Delhi Court May 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.
Cit Vs. Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. The captioned reference has been preferred at the behest of the Revenue. The reference pertains to assessment year 1977-78 relevant for previous year ending on 30.09.1976. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal) by order dated 20.05.1994 has referred to us for adjudication the following question of law: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that surplus of Rs 58,32,100/- is not taxable in the assessee's total income? 2. The brief facts, in so far as they are relevant for adjudication of the aforementioned question, which are required to be noted (as gleaned from the orders passed by the authorities below), are as follows: The assessee entered into an agreement dated 24.07.1962 (hereinafter referred to as „Agreement) with one Mr E. Manekji of Karachi, Pakistan for sale of its two cement factories located at Karachi and at Dandot, Distt. Jhelum. The agreement envisaged that the purchase...
Nupur Roy Chowdhury Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. The petitioner employed with the respondent University of Delhi as a Reader in the Faculty of Music & Fine Arts, claiming to be eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme, 1998 had applied therefor and appeared before the Selection Committee in December, 2008 but was not promoted and was advised to apply afresh after one year. 2. This writ petition was filed impugning the aforesaid action of the respondent University. It was also the case of the petitioner that though she had applied for promotion after one year in the year 2009 also but no steps were taken by the respondent University. 3. Notice of the writ petition was issued. 4. On 28th September, 2010 the counsel for the respondent University informed that the case of the petitioner for promotion could not be considered in the year 2009 or thereafter because the Selection Committee could not be constituted as there was vacancy of Visitor's nominee in the Selection Co...
T.P. Singh Vs. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. The petitioner working as a teacher with the respondent no.2 Guru Harkishan Public School, Fateh Nagar, Delhi has preferred this petition impugning the Office Order dated 28 th June, 2010 of the respondent no.1 Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee of transfer of the petitioner from Guru Harkishan Public School, Fateh Nagar, Delhi to Guru Harkishan Public School, Loni Road. Notice of the petition was issued and the operation of the order dated 28th June, 2010 stayed. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.3 Directorate of Education inter alia stating that they are not involved in any way with the transfer order. 2. The counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 have invited attention to the judgment dated 20 th April, 2011 in WP(C)971/2011 filed by the petitioner alongwith some other teachers also working in Guru Harkishan Public School, Fateh Nagar, Delhi. In the said judgment it was recorded that the Directorate of Education had ...
Sanjay Vs. Financial Commissioner, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. The writ petition pertains to consolidation proceedings in village Rawta, New Delhi. It is not in dispute that the consolidation proceedings had commenced in the year 1993 and concluded in the year 2003-2004. 2. The petitioner claims that he owned land jointly with the respondent no.4 to 7 in the said village and further claims that as per the scheme of consolidation he along with the respondent no.4 to 7 was, on re-partition, entitled to land equivalent to having standard value of 2 bighas 6 biswas. It is however claimed that in the land allotted to the petitioner and the respondents no.4 to 7 there was a deficiency to the extent of 12 biswas. 3. The petitioner did not file any objections to re-partition. The petitioner for the first time on 1st March, 2008 applied for making good the alleged deficiency. The respondent no.2 Consolidation Officer vide order dated 3rd March, 2008 rejected the said application of the petitioner holding that with the conclusion of the consolidation pr...
Ram NaraIn Gupta and ors Vs. Gaon Sabha, Siraspur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the order dated 21st February, 2011 of the Revenue Assistant/S.D.M., Narela disposing of proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms (DLR) Act, 1954 against the petitioner no.2 Sh. Atul Gupta with respect to the land bearing Khasra No.729 Min (2-6) situated in the revenue estate of Village-Siraspur. The Revenue Assistant/S.D.M. has noticed the report of the Halqa Patwari that the land had been put to non-agricultural use for unauthorized construction contravening provisions of Section 81 (supra). Accordingly, it was directed that the land be converted back into agricultural purpose within three months from the date of the order and if it is not so converted back to agricultural purposes, the petitioner no.2 shall stand ejected and the land shall automatically vest in the Gaon Sabha, Siraspur. 2. It has at the outset been enquired whether there is no remedy under the DLR Act itself against such an order. 3. The counsel for the respondent appearing...
Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs. Sh. S.K. Choudhary and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2007 which had reversed the finding of the trail judge dated 20.12.2003 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Sh. S.K. Choudhary seeking a declaration (to the effect that he should be granted his second time financial upgradation after 13 years of service which had been denied to him be set aside and be declared null and void; further prayer that he should be placed in the pay scale of 15800-21100 with notional pay fixation of basic pay of Rs. 17150/- from 01.01.1996 as also relief of mandatory injunction i.e. payment of arrears in the aforenoted pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996) had been dismissed. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding. Suit of the plaintiff stood decreed. 2. Plaintiff was employed with defendant no. 2 since June 1984. He was an Executive Engineer. Vide the resolution of DVB dated 29.04.1998, provisional pay scale for executive engineers and superintendent engineers was worked out; this was a modif...
Bhupinder Singh and ors. Vs. State Bank of India (Sbi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. The defendant was a tenant under Bhupinder Singh, plaintiff in Suit No. 1911/2000 in respect of premises, comprising main hall on the ground floor, small strong room, adjoining room, bath and W.C., and part of the mezzanine, all measuring 1820 sq. ft. The extended portion in mezzanine floor in the main hall on the ground floor admeasuring 315.84 sq. ft. was also later let out to the plaintiff by him. The defendant was also a tenant under Pushpa Singh, plaintiff in Suit No. 2552 of 2000 in respect of two halls on the first and second floor along with part of balconies and a bathroom on the first floor of the aforesaid property all admeasuring 427 sq. ft. It had also taken up two halls on the first floor and second floor along with a bath room on the first floor on the aforesaid property all admeasuring 420 sq. ft. from Virender Singh, plaintiff in Suit No. 2553 of 2000 and two halls on the first and second floor along with bath room on the first floor, all admeasuring 427 sq. ft. fro...
Narendra Kumar Tripathi Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2011
The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Director (Personnel) Western Coalfields Limited (WCL) and South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) pursuant to advertisements dated September 17, 2010 and September 23, 2010 issued by respondent No.2, namely, Public Enterprises Selection Board, Department of Personnel & Training. However, his parent department, namely, Coal India Limited, who is respondent No.4 before me, did not forward his application to respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 in not forwarding his application, he filed a writ-petition No.847/2011 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. It was contended by respondent No.4 before the Chhattisgarh High Court that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. The High Court disposed of the writ-petition vide its order dated February 21, 2011. The following paragraphs of the order are relevant for our purpose:- "x x x x x 5. On a query, as to what is the eligibility criteria, i...
Sh. Lal Babu Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. The petitioner claims that he belongs to a Schedule Caste (SC); that he had in pursuance to an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Rigger in the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU); that in the list dated 26th June, 1991 published of the selected candidates, his name appeared at Serial No.4 in the SC/ST category; that appointments were to be made from the panel of selected candidates as and when vacancies to the said post by way of direct recruitment arise; that he was vide letter dated 20 th May, 1993 informed that there were no vacancies to the said post reserved for SC/ST category. 2. The petitioner did not take any steps thereafter and after 17 years, on 5th January, 2010 started making enquiries under the Right to Information Act. 3. The case of the petitioner is that it was misrepresented to him in the letter dated 28th May, 1993 (supra) of the DESU that there were no vacancies. It is contended that the petitioner has now learnt that ther...
M/S Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd. Vs. Mr. Raj Niwas, Proprietor of Mhs Masal ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. This is a suit for permanent injunction, damages and delivery up of infringing material. The plaintiff company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling "spices & condiments", which are being sold under its registered logo (comprising „MDH within three hexagon device, on red colour background). The plaintiff claims to be using the aforesaid logo trademark since 1949 in respect of various spices titles as "Kashmiri Mirch", "Kasoori Methi", "Meat Masala", "Chat Masala", "Sambar Masala", "Kitchen King" and "Khushbudar Masala". 2. The aforesaid logo trademark is registered in the name of plaintiff company since 31st May, 1991 and the plaintiff company claims its use throughout the world. This is also the case of the plaintiff company that on account of long, continuous and extensive sale, sale promotion and wide publicity given to the products under the aforesaid logo and excellent quality of the products, the plaintiff company enjoys tremendous goodwill and repu...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »