Delhi Court January 2012 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.
Ranbir Singh Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Hea ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. Challenging the order of dismissal of the Disciplinary Authority (DA) and the confirming order of the Appellate Authority (AA), the applicant has sought the following reliefs:- “(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 07.03.2009 and order dated 10.04.2010 (Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2) directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with full back wages and continuity in service. (b) direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary from 20.05.2006 onward. (c) allow the O.A. with all consequential benefits.” 2. Applicant, who was a Nursing Orderly in the Respondent Hospital, was proceeded against on allegation of habitual absenteeism by issue of charge memo on 08.06.2004. In spite of many notices to his home address, which came back unserved a newspaper notice was published in Hindi Daily (Punjab Keshari, Delhi). At last the applicant received the charge-sheet on 10.11.2004. Although the Inquiry Officer (IO) informe...
Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants Delhi Iv Vs. M/S. Nath Inter ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench), J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. We have heard Shri Amrish Jain, SDR appearing for the Revenue. No one appeared for the respondents. 3. As per facts on record, the respondents filed Bill of Entry on 22.3.07 for clearance of HCH brand ball bearing imported from China. The declared unit price was Rs.2.59 and Rs.3.36 per piece respectively, as the bearings were of two different sizes 6201 and 6202. Accordingly, the total assessable value was declared as Rs.14,86,836/-. 4. The Assistant Commissioner loaded the value by US $ 0.09 (Rs.4.085) and USD $ 0.105 (Rs.4.77) per piece on ball bearing No. 6201 and 6202. Accordingly, the consequential demand of duties were confirmed. 5. Being aggrieved with the said order of assessment, the respondents filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The said app...
M/S. Homemade Bakers (India) Ltd Puneet Manchanda Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench), J. 1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, we proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as the issue stands covered by the precedent decision of the Tribunal. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of edible biscuit which became exempt from payment of duty with effect from 3.5.07. During the course of manufacture of biscuits, the sugar syrup and glucose flavour comes into existence at intermediate stage. The present demand relates to said sugar syrup and flavour which according to the Revenue are classifiable under heading 1702.90 and 3302 respectively. Accordingly, the demand stands confirmed against the appellants.3. The appellants contention is that sugar syrup and flavour in question is not marketable and hence can not be held to be excisable. By drawing our attention to the process of manufacture, wh...
Baijnath Prajapati Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forests and Others
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
Baijnath Prajapati, a resident of village Guwari, district Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh, while asserting that he is involved in issues concerning the social development as well as the environment, has filed the present Appeal assailing the order dated May 28, 2010, and the corrigendum dated 1st September 2010 and the office memorandum dated 23rd November, 2010, granting environmental clearance in favour of M/s Moser Baer Power and Infrastructure Ltd (Respondent 3) for a coal based thermal power plant. The environmental clearance was challenged on several grounds enumerated in the Memorandum of Appeal. The Appellant has enclosed a verification with his Appeal Memorandum affirming that the contents of different paragraphs were true to his personal knowledge. 2. As the Appeal was barred by Limitation, by order dated September 27th, 2011 notices were issued to the Respondents. In response to the said notice, the Respondents appeared through Counsels and took part in the proceedings. 3. An appl...
Smt. Santosh Malik (Since Vs. Maharaj Krishan and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 17th January, 2012 Judgment Pronounced on: 19thJanuary, 2012 + RFA(OS) 5/2000 SMT. SANTOSH MALIK (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. .... Appellants Through: Mr.Vikas K. Chadha with Mr.R.K. Jain, Advocates versus MAHARAJ KRISHAN and ANR. .... Respondents Through: Mr.S. Vaidialingam, Adv. for R-1. Mr.Devendra Sain, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J..1. IA.No.721/1997 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants praying that the plaint be rejected, has been allowed..2. Learned Single Judge has opined that in view of the prohibition contained in the Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988, late Smt. Santosh Malik could not bring any action seeking partition and possession of property bearing No.B-6, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110044. RFA (OS) 5/2000 Page 1 of 10.3. The legal h...
Surinder Singh Sood Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 658/2011 % Judgment delivered on:19th January, 2012 SURINDER SINGH SOOD ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Sunil K. Mittal with Mr.Kshtij Mittal and Mr. Ranav Rishi, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for State. Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, Adv. for complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral).1. Vide the instant application, the petitioner has sought the release of petitioner on bail in FIR No. 829/2006, P.S. Paschim Vihar, registered under Sections 420/468/471/120 B Indian Penal Code, 1860..2. The petitioner was a modest businessman who used to deal in export of human hair. The petitioner was running a very modest business since the last almost 50 years. The petitioner had business and financial losses over a period of time. His business was separated from his elder brother. However due to the present false and baseless case his image has been tarnished in society and h...
Reserved On: 10th January, 2012 Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 10th January, 2012 Decided on: 19th January, 2012 + BAIL APPLN. 1692 OF 2011 SURESH KALMADI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Mr. Sushil Kumar, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Hitesh Jain, Mr. Sidharth Aggarwal, Ms. Sheyl Trehan, Ms. Diya Kapur, Mr. Nikhil Pillai and Mr. Aditya Wadhwa, Advocates. versus CBI ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Mr. Gautam Narayan, Spl Counsels with Mr. Nikhil Menon, Advocate. AND + BAIL APPLN. 1515 OF 2011 VISHWA KUMAR VERMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anurabh Chowdhury, Mr. Amit Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav Tomar, Mr. Kapil Rustagi and Mr. Rakhim Advocates. versus CBI ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Mr. Gautam Narayan, Spl Counsels with Mr. Nikhil Menon, Advocate. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA.1. By these petitions the Petitioners seek bail in case FIR bearing RC- DAI-2010-A-0044 for offence under Se...
Kuldeep Kumar Kohli and ors Vs. the Registrar of Companies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. NO. 371/2011 Reserved on: 09.01.2012 Pronounced on: 19.01.2012 KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI and ORS. ...... PETITIONERS Through: Mr. O.P.Gaggar, Advocate Versus THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES FOR DELHI AND HARYANA ...... RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Khalid Arshad, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J..1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure 1973, for quashing of the complaint lodged by the respondents against the petitioner under section 63 and 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and for quashing of the summoning order dated 13.11.2002..2. The petitioners were directors of a finance, leasing and investment company named Pariksha Fin-invest-lease Pvt. Ltd having its registered office at B-18, Swami Dayanand Colony, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi-110007 since 27.8.1995. The object of the company was investments, financing, leas...
Birbal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19.01.2012 + CRL.A.373/1997 BIRBAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.S. Misra, Advocate. Appellant in person. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT %.1. The appellant impugns the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) dated 24.05.1997 in S.C. No. 96/1995. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay fine..2. The prosecution case was that Police Station Jahangirpuri was informed on 26.07.1992 at 07.25 PM about the discovery of the dead body of a female. The concerned Station House Officer (SHO) reached the spot and during inquiry discovered that the body belonged to one Bindu; it was lying on a cot. A piece of cloth had been tied around her neck. Subsequently, Crl.A.373/1997 Page 1 a case was register...
Gadodia Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 285/2011 % Date of Decision : 19th January,2012 GADODIA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through Ms. Shashi Kapila and Mr. Parvesh Sharma, Advs. versus CIT ..... Respondent Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. 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 ?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SANJIV KHANNA,J: (ORAL).1. Gadodia Electronics Pvt. Ltd. has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) against the impugned order dated 25th August, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) in ITA No. 746/Del/2010 ITA No. 285/2011 Page 1 of 6 pertaining to the assessment year 1994-95..2. After hearing counsel for the parties, we frame the following substantial question of law:- "Whether Income Tax Tribun...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »