Delhi Court September 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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Padmini Technologies Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
1. The appeal pertains to assessment year 1998-1999. Both the counsel for the revenue as well as the assessee agree that only one issue arises for consideration which is:- 'Whether the Tribunal mis-directed itself in allowing a deduction in the sum of Rs.6.80 Crores to the assessee under section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. It is also not disputed by the counsels before us that the decision in respect of this issue will be governed by the view taken by us in respect of an identical issue in ITA No.1265/2007. 3. Since we have taken a view in ITA No.1265/2007 that no question of law requires to be framed, this appeal would follow the same fate. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed....
Manish Kumar Agarwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
1. The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 24 th May, 2011 passed by the Learned ACMM rejecting the Petitioner's application for grant of permanent exemption and allowing the application of CBI for separation of trial and recording of evidence in the absence of the co- accused Daminder Singh Batra under Section 299 Cr.P.C. 2. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner is a qualified Chartered Accountant and was working with Rajinder Steels Ltd. While working as such on 8th August, 1995 he requested for disbursement of Rs. 10 crores furnishing along therewith Auditor's certificate for advance to the suppliers, proforma invoice of M/S. Technomac Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and the Industrial Enterprises (Regd.), performance guarantee of M/S. R.M. Machine, The Industrial Enterprises and insurance of the equipment. The Petitioner further represented that the equipments to be acquired under ECS were ready for delivery from its supplier and would be received...
Union of India and anr. Vs. R.K. Trivedi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
1. The respondent No.1, being grieved by the action of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), which considered 7 retired persons for promotion to the post of Assistant Director(Grade-I) as per the instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training(DOPT) for preparation of an extended panel for only three persons whereas it was incumbent on the DPC to prepare an extended panel of 4 retired persons as per the DOPT office memorandum No.22011/8/87 - Estt.(D) dated 9.4.1996, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short, „the tribunal) in OA No.2156/2009 for issuance of direction to the respondents to convene a review DPC for the post of Assistant Director(Grade-I) and include his name in the extended panel. It was contended before the tribunal that 4 persons retired in the vacancy year 2004-05 out of which one D.R. Chakravarty retired on 31.3.2005 but the authorities did not count the said vacancy to have occurred in the vacancy year 2004-05 as...
Raj Rani Kapur and ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
1. The appellants in this appeal seek to assail the judgment and award dated 15.09.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby a sum of ` 64,100/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till its realisation was awarded to them. 2. The concise facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellants had brought a petition for grant of compensation in the sum of ` 7,20,000/- under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the driver, the owners and the insurer of taxi bearing No. DLT-5386, on the allegation that the rash and negligent driving of the said taxi by the respondent No.1 resulted in the death of their bread-earner - Tilak Raj Kapur (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") in an accident which took place on 02.02.1980. The proceedings in the said claim petition culminated in the passing of the aforesaid award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with a direction to ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Neena Somani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
1. By this common order, it is proposed to decide both the aforesaid appeals assailing the judgment of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Suit No.490/04, whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award in the sum of ` 84,29,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition. The appellant in the first appeal is, M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which has prayed for setting aside/modification of the impugned award on a number of grounds, whereas the appellants in the second appeal, are the claimants, who seek enhancement of the award amount on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded to them has not been calculated in accordance with the well settled principles of law. 2. The concise facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that a Claim Petition was filed by the parents of one Rahul Somani under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of his death in a road accident ...
Saroj Devi and anr. Vs. Pawan Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
1. The appellants in this appeal seek to assail the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahdara, Delhi dated 02.02.1999 whereby a sum of ` 1,93,840/- was awarded to the appellants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing, that is, 19.09.1990 to 16.07.1995 and from 23.09.1997 till realization. 2. The concise facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that on 7.4.1990, Constable Balraj Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") met with an untimely end while driving his motor cycle on G.T. Road, near the Apsara Border, when he was hit by a bus being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No.1. He, having succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, the appellants who are his legal representatives, filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation in the sum of ` 10,00,000/-. The said Claim Petition was not contested by the respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the of...
Harvinder Pal Saini and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
1. This judgment will dispose of four appeals, directed against a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 23.07.1997 and 31.07.1997, in SC No.54/96 ("impugned judgment") handing down conviction and sentence for offences punishable under Section 396/34 read with Section 411, IPC. The convicted Appellants, who impugn that judgment, are hereafter referred to by their names, i.e. Amrish, Harvinder and Naseem Ahmed. The State has preferred two appeals, in one questioning the sentence, seeking its enhancement to death penalty; in the other, it has impugned the acquittal of two co-accused Sanjay and Krishan Lal. 2. The prosecution case, briefly is that on 25.12.1987, at about 6.45 PM Sh. Lekh Raj Luthra (P.W.5), along with his wife Smt. Prem Kumar (PW 3) and daughter Bindu Luthra (PW- 1) was watching T.V. in the drawing room of Flat No. 5/610, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. The door bell of the flat rang. Bindu PW-1 opened the back door and saw four boys standing; ...
Virender Yadav @ Vicky @ Chhotu Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
1. Vide the instant petition appellant has challenged the judgment dated 31.07.2009, by which the appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 397 Indian Penal Code, 1860 in case FIR No.17/2005 registered at police station Ashok Vihar and has further challenged the sentence order of even date, by which he was sentenced to RI for 07 years and to pay a fine of `2,000/- in default of fine, to further undergo SI for a period of 03 months. However, the appellant herein and other co accused Gian Chand were acquitted in case FIR No.19/2005 police station Ashok Vihar under Section 307/186/353/120B/34 Indian Penal Code. But, co-accused Gian Chand has been acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt in both the aforesaid case FIRs. 2. The appellant has prayed in this appeal as under:- "i) quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2009 passed by Shri Alok Agarwal, Ld.ASJ, Delhi in S.C. No.62/2005 titled as State Vs.Virender Yadav & Ors. and acquit the appellant of thi...
Mr. Rajan Bihari Lal Raheja and ors Vs. M/S Planman Consulting India P ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
1. Background facts giving rise to these petitions are that an Article titled "Racket Game Lobs" appeared in the issue of Outlook (English) magazine dated 30th June 2008 wherein the author of the Article wrote on the subject of rampant profiteering by bogus private educational institutes at the cost of unsuspecting students resulting in adverse impact on the future of the students and the financial resources of their parents. In the said article, there was a reference to the respondent No. 1/complainant M/s. Planman Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. and its sister concern Indian Institute of Planning and Management (for short „IIPM). M/s Planman Consulting India Pvt. Ltd., aggrieved by the content of above referred article published in the magazine `Outlook filed a criminal complaint under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 read with Sections 34 & 35 IPC against the petitioners, claiming that the article published in the issue dated 30th June, 2008 of Outlook magazine is derogatory and ...
Laxman Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
1. Issue notice. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for respondent/State accepts notice. 2. With the consent of both the parties this matter is taken up for disposal. 3. Petitioner was held guilty vide judgment dated 28.01.2011 and sentence order dated 29.01.2011. Being aggrieved, petitioner had filed the appeal before the Sessions Court. Vide judgment dated 26.08.2011 the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. 4. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits and has raised a legal issue that the ld. ASJ has wrongly applied Section 106 of Evidence Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 5. In the instant case PW3 who is injured/complainant, has deposed in Court as an eyewitness of the occurrence. He could not identify the petitioner in the Court, therefore, ld. ASJ relied upon Section 106 of the Evidence Act and came to the conclusion that the accused was the only person who had knowledge about the incident. 6. It is further submitted that Section 106 of the Evidence Act wou...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »