapore) and Videocon Industries Ltd. challenge the order dated August 14, 2015 passed in CS (OS) No.2445/2015 in a suit filed by the Union of India restraining the defendants in the suit from partici...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. Mr. Deepak Khosla, the applicant petitioner, seeks recall of the following: (1) The common order dated 08.09.2014 disposing of LPA 550/2014 and LPA 583/2014; (2) The order of the same day, i.e. 08.09.2014 by which the Court directed initiation of criminal contempt proceedings. 2. The LPA 550/2014 was directed against the order dated 21.08.2014 made in contempt proceedings. LPA 583/2014 in respect of the order of a learned Single Judge made in a company appeal, under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter called Companies Act ). 3. Contempt Case No 165/2008 was pending, in which the applicant, was party. A Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 24.04.2012 in LPA 16/2014 had directed that the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 04.01.2012 be treated as a show cause notice, to the applicant. His grievance in the appeal, LPA 550/2014 was in respect of directions made by the learned Single Judge, specially pertaining to his enrolment as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 22nd August, 2014 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi in PPA No.8/2014 whereby the Order dated 6th January 2014 passed by the Estate Officer of the petitioner was set aside. 2. Briefly recapitulating the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that late Cdr. S. K. Sharma, husband of the respondent herein, was allotted Ministry of Defence pool accommodation bearing No.D-II/274, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi while he was posted at Naval Headquarters w.e.f. 27th December, 1991. It is stated that on his posting out of Naval Headquarters to Mumbai w.e.f. 22nd June 1992 he was permitted to retain accommodation upto 31st March, 1993 on the ground of his children education. 3. It is stated that as per the Ministry of Defence Accommodation Rules the officer was required to vacate the accommodation by 31st March, 1993. The Officer unauthorisedly overstayed beyond the permissible period and hence was l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Oral: The petitioner has challenged the suspension order whereby his driving licence has been suspended under Section 19(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Factual matrix 2.1 The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 18th January, 2016 to show cause why he should not be disqualified for holding a driving licence under Section 19(1)(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The relevant portion of the notice dated 18th January, 2016 is reproduced hereunder: "Show Cause Notice Whereas, it has been informed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Traffic) that you have been challaned for the violation of Section 112(1)/183(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and requested this office to suspend your driving license as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety. And, Whereas, the undersigned the licensing authority is empowered to disqualify you from holding a driving license for a specific period or rev...
Tag this Judgment!