Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-27-2001
Reported in : 2001IVAD(Delhi)549; 2001(59)DRJ17; 2002(1)RAJ482
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 13th October, 1998. The facts leading to the appeal are as follows :- 2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office in New Delhi. It is engaged in the business of marketing and sale of ice cream under the brand name 'Milk Food 100% Ice Cream'. The first respondent is also a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Gaya, Bihar. 3. The appellant and the first respondent entered into an agreement on April 7, 1992 by virtue of which first respondent was to manufacture and pack in its factory for the appellant, range of ice cream that may be mutually agreed upon between the parties from time to time. The agreement was to remain in force for a period of five years. The first respondent was required to deposit a sum of Rs. ten lakhs with the appellant for a per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jun-28-2001
Reported in : (2001)72TTJ(Del)1007
ORDERMiss Moksh Mahajan, A.M.These two appeals filed by the assessed as well by the revenue are consolidated and disposed of by a single order as common issue is involved in both the appeals.2. Taking up the assesses appeal filed in ITA No. 2524/Del/1996 first, Shn Ajay Vohra, the learned authorised representative submitted that the assessed is a charitable trust. The aforesaid trust was started in 1961 by Late Sir Sobha Singh. It has been accepted as a charitable trust right till assessment year 1991-92. The objects of the trust have been listed in clause 30 of the trust deed (p 60 of the paper book). There are as many as 19 objects listed on pp 6 and 7 of the aforesaid trust deed. As per the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act, The assessed is allowed to accumulate 75 per cent of the income, subject to certain conditions. It has to give a notice in writing to the officer in the prescribed manner specifying the purpose for which the income is being accumulated or set apart and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-28-2001
1. These two appeals filed by the assessee as well by the revenue are consolidated and disposed of by a single order as common issue is involved in both the appeals.2. Taking up the assessee's appeal filed in ITA No. 2524/Delhi/96 first, Shri Ajay Vohra, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a Charitable Trust. The aforesaid Trust was started in 1961 by Late Sir Sobha Singh. It has been accepted as a Charitable Trust right till assessment year 1991-1992. The objects of the Trust have been listed in clause 30 of the Trust Deed (page 60 of the paper book). There are as many as 19 objects listed on pages 6 and 7 of the aforesaid Trust Deed.As per the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act, the assessee is allowed to accumulate 75% of the income, subject to certain conditions.It has to give a notice in writing to the officer in the prescribed manner specifying the purpose for which the income is being accumulated or set apart and the period for which the income is to be accumulated or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-07-2001
Reported in : 94(2001)DLT865
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The souring of relationship between joint venture partner's has given rise to the present dispute where the respondent is aggrieved by the alleged infringement of its patents by the appellant. A suit was thus filed by the respondent herein against the appellant for mandatory injunction from manufacturing and advertising as its own and selling the products of respondent for which respondent has registered patents and design, in India or any where in the world for the product range of electric contractors and accessories known as the D2 range. The present appeal arises from the impugned order dated 27.11.2000 of the learned Single Judge allowing interim application of the respondent is No. 8522/99 under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the order dated 27.11.2000 dismissing is No. 6504/2000 filed by the appellant after the judgment had been reserved by the learned Single Judge on the injunction application. 2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-18-2001
Reported in : AIR2001Delhi414; 2001(60)DRJ85
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This appeal has been filed purportedly under Clause (10) of the Letters Parent of Lahore High Court as applicable to Delhi High Court. challenge is to the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 12.2.2001 in FAO 75 OF 2001 holding the same to be not maintainable under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act). Subject matter of the said appeal was order dated 12th January, 2001 passed by the Arbitrator appointed pursuant to the directions given by this court in OMP 173/2000.2. First appeal was filed as an application before the Arbitrator to implead respondents 2 to 6 herein was rejected by the Arbitrator on the ground that there was no arbitration agreement between the appellant and the said respondents and thereforee, there is no question of impleading respondent 2 to 6 herein as parties to the arbitration proceedings. In the FAO, stand of the appellant was that order of the Arbitrator is under Section 16(2) of the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-07-2001
Reported in : 94(2001)DLT925
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The absence of direct legal descendants of late Smt. Sham Devi Kapoor has resulted in contentious litigation between the heirs of her husband on one side and the beneficiary of her alleged Will on the other side.2. The present appeal arises from the impugned order dated 4.4.1979 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Probate Petition No. 13/1972 filed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Anand, the appellant in respect of the Will of late Smt. Sham Devi Kapoor, alleged to have been executed on 26.2.1972 and registered with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi on 28.3.1972. The petition was contested by the legal heirs of Shri J.R. Kapoor, husband of late Smt. Sham Devi Kapoor, who would be the beneficiary of the estate of Smt. Sham Devi Kapoor in the absence of any Will. Shri J.R. Kapoor married twice. The first wife of Mr. J.R. Kapoor was Smt. Puran Devi and the second wife was Smt. Sham Devi Shri J.R. Kapoor had three children-one son and two daughters. The son Shri Chaman Lal also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-12-2001
Reported in : 2001IVAD(Delhi)941; 91(2001)DLT508
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This order shall dispose off is No. 341/2000 being the plaintiff's application for the issuance of ex-parte ad interim injunction under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX and I.A. 342/2000 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 and is 2310/2000 which is the corresponding application of the defendants filed under Rule 4 of the same Order. At the first hearing the following order had been passed :'13.1.2000Present : Mr. P. Chidambram, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajendra Kumar and Ms. Meghna Mishra for the plaintiff.S. No. 72/2000 :Let the plaint be registered.Issue summons to defendants both by ordinary process as well as registered A.D. posts on plaintiff's filing process fee and registered A.D. covers, return able on 24.3.2000.Notice returnable on 24.3.2000.I have perused the petition and the documents filed Along with it. Mr. Chidambram, learned. Sr. Counsel appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff had already obtained registration for its name an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-14-2001
Reported in : (2002)75TTJ(Del)786
ORDERDiva Singh, J.M.This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 4-11-1993, of Commissioner (Appeals)-I, New Delhi. It pertains to the assessment year 1989-90,2. The revenue has raised the following grounds before us :'On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the amount of Rs. 1,11,33,650 representing payments for the user of the rights, know-how technology, etc., despite the definition of royalty in article VIIIA of DTA and the facts of the case being different from M/s. DCM Ltd. relied upon.'3. Learned Departmental Representative places strong reliance on the assessment order and invited our attention to page 3 of the same. It was submitted by her that the issue revolves around the finding whether the transaction is a case of transfer of technology or user of technology and the assessing officer has made a categorical finding after examining the issue in detail that this is a case of user of technology...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Aug-14-2001
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dt. 4th Nov., 1993, of CIT(A)-I, New Delhi. It pertains to the asst. yr.1989-90. "On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned C1T(A) has erred in deleting the amount of Rs. 1,11,33,650 representing payments for the user of the rights, know-how technology, etc., despite the definition of royalty in Article VIIIA of DTA and the facts of the case being different from M/s DCM Ltd. relied upon." 3. Learned Departmental Representative places strong reliance on the assessment order and invited our attention to page 3 of the same. It was submitted by her that the issue revolves around the finding whether the transaction is a case of transfer of technology or user of technology and the AO has made a categorical finding after examining the issue in detail that this is a case of user of technology and as such it is taxable. It was contended by her that there was no dispute over the fact that the provision of the Double T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-21-2001
Reported in : AIR2001Delhi380; 90(2001)DLT805; 2001(59)DRJ281
ORDERO.P. Dwivedi, J:1. The petitioner namely All India Lawyers Forum for Civil Liberties (AILFCL) through its President Mr. O.P. Saxena, Advocate, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a through CBI probe into the affairs of Medical Council of India, respondent No. 2 and Santosh Medical & Dental College, Ghaziabad respondent No. 4 which is being run by a Trust known as Maharaja Educational Trust, respondent No. 3 herein. The said Medical College got due affiliation from the Meerut University. The Trust had initially applied to the Government of India seeking permission to establish a medical college with 150 admissions annually. But vide letter dated 15.1.96, Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, granted permission under section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to admit only 50 students annually and this permission was granted for a period of one year to be renewed on yearly basis subject to the verification ...
Tag this Judgment!