.....has led to filing of the present writ petition. w.p.(c) 2588/2018 page 1 of 3 2. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the rules of delhi street vendors (protection of livelihood and regulation of street vending) rules 2017 have been notified on 10.01.2018, the petitioner would approach the town vending committee (tvc) with the supporting documents. he seeks a direction that as and when the tvc is constituted, his name should be considered and merely because he is not found vending at the site when the survey is conducted, that should not a ground to reject his case.3. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the area in question is no hawking zone and the street vendors have been removed as and when the drive is conducted. however, they return back to the area in question. learned counsel without admitting any of the averments made in the writ petition, submits that should the petitioner make an application with supporting documents before the tvc, the same would be considered in accordance with law and merely because the petitioner is not found squatting, that itself alone would not be a ground to reject the case.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of si/gd through limited departmental competitive examination, 2014 (in short, „ldce‟) with all consequential benefits.2. a brief glance at the facts of the case is considered necessary. on 01.05.2004, the petitioner was inducted in the crpf as constable/gd in the general category. in june, 2010, the respondents issued so no.01/2010, proposing to conduct ldce for appointment to the post of si/gd in the crpf. in october, 2011, the aforesaid so was amended vide addendum dated 11.10.2011, indicating some changes in the procedure of conducting the ldce and vide signal dated 02.12.2011, it was directed that there shall be no separate reservation of vacancies for the obc candidates for w.p.(c) 6399/2017 page 1 of 4 appointment to the subject post through ldce. the petitioner submitted his application through proper channel for participating in the ldce. he qualified in the written examination as also in the subsequent stages of the selection process, i.e., physical standard test, physical efficiency test, checking of testimonial service records and medical examination. when the results of the ldce were declared, the petitioner did not find his name in the list of selected.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....through: mr. a.k. gautam, advocate for respondent no.1 mr. digvijay rai, advocate for respondent-aai coram: hon'ble mr. justice sunil gaur order (oral) impugned order of 12th december, 2017 (annexure-f) is not in compliance with this court’s order of 3rd november, 2017 (annexure-e) vide which fourth respondent was directed to pass a speaking order on petitioner’s representation of 22nd february, 2017 (annexure-d colly.).2. the stand of petitioner in the representation (annexure-d colly.) is that a composite promotion letter of 31st august, 2015 (annexure-a) vide which petitioner was also promoted was displayed on social media only and was neither officially served upon her nor was it sent to her parent unit and so, petitioner could not join on the promoted post.3. impugned order does not deal with the aforesaid crucial aspect, which renders it unsustainable and is thus quashed. the fourth respondent w.p.(c) 2536/2018 page 1 of 2 is hereby directed to decide petitioner’s representation (annexure-d colly.) afresh by a detailed speaking order while dealing with each of the averments made in the representation, within a period of four weeks from today and its fate be.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....present case, the petitioner neither holds a tehbazari licence nor has his name in any list prepared by the respondent no.1 and the protection under section 3 (3) of the act.6. even further, learned counsel for the respondent has handed over in court a copy of the order dated 03.05.2017 passed by a division bench of this court in paardarshita public welfare foundation (ngo) thus, cannot claim w.p.(c) 2590/2018 page 2 of 3 commissioner v. south delhi municipal corporation & ors., w.p. (c) 5023/2015 to show that this court had directed measures to be taken to remove the encroachments on pavement to ensure hindrance free movements of the pedestrians.7. based on the stand taken by the learned counsels for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition with the following agreed directions:-"(i) in case the petitioner makes an application along with supporting documents to the town vending committee, as w.p.(c).4844/2017 page 4 of 4 and when functional. the tvc will consider the same in accordance with law (ii) merely because the petitioner is not found vending at the site when the survey is conducted, that by itself would not be a ground alone to reject his case.” 3. heard.4. we find.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....made under section 14a of the income tax act, 1961 [hereafter “the 1961 act”]. read with rule 8d(2)(iii) of the income tax rules, in the facts and circumstances?. (ii) did the tribunal fall into error in holding that the transactions between the assessee and its associated enterprise (ae) had to be disregarded for the purpose of arm‟s length ita3032018 & ita3102018 page 1 of 8 price (alp) determination under section 92c of the 1961 act?.” 2. the third question urged by the assessee is with respect to the interpretation of section 32(1)(iia). this is the compulsory allowance of the claim of additional depreciation amounting to ₹538,66,55,780/- under section 32 (iia) of the act holding the same as mandatory.3. facts in respect of this issue are that the assessee claimed depreciation amounting to ₹503.24 crore apart from additional depreciation (₹538.66 crore) in the revised return. later, by a letter dated 07.01.2005 filed during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee withdrew the claim of additional depreciation amounting to ₹538.66 crore. resultantly, the original deduction claim under section 80ib from ₹2042.81 crore shot up to ₹2579.07.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 394 ipc.3. the factual matrix emerging from the record is that on 26.07.2010 around 00:40 a.m., on receipt of a missing report by rajesh singh in respect of naresh bhatti vide dd no.3a crl.a. 695/2016 & 867/2016 page 2 of 42 (ex.pw25/a), si arvind kumar made efforts to trace the missing person i.e. the deceased. later in the morning on 26.07.2010, information was received from insp.ashok of police station sohna, haryana that a dead body was found in the above said car near palwal road. the complainant krishan kumar proceeded to the spot. he identified and received the dead body of his brother naresh bhatti. thereafter, the complainant krishan kumar got his statement recorded in the police station at 5.10 p.m. on 26.07.2010. in his statement, krishan kumar stated that his elder brother naresh bhatti was working as manager in the shop of his brother-in-law rajesh singh in the name and style of sri krishna steel and cement store, situated at plot no.57, u block, new roshanpura, main gurgaon najafgarh road, delhi. on 25.07.2010 at about 7 p.m., naresh.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....coram: hon'ble mr. justice s.p.garg + s.p.garg, j.(oral) 1. present writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india read with section 482 cr.p.c. has been filed by the petitioner to seek directions to the trial court to expedite the process of taking cognizance of the charge-sheet filed under sections 498a/4ipc. status report not filed.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. only grievance of the petitioner is that despite filing of charge-sheet long back, the learned trial court has not taken any decision to take cognizance.3. perusal of the file reveals that the charge-sheet was filed in the court in 2016. however, till date no cognizance has been taken. w.p.(crl.) 796/2018 page 1 of 2 record reveals that various dates have been given by the learned presiding officer for consideration of the charge-sheet / limitation for taking cognizance of the offence. however, till date no effective proceedings have been conducted. it has resulted in delay in the further trial of the case and the proceedings have remained at the initial stage.4. learned addl. standing counsel for the respondent urges to direct the trial court to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to the petitioners and was never deposited in the r.d. she further submits that no benefit can accrue in favour of the lac on account of the fact that the compensation was deposited in the rd, at the first instance. additionally, there is no document on record to show that the petitioners were ever declined the acceptance of the compensation. on the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amount deposited in r.d. was later on withdrawn and deposited with respect to another award bearing no.1/1993-94. she relies on section 24(2) of the 2013 act to support her argument that the condition for payment of compensation has not been fulfilled. hence, petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings stand lapsed. w.p. (c) no.11150/2015 page 3 of 4 7. we have heard learned counsel for the parties. as per the counter affidavit filed by the lac, the amount of compensation was deposited in rd, but subsequently withdrawn and deposited with respect to another award. the counter is completely silent as to whether the amount of compensation was ever offered or tendered to the petitioners. taking into consideration the submission made and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....appeal no.20/2011 title as dharmender choudhary v. state & ors. wherein the learned asj has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.2. the brief facts stated are that an fir no.7under sections 420/448/341/120-b ipc was registered on 01.07.1997 on the instance of bhupender choudhary and dharmender choudhary sons of mr. m.s. choudhary at police station lajpat nagar, new delhi alleging therein that on 14.05.1997 mr. m.p.g. singh had sold the property bearing no.c-111 east of kailash, new delhi to him i.e. mr. bhupender choudhary and dharmender choudhary . as per the sale deed a part of aforesaid property was delivered to them on same day but the possession of the remaining portion could not be taken as it was in the possession of alok ahuja (respondent no.3) who is the husband of the niece of m.p.g. singh. on the same date i.e. 14.05.1997 petitioner’s family friend ashwani chugh shifted in the aforesaid portion and kept his personal belonging in said bedroom. when he returned in the evening after taking meals he was restrained to enter the premises by the security guard, mrs. jasmine ahuja and mr. alok ahuja. thereafter, the petitioner was informed by ashwani chugh that they.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....2. before the rival submissions of the learned senior counsels appearing for the parties can be considered, we deem it appropriate to set out basic facts which led to the dispute between the parties.3. parties entered into an agreement for distribution of products of the appellant by an agreement dated 24.10.2002. no doubt, the said agreement was with respect to the colour televis ions. the claim of the respondent is based on clause 24 of the agreement, which reads as under:-"“24. the distributor shall not incur or commit itself or on behalf of the company any expenditure in regard to advertisements/ schemes or of whatsoever nature without written authorized representative.” company’s the approval of 4. the transactions between the parties came to an end on 21.09.2005. the respondent filed a suit for rendition of accounts and for recovery to the tune of rs.45,56,947/- against the appellant herein in the month of december, 2007 at varanasi. the appellant herein filed an application under section 8 of the act relying upon clause 30 of the agreement, which was initially opposed by filing a reply by the respondent herein. however, soon thereafter the respondent issued a legal.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT