Delhi Court November 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.
Sood Brij and Associates Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) has been preferred by Sood Brij & Associates, a partnership firm, consisting of two partners namely A.K. Sood and B.M. Gupta, who are practicing Chartered Accountants. In their return for the assessment year 2007-08, Rs.21,40,000/- was claimed as a deduction towards salary/remuneration paid to the partners. This was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground of violation of Section 40(b)(v). The appellant-assessee has been unsuccessful in appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (tribunal, for short). The impugned order of the tribunal is dated 29th October, 2010.2. After hearing the counsel, the following substantial question of law is framed:-" Whether on reading of clause 7 of the partnership deed dated 1st May,1976 and clauses 1 and 2 of the supplementary partnership deed dated 1st April,1992, the tribunal was right in holding ...
Laj Gandhi Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The petition seeks mandamus to the respondent DDA to convert the leasehold rights in the land underneath the property No.A-1/111, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110 029 into freehold. Notice of the petition was issued and pleadings have been completed. The counsels for the parties have been heard.2. The petitioner admits that notwithstanding the term in the Perpetual Lease of the land aforesaid, requiring the use of the construction thereon for residential purposes only, the property was let out to the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) during the period from 01.08.1973 to 31.01.1982 for use as office but with the permission of the respondent DDA. The petitioner further admits that thereafter the property was let out vide Lease Deed dated 01.07.1982 to Educational Consultants of India Ltd. (EDCIL) for use as its Consultancy Office, Guest House / Transit Accommodation etc. subject to the permission being granted by the respondent DDA; however no such permission was obtai...
P. Thulasidhass Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The petitioner pursuing his Ph.D. (Provisional) first year in the Centre for International Legal Studies (CILS), School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) filed this petition impugning the process of selection of candidates to the Fox International Fellowship 2010-2011 and seeking stay of the recommendations made therefor.2. The petition came up before this Court first on 7 th May, 2010 when this Court asked for the records to be produced by the respondent University. On 18th May, 2010, the counsel for the respondent University informed that four students had been selected by the Selection Committee for Fox International Fellowship against two names and placed the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee constituted by the Vice- Chancellor for award of Fox International Fellowship for the year 2010- 2011 before this Court. This Court was also told that of the four students, only one namely Ms. Abha Yadav had been finally chosen by the Yale University, USA (in...
Anita Vs. Rati Ram Chauhan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. By this petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of the Judgment dated 10th September, 2010 passed in case number 95/2010 by the learned Additional Principal Judge dismissing the application of the Petitioner seeking maintenance from the Respondent under Section 125 Cr. P.2. Briefly the facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23rd February, 1996. The Petitioner claims that the Respondent and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry articles presented at the time of marriage. They started ill treating her and raised a demand of Rs. 1 Lac and a car. On 17th April, 1996 the Respondent, his father and sister pushed her down from the roof of the matrimonial home resulting in serious injuries to the Complainant. She was then removed by the neighbors to Gupta Nursing Home. The nursing home however did not admit her and referred her instead to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. On 27th April, 1996 the Petitioner was discharged from Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and s...
Ms Maharia Raj Jv and anr. Vs. Ms Bhandari Engineers and Builders.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The present application (IA No. 1668 of 2010) has been filed by the National Highways Authority of India (`NHAI'), which is Respondent No. 3 in OMP No. 220 of 2006, seeking the vacation of an interim order dated 17th June 2009.2. The background to the application is that OMP No. 220 of 2006 is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (`Act') challenging the arbitral award dated 10th January 2006 of the arbitral tribunal allowing some of the claims of Respondent No. 1 M/s Bhandari Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (`BEBPL') against the Petitioners 1 and 2 and two others. Notice was issued in the main OMP on 4th July 2006 and later it was clubbed with other OMPs filed by the other parties to the arbitral proceedings. IA No. 7932 of 2009 was filed in OMP No. 220 of 2006 by BEBPL in which order was passed on 17th June 2009 by this Court directing status quo to be maintained.3. Petitioner No. 1 M/s Maharia Raj - JV, a joint venture comprising Petitioners 1...
P. Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India Through Secretary (R), Cabinet Secr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. For the reasons mentioned in MA No.1664/2011, we recall our order dated 02.06.2011 and restore the Original Application to its original number. With consent of learned counsel representing the parties, the main matter is taken on board and arguments have been heard. 2. P. Surersh Kumar, the applicant herein has been ignored in the matter of promotion to the post of Under Secretary in the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) that met for the purpose on 12.08.2010. Immediate junior of the applicant, Shri S. S. Upadhayay, having been found fit, has been promoted as Under Secretary. In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the prayer of the applicant is to set aside the impugned order dated 17.09.2010. It appears from the records of the case that the applicant was issued a memorandum dated 24.05.2010, vide which his below benchmark ACRs for the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 were c...
Korada Sreenivasa Rao Vs. Professor Samir Kumar Brahmachari Secretary ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
(ORAL): V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. The order was passed only on 9.09.2011. Admittedly, no time frame has been given for implementing the order. We are of the view that no contempt would be competent when no time limit has been prescribed and only a period of two months has gone by when the order was passed. 2. In view of the above circumstances, if the applicant, who appears in person, may feel appropriate, he may make Miscellaneous Application requiring the respondents to carry out the directions in a time bound manner. With this observation, Contempt Petition is closed....
Mohit Sharma Vs. Staff Selection Commission Through Its Chairman, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 10.10.2011 by which he was informed that he had wrongly coded his Roll Number on the front page of his OMR Answer Sheet and following the instructions given in the OMR Answer Sheet itself he was awarded zero mark in Paper-II. 2. It is the case of the applicant that he was a candidate of the Graduate Level Examination of 2011 in respect of Group-A and Group-B posts. He had successfully cleared Tier-I Examination and in Tier-II Examination there were two papers: (i) Mathematics and (ii) English. He had scored good marks in Mathematics and was expecting equally good performance in the English paper. He drew our attention to his representation where it is stated that he had scored 115.75 marks in Part-I and 143.00 in Mathematics paper. He was expecting about 130 marks in the English paper which would have taken his score to 389 marks whereas the cut off marks for inviting candidates to the interview was 354.75. 3. ...
Roopa R. Joshi Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Department of Eco ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. Roopa R. Joshi, an Indian Economic Service officer of 1970 batch, the applicant herein, sequel to a regular departmental enquiry held against her, has since been dismissed from service vide order dated 07.03.2008. The applicant, against the order aforesaid, preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 12.06.2008 as being incompetent on the ground that the same was filed before the President, and the impugned order was a Presidential order, and, therefore, there would be no appeal competent in the matter. It is the case of the applicant that she was never served with the order passed on her appeal, and it is only along with the communication dated 07/09.12.2009 that the said order was enclosed, when the applicant complained of non-decision on her appeal. The applicant claims that the period for computing limitation to file the present Original Application would commence from the date she received communication dated 07/09.12.2009, and, therefore, the same would be...
Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
BY DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY: 1. The Applicant, a retired employee of the DTC, seeks through this OA directions for grant of pensionary benefits. The following reliefs have been sought: “8. A. Direct the respondent to release the pension to the Applicant with effect from 1.6.1993 and all other pensionary benefits with interest @ 12% p.a., compounded annually therefrom. Direct the respondent to provide complete due and drawn statement to reflect the correct and exact amount of arrears payable to the Applicant whilst giving him the benefit of commutation, with compound interest @ 12% p.a. Direct respondent to pay pension to the Applicant month by month, and in case of default, to quash the order of acceptance of Voluntary Retirement and reinstate the Applicant with full back wages. Any other writ/order(s) the Hon’ble Court deems fit be also passed.” Learned counsels, Ms. Kitoo Bajaj and Shri N.K. Singh representing Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat would argue respectively for the applicant...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »