Delhi Court December 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi Vs. Ehpt India P. Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : November 14th, 2011. % Date of Decision : 14th December, 2011. + ITA 1172/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV .....Petitioner Through Mr. Kiran Babu, Sr. Standing Counsel/Income Tax Deptt. versus EHPT INDIA P. LTD. ..... Respondent Through Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate with Ms. Rani Kiyala, Advocate. AND + ITA 1194/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV .... Petitioner Through Mr. Kiran Babu, Sr. Standing Counsel/Income Tax Deptt. versus EHPT INDIA P. LTD. ..... Respondent Through Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate with Ms. Rani Kiyala, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR.1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. To be referred to the Reporters or not Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes R.V. EASWAR, J.: These are two appeals filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act ("Act", for short) against the common or...
Sh. Satish Chander Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secreta ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 11.04.2011 of the Disciplinary Authority (DA) by which a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated under Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 giving a direction that a departmental inquiry should be conducted by the inquiry officer (IO) to be nominated by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, DE Cell, Delhi. 2. The applicant is a Sub-Inspector under Delhi Police and a criminal case No. 11/2002 was started against him under Prevention of Corruption Act pursuant to the FIR/RC No.11(A)/2000. After trial, the Special Judge, PC Act, CBI, Delhi acquitted him on 27.08.2010 from the criminal charge made in the aforesaid case. But on the same very allegations that he demanded and accepted bribe money of Rs.10,000/- for not opposing the bail petition of one Rajiv Chopra S/o Sh. Jagannath Chopra, the impugned disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. 2.1 The order dated 11.04.2011 of the DA states that o...
Sh. P.Madhusudhan Rao Vs. Nvs and ors. Through the Chairman New Delhi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
Hon’ble Shri George Paracken: 1. This is the second round of litigation by the applicant against Annexure P-I order dated 17.4.2009 terminating him from service with immediate effect. He challenged the aforesaid order earlier before this Tribunal in OA-1242/2009 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 14.5.2009 granting liberty to the applicant to prefer an appeal against the same to be considered by the appellate authority on merit. Accordingly, the applicant has submitted an appeal dated NIL and the same was considered by the appellate authority, namely, the Hon’ble Minister of Human Resource Development/Chairman, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS for short) but rejected it. By the impugned Annexure P-2 office order dated 5.10.2009, the said orders of the appellate authority has been communicated to the applicant. Applicant has, once again, challenged the order dated 17.4.2009 terminating his service and also the office order dated 5.10.2009 conveying rejection of his ...
Saranjit Singh Vs. Director, Employment, Gnct of Delhi and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
Hon’ble Shri George Paracken: 1. The applicant while working as Sales Tax Officer in the Sales Tax Department was placed under suspension vide Annexure A-1 order dated 17.1.2001 on the ground that he was involved in certain criminal cases. Later on, his suspension was revoked, vide Annexure-2 order dated 27.3.008 and he was posted as Employment Officer in the Directorate of Employment. Thereafter, he made the Annexure-3 representation dated 27.4.2009 to the respondents to release his increments for the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. He did not get any response from the respondents. Subsequently, he had retired from service on superannuation on 30.11.2010. His prayer in this Original Application is to direct the respondents to release his increments for the aforesaid years so that his subsistence allowance is enhanced and arrears paid to him accordingly. 2. According to the applicant, under FR 24 increments shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course ...
M/S Athiappa Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Puducherry Pollution Control Commi ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
This is an application filed under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 challenging the Order dated 16.11.2011 issued by the Puducherry Pollution Control Committee, Pondicherry under Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution ) Act, 1981 directing the Applicant to stop all the manufacturing activities until the three directions mentioned therein are complied with. At the outset, we may notice that against the order made under Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, an appeal is provided under Section 31 of the said Act which reads as under: Section 31 -- Appeals.(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Board under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to such authority (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority) as the State Government may think fit to constitute: Provided that the Appellate Authority may entertain the appeal after ...
Jaya Prakash Dabral Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forests and Others
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
This application is filed under Section 14 (1) of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 by the parties in person. It is their case that a cause of action had arisen in view of the fact that on 23.6.2011, a crack had occurred in the tunnel which received wide spread publicity in the local newspapers. There is an urgent need to raise the negative impact of the tunnel based hydro power projects. If the construction of the dam is allowed, it may cause irreparable and irreversible loss to the environment. The respondents filed their detailed counters and raised preliminary objection as to maintainability of the very application. Thus, the only point that is being considered in this order is as to maintainability of the application. Therefore, there is no necessity of going into all the details at this stage. According to the applicants, Mandakini River is an important tributary of river Alaknanda which eventually forms River Ganga after merging with River Bhagirathi in Devprayag. That six Hy...
Vimal Bhai and Others Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forests Through ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the grant of Forest Clearance (for short FC) accorded by the First respondent through its Order No. 8-65/2009 FC dated 3rd of June 2011 under which deforestation of 80.507 hectares of government forest land diverted for construction of 65m high diversion dam across river Alakhnanda near village Helong in Chamoli District of Uttarakhand State for the purpose of generating hydroelectricity power. Before going to the facts of this case it may be necessary to notice that the Environmental Clearance (for short EC) was already granted as early as on 22nd August 2007 by the first respondent. Though, it is more than three years, the EC was not challenged and the same is valid. However, after issuance of the FC by the First respondent, questioning the same the present appeal is filed. Thus, the only challenge made is for the grant of FC and not EC. Submissions: According to the appellants, the appellant No. 1 is a Gandhian Social Activist working for the...
Suresh Rana and ors Vs. State of Nct Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No. 4147/2011 % Judgment delivered on:13th December, 2011 SURESH RANA and ORS ..... Petitioners Through : Mr.S.S.Dahiya, Adv versus STATE OF NCT DELHI and ANR .... Respondent Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for State with SI Pawan Kumar, police station Bawana in person. Mr.L. K. Dahiya, Adv for R-2 with respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) Crl.M.A.No.19230/2011(exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of. + CRL.M.C. No. 4147/2011.1. Notice issued. Crl.M.C.No.4147/2011 Page 1 of 4.2. Mr.Navin Sharma, learned APP on behalf of respondent No.1/ State and Mr.L. L. Dahiya, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.2 accept notice..3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.117/2011 dated 02.04.2011 a case under Section 308/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at police station Bawana, Delhi against the petitioners ...
Saguna Sharma @ Guddi and ors Vs. Mahesh Chand Tiwari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. MC 210/2009 Reserved on: 02.11.2011 Pronounced on: 13.12.2011 SAGUNA SHARMA @ GUDDI and ORS. ...... PETITIONERS Through: Mr. Arvind Nayar with Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocates Versus MAHESH CHAND TIWARI ......RESPONDENT Through: Nemo CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J..1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.194/1 of 2007 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and summoning order dated 2.6.2008 passed by learned MM against the petitioners herein..2. The petitioner Saguna Sharma was summoned by learned MM under Section 494 IPC and other petitioners for abating the said offence as also under Section 506 IPC. The petitioners have challenged the said very complaint as well as summoning order dated 2.6.2008..3. Before adverting back to the averments as set out in the present petition seeking quashing of the complaint and the summoning order, it would be essential to see as to w...
Cit Vs. Jet Life India Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos.1276/2011 and 1277/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocate versus JET LIFE INDIA LTD ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER % 13.12.2011 C.M.No.22399/2011 in ITA 1276/2011 C.M.No.22408/2011 in ITA 1277/2011 These are applications for condonation of delay in refiling of the appeals. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay is condoned. The applications are disposed of. ITA Nos.1276/2011 and 1277/2011 These appeals by Revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) impugn order dated 30th November, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITA 1276/2011 and 1277/2011 Page 1 of 5 (tribunal, for short) upholding the order passed by the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting penalty under Section 271E of the Act..2. The Assessing Officer had imposed penalty under Section 271E recording that th...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »