Delhi Court January 2011 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.
Deepak Khosla Vs. Delhi High Court and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes. 1. This Contempt Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner against seven Respondents out of which Respondent No. 1 is Delhi High Court and Respondent No. 2 is Registrar of Delhi High Court. Other three Respondents are Advocates and two are private persons. In the Contempt Petition, the Petitioner has alleged that Registry of this Court had not followed the instructions given by a Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment "Deepak Khosla & Anr. v. Union of India" dated 8th October, 2009 in WP (C) 7651 of 2009. He submitted that this Court vide aforesaid judgment treated the Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation and issued directions in Para No. 12 & 13 of the judgment in respect of Vakalatnamas being filed in the Courts, more specifically when the Vakalatnama was executed not by the principal himself...
Binoj Cherian and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the order? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the order should be reported in Digest? Yes 1. The challenge in these petitions is to the policy dated 5 th November 2008 and a consequent decision contained in circular dated 24th March 2009 of the Delhi Development Authority (`DDA) to the effect that the benefit of refund of 20% surcharge consequent upon the judgment dated 13 th December 2007 of the Supreme Court in Renu Bali v. DDA, would be given only to original allottees and not the purchasers/general power of attorney (GPA) holders. The consequent decision of the Settlement Committee headed by the Chief Legal Adviser, DDA taken at the meeting of the said Committee on 21st August 2009 rejecting the cases of the Petitioners for refund of 20% surcharge is also under challenge.2. The Petitioners are purchasers of flats constructed by the Respondent DDA under the Self-Finance Scheme (`SFS) at Sheikh Sarai, N...
Progressive Constructions Ltd. Vs. M/S Sharma and Associates Contracto ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes2. To be referred to Reporters or not Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest ?1. By this order we intend to dispose of the captioned appeal preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.11.2004 passed in suit no. 492/1999. The learned Single Judge, by virtue of the impugned judgment has sustained the award of the learned Arbitrator dated 18.02.1999. The appellant before us, i.e., Progressive Constructions Ltd. (hereinafter in short referred to as PCL) was the original respondent before the learned arbitrator, while the respondent herein, i.e., Sharma & Associates Construction (P) Ltd. (hereinafter in short referred to as SAPL) was the original claimant. We would be referring to the parties by their names, as indicated hereinabove.2. Before the learned arbitrator SAPL had referred seven (7) claims. By virtue of the award the arbitrator allowed claim nos. 1 to 3. Res...
Naseem Bano @ Naseem Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant convicted by the trial Court under Section 3, 4 & 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (ITPA) in FIR No. 45/2002 PS Kamla Market. This was third conviction of the appellant under ITP offence. The other two convictions were in case FIR No. 375/2001 and FIR No. 456/2001. She was sentenced to undergo four years RI and fine under Section 3 of ITP. RI for two years and fine under Section 4 and RI for 5 years and fine under Section 5 of ITP Act. All sentences were to run concurrently. The Court also ordered closure of the portion of kotha no. 57 occupied by convict within 07 days under Section 18(1) of ITP Act.2. In order to come to conclusion that it was the appellant who was running kotha no. 57 second floor, GB Road Delhi, trial Court mainly relied upon documentary evidence which ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. Regard being had to the similarity of the questions involved in thesethree appeals, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by asingular order.2. In this batch of appeals preferred under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for brevity the Act), the assail is to the composite orderdated 25.8.2009 in ITA Nos.1884/Del/2006, 2724/Del/07 and 2038/Del/08pertaining to the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-03 and 2003-04respectively passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short `thetribunal) by the appellant revenue raising the following substantialquestions of law:"(1) Whether learned ITAT erred in holding that exercise ofRevisionary Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 was invalid?(2) Whether learned ITAT erred in setting aside the order ofthe CIT under Section 2...
Uoi and ors. Vs. Dr. Manoj Singhania and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. Heard Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Savita Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Dr. Rakesh Gosain, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.2. The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 27th May, 2008 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3948/2007.3. Ordinarily we would have adverted to the facts and the justifiability of the order passed by the learned single Judge but the same is not necessary as what has been stated before us.4. It is worth noting in paragraph 41 of the order impugned, the learned single Judge has directed thus:- "41. For the foregoing reasons the order dated 3rd May, 2007 terminating the training of the petitioner in DNB 3rd year in the Department of Medicine, Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi is set aside and the petitioner is reinstated with a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete his course and training in accordance with rules. ...
Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?1. Appellant in all the three appeals is Central Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred as the assessee). All these three appeals raise common questions of law. Three appeals are because of the reason that these common questions arise in three different assessment years namely, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98. However, the Tribunal has decided these appeals by common order dated 31st March, 2008. Therefore, it is this decision of the Tribunal which is under challenge in all these three appeals and that was the reason to hear these three appeals together which are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Before we take note of the questions of law, we reproduce the relevant facts herein. 3. The appellant is a Government of India Undertaking, established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 and...
Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. National Highways Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes 1. This Appeal is directed against the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.3.2010 passed in OMP No.484/2009. The learned Single Judge had turned down a request under Section 9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C; Act for short) to pass an interim order restraining the Respondents from implementing and/or enforcing or otherwise giving effect to its letter nos. NHAI/40020/Tech-III/EW-III/2006/WB-4/735 and NHAI/PIU/ Araria/ escalation/2009 dated July 20, 2009 and July 29, 2009 respectively, Annexures P-1 and P-2 to the petition. Further, the Court had declined the prayer for restraining the Respondent/NHAI from deducting any amounts from the payments due to the petitioner or otherwise recovering any payments in pursuance of the said letters until the eventual resolution of the dispute between th...
Darshan Lal Nagpal and ors. Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?1. The land of the petitioners herein comprising of Khasra Nos.5/21,22/2,6/21, 23/1 (min), 23/2 (min), 5/24, 25,24 (min), 23, 5/9/1alongwith other chunk of land has been acquired by the respondent no.1for the public purpose i.e. for the development of 400 X 220 KV GridStations in village Mandoli. The total area which is acquired is 80 bighaand 15 biswa area belonging to various persons of the said village. Out of this, land of the petitioners covered by the aforesaid Khasra nos. is approximately 150 big has. For the purpose of acquisition of the aforesaid land, Notification dated 13th October, 2009 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) stating that land described herein i.e. land in question was likely to be acquired for public purpose namely for establishmen...
Car-o-liner Ab..Decree Holder Vs.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in Digest?E.A. No. 120/20081. These are the Objections filed by Mr Deepak Sharma to attachment of House No. N-30, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi.2. A decree for recovery of Rs 63,97,128.32/- with costs and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 5.25% per annum was passed by this Court in favour of the Decree Holder and against TTC Laser Machine Pvt. Ltd. on 08th February, 2007. Since the decree was passed only against TTC Laser Machine Pvt. Ltd., the property, belonging to the company alone, could have been attached in execution of the decree.3. The Decree Holder filed 543/2007 seeking attachment of a number of properties, including House No. N-30, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, alleging therein that those properties belonged to the Judgment Debtor. No document was, however, filed alongwith this application to show that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »