Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1981Delhi763
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) These are three income-tax references at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. They relate to the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1965-66, the relevant previous years being the years which ended on 30th June immediately preceding. The Commissioner of Income-tax is aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal that the respondent-assessed is entitled to the exemption provided for in section 84(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years above-mentioned. It is common ground that the facts relevant for the decision of the questions are common for all the three assessment years. We shall, thereforee, confine ourselves to the statement of facts as well as the orders of the various authorities in I.T.R. 25 of 1971 which relates to the assessment year 1962-63. Our conclusion for that year will equally apply even .in respect of the other two assessment years, the questions raised being common except that in I.T.R. 107 of 1972. the order of the two...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1991Delhi321
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner in these proceedings is a public company limited under the Companies Act, 1956 and is running a hotel at 8, Windsor Place New Delhi, called 'Hotel Le Meridien. This application has been filed under clause (b) of section 41 read with Ii Schedule of the Arbitration Act 1940 (Act for short) and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) seeking an order restraining the third respondent the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short 'P.P. Act') from proceeding further in pursuance to two notices issued by him under section 4(1) and section 7(3) of that Act. First notice is dated 12-3-1990 for showing cause against order of eviction respecting plot of land measuring 4.29 acres along with entire structure constructed thereon at the crossing of Janpath and Raisina Road at Windsor Place, New Delhi, and the second notice is dated 2-4-1990 for requiring the petitioner to pay arrears of license fee, d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1991)(33)ECC308
1. Being aggrieved with the Order S8/618/ 90-ACC, dated 7-12-1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Madras, M/s. Norsk Data (India) Ltd. have filed this appeal before the Tribunal.2. The issue arising for determination in the present appeal is whether "Software in Source Code in the form of running Computer Sheets" imported by the appellants is eligible for exemption from auxiliary duty of customs in terms of Customs Notification No. 139/90 dated 20-3-1990. The Additional Collector of Customs, Madras, by the impugned order, has held that it is not. "Paper money, printed books (including covers for printed books), periodical (including newspapers), maps, charts, plans, drawings and designs, proofs, music manuscripts and illustrations specially made for binding in books." The Addl. Collector has noted in his order that the Software is "only in sheets without any serial number and not in the form of a printed book/sheets which could be considered to compri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1994]80CompCas228(Delhi)
Arun B. Saharya, J. 1. An application, being C.A. No. 428 of 1991 was filed on May 29, 1991, by the petitioners under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking directions to hold meetings of the equity shareholders; secured creditors and debenture holders; unsecured creditors and fixed deposit holders; and statutory creditors of the first petitioner, namely, HCL Limited, a public limited company incorporated under the Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the existing company') and the equity shareholders of the second petitioner, namely, HCL Hewlett-Packard Ltd., also a public limited company incorporated under the Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the new company') for approving with of without modification, a scheme of arrangement between the existing company and the new company and their respective shareholders. 2. By on order dated May 30, 1991, directions were given for holding separate meetings of the above-mentioned classes. Individual not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003(66)DRJ698
K.S. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of is No. 2912/2002 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 and Section 151 CPC by the plaintiffs and is No. 4479/2002 field under Order XXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC by defendant No.4.2. Allegations insofar as they are relevant for deciding both the applications as made in plaint are that the plaintiffs are owner of plot No.14, admeasuring 3389 sq. mtrs. in Janpath Lane, New Delhi and on 11th February, 2000/18th September, 2000 vide letter No.C-2109-10/CA/BP, the defendant s 1 & 2 conveyed the sanction of building plans putting certain conditions which were complied with by the plaintiffs. Plans were released by defendants 1 & 2 on 5th March, 2001. Thereafter, plaintiffs demolished 12 flats of the old building standing on the plot and started digging foundation. When digging was in progress, the plaintiffs received letter No.D-29-31/CA/STC/N dated 23rd May, 2001 from defendant No.1 asking them not to raise any unauthorised const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003IIAD(Delhi)672; 103(2003)DLT250
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The question which calls for determination is whether, in the factual matrix disclosed in the pleadings of the parties to this petition, Section 395 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') could have been invoked by the Respondents with the intent of compulsorily acquiring the entire shareholding of the Petitioner, namely, AIG (Mauritius) LLC in the erstwhile Respondent No.2, Tata Cellular Limited, Respondent No.1. Tata Televentures (Holdings) Limited, had in terms of its notice dated 24.7.2001, invoking Section 395 of the Act, required the Petitioner to sell its stake in Respondent No.2 at a price of Rs.10/- per share for cash. Counsel for the parties have unanimously contended that I should pronounce on the preliminary issue of whether the said Section has been properly and correctly invoked by Respondent No.1. It is only in the event that this Court comes to the conclusion that Respondent No.1 was authorised, competent and entitled in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2006Delhi83; I(2006)BC484; 2005(2)CTLJ328(Del); 125(2005)DLT104; 2005(85)DRJ314
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing respondent No. 2, the Food Corporation of India (FCI) to award the tender in question in favor of the petitioner as the petitioner is the only tenderer who qualifies the guidelines laid down in the tender document. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated 21.7.2005 by which the Central Government directed the FCI to keep the tender in abeyance. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Greater Kailash, New Delhi. It is engaged in the business of flooring. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that the petitioner is a sole patent holder of the rodent repellent technology and thereforee no other company can manufacture the said product. It is further alleged that the petitioner is well known for its expertise, price and competit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 126(2006)DLT49
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The nature around us is colourful and diverse. It is but natural that man saw, studied and unravelled nature and its laws. The great physicists Dr. R.P. Feynman gave a wonderful description of what is 'understanding the nature'. Suppose we do not know the rules of chess but are allowed to watch the moves of the players. After some time we make out some of the rules. With the knowledge of these rules we may try to understand why a player played a particular move. However, this may be a very difficult task. Even if we know all the rules of chess, it is not so simple to understand all the implications of a game in a given situation and predict the correct move. Knowing the basic rule is, however, the minimum requirement if any progress is to be made.2. By partially watching a game we may guess at a wrong rule. The experienced player may make use of a rule for the first time and the observer of the game may get surprised. Because of the new move some of the rules gu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2006Delhi134; 2006(1)ARBLR265(Delhi); 127(2006)DLT766; 2006(87)DRJ225
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J1. This order shall dispose of is Nos.6880/2005, 6881/2005 and OMP 351/2004. The said OMP has been filed by the petitioner--National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as 'NHAI') under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent China Coal Construction Group Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'China Coal') from interfering in the utilisation by the petitioner of the equipment, temporary works and material lying on the site. It is also prayed by NHAI that in the event China Coal contests the grant of the aforesaid interim injunction and prays for maintenance of status quo, the said China Coal be ordered to bear all the costs for watch and ward, protection of the properties on the site, loss and damage that may occur by way of pilferage, theft and the like during the operation of the order of status quo if passed by this court. is No.6880/2005 is an application fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2006(90)DRJ100
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Rule.2. Final opportunity to file Counter Affidavits within the time permitted by the Court has not been availed of. The factual matrix raises no controversy. The petition is taken up for final disposal.3. One of the questions that has arisen in this Writ Petition has already received the attention of several Single Judges of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Division Bench in Union of India v. Vinay Kumar Agarwal : AIR2005Delhi419 . I have also allowed various writ petitions on this question viz. WP(C) No. 7751/2005 titled Garden View Meadows Private Limited v. Land and Development Officer decided on 11.11.2005, WP(C) No. 6837/2005 titled Anu Mehra v. Union of India decided on 2.8.2005, WP(C) No. 3566/2002 titled M.C. Gupta v. Union of India decided on 5.12.2005 and WP(C) No. 7990-92/2005 7990-92/2005 titled Brij Goel v. Union of India decided on 9.12.2005. Thereafter, a batch of petitions titled Bal Kishore Chhabra v. Union of India : 127(2006)DLT460 were allowed...
Tag this Judgment!