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.
Sukhbir Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Its Commissio ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. In this OA, the applicant, who has been working [a daily wager/muster roll employee] as Driver in the MCD since 1996, has challenged the respondent’s order dated 07.04.2010 in terms of which he has not only been denied regularization but also his daily wage/muster roll basis employment has been terminated. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has been working on daily wage/muster roll basis as Driver since 1996 in the respondent’s department. It is stated that the applicant’s case was also considered for regularization. However, vide communication dated 07.04.2010, he was informed that the MCD has decided to disengage him from the muster roll on the ground that vide Judgment dated 30.07.2004 passed by the Court at Haryana in the proceedings pursuant to FIR No.171 u/s 149/323-506/34 IPC, he had been found guilty, convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 326 read with Section 149 IPC. The...
M/S Loknath Prasad Gupta Vs. Cce, New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2012
Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) The prayer in the application is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 14,55,88,277/- confirmed against the applicant for the period 1.4.2006 to 29.2.08 along with imposition of penalty of identical amount under Section 11AC of the Act. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Chewing Tobacco (Khaini) under the brand name of ‘Raja’ falling under Chapter 24 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The demand of duty stands confirmed against the appellants on the findings that one of the raw materials i.e. lime used by them is first dissolved in the water and after filtration of dissolved limestone, the filtered lime water is further put to use for making khaini by dissolving other raw materials in this end. 3. The Revenue’s contention is that by dissolving the lime in water, limewater came into existence and the subsequent addition of other ra...
M/S Balaji Enterprises Vs. Cc, Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. On matter being called, nobody appeared on behalf of appellants. They have filed written submissions which we have gone through. We have also heard ld. SDR. 2. As per facts on regard, gold bars were seized from the residential premises of Shri D.R.Jain on 23.04.97. Subsequently proceedings were initiated for imposition of penalty against them for confiscation of gold bars. Order-in-Original dtd. 22.05.98 ordered absolute confiscation of the gold bars and imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- on them. 3. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal along with stay petition which was disposed of vide stay order dtd. 7.08.98 directing the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The same was deposited by the appellants. Subsequently vide final order dtd. 18.10.99, the impugned order for confiscation of gold bars and imposition of the penalty, was set aside and the matter was remanded. In de-novo proceedings, the ...
Smt. Raj Rani Sharma Vs. Smt. Gayatri Kukreja and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI % Order pronounced on: 13.01.2012 + I.A. No.9770/2011 in CS (OS) No.774/2007 SMT. RAJ RANI SHARMA ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Adv. with Mr. Gurpreet S. Parwanda, Adv. Versus SMT. GAYATRI KUKREJA AND ORS .....Defendants Through Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. K.B.Upadhyay, Adv. for Defendant No.3. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. with Mr. Anuj Malhotra, Adv. for D-1. Mr. R.S.Juneja, Adv. for Defendant No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J..1. By this order, I propose to decide the third application filed by the plaintiff, bearing I.A. No.9770/2011 filed under Section 94 read with Order XXXIX, Rules 1, 2 and 3 CPC..2. It is the admitted position that the plaintiffs earlier applications, both under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC bearing I.A. No.4897/2007 and I.A. No.7083/2008 were dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2010 and the ex-parte injunction order granted on 11.08.2008 was vacated. I.A. No.9770/2011 in CS(OS) No...
Jayem Wareshousing Pvt Ltd Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 146/2012 % Judgment delivered on: 13th January, 2012 JAYEM WARESHOUSING PVT LTD and ANR ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Sanjay Abbot and Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Advs. for petitioner no.1. Mr. Rakesh Mukhija and Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Advs. for petitioner no..2. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State. SI Rajesh, PS-Vasant Kunj (South). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) Crl. M.A. 543/2012 Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of. + Crl. M.C. 146/2012.1. Notice issued..2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of respondent..3. The instant petition has been filed jointly by petitioner no.1. / complainant and petitioner no.2. / accused..4. Ld. Counsel for petitioners have jointly submitted that vide FIR Crl.M.C.146/2012 Page 1 of 4 no.146. dated 31.05.2010 case under Section 403/408/420/468/471/ 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered agains...
Kanchenjunga Advertising P.Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-i
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.944 of 2011 Reserved on : 30th November, 2011. % Date of Decision : 13th January, 2012. KANCHENJUNGA ADVERTISING P.LTD. ........Appellant Through Mr.S.Krishnan, Advocate. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I .....Respondent Through Mr. N.P.Sahni, Standing Counsel 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.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act ("the Act", for short) against the order of the Tribunal dated 21st January, 2011 in ITA No.81/Delhi/2010 relevant to the assessment year 2000-01..2. On 30th November, 2011, the following substantial question of law was framed:- ITA No.944/2011 Page 1 of 19 "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in upholding the or...
Ghanshyam Dass Gupta Vs. Makhan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No.664/2003 % 13th January, 2012 GHANSHYAM DASS GUPTA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Atul Kumar, proxy counsel versus MAKHAN LAL ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL).1. Proxy counsel appearing for the counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has taken back the brief..2. The impugned judgment and decree dated 29.3.2003 is a judgment and decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for an amount which was paid under an Agreement to Sell. The impugned judgment and decree directs refund of the amount paid inasmuch as it is found that the appellant/defendant was guilty of breach of contract in not having obtained the permission from the Income Tax Authorities viz. the income tax clearance certificate..3. Some of the relevant paragraphs of the Trial Court decreeing the RFA No.664/2003 Page 1 of 7 suit read as under:- "5. Plaintiff had file...
S.K. Pandey Vs. Mcd and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 13.01.2012 OMP No.310/2010 S.K. Pandey ......Petitioner Through: Mr Sunil Goel, Adv. Versus MCD and Ors. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Adv. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J..1. The above mentioned matter pertains to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The petitioner Mr. S.K. Pandey was allotted a parking space by the one of Respondents, MCD, at Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh. The project was under the name of Remunerative Project Cell. The petitioner was to take possession of the said parking space w.e.f 31.8.2001 for 1 (one) year for a monthly remuneration of Rs.3,51,100/- per month..2. The petitioner deposited Rs.14, 04,400/- towards security amount. Respondent on 31.08.2001 handed over possession to the petitioner. As per the case of the petitioner, soon after taking OMP No.310/0010 Page 1 of 15 possession the petitioner started to face difficulty in smooth run...
After Hearing Learned Counsel for Vs. Weeks. the
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (Reportable) EX.P. 403/2010 and EA Nos. 734/2010, 735/2010, 353/2011. Reserved on: January 11, 2012 Decision on: January 13, 2012 KLEN and MARSHALLS MANUFACTURERS AND EXPORTERS LTD. ..... Decree Holder Through Mr. Abhinav Vashisht, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mohna M. Lal, Advocate. versus POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD ..... Judgment Debtor Through Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT 13.01.2012.1. Execution Petition No.403. of 2010 has been filed by the Decree Holder ('DH'), M/s. Klen and Marshalls Manufacturers and Exporters Limited, seeking a direction to the Judgment Debtor ('JD'), Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, to pay a sum of Rs. 5,99,21,018/- in terms of the arbitral Award dated 9th May 2003 ('Award') and an order dated 8th April 2010 of this Court..2. The background to the present execution petition is that in terms of the aforementioned Award the JD was to pay...
Saptrishi Builders Pvt Ltd Vs. Veg Sanchar Vihar Co-op. Group
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI % Judgment decided on: 13.01.2012 + Arb. P. No.269. of 2010 SAPTRISHI BUILDERS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Adv. with Mr. B. G. Jha, Adv. Versus VEG SANCHAR VIHAR CO-OP. GROUP .....Respondent Through Mr. Sunil Narula, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J..1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of clause No.43 of the tender document dated 31.05.2002 to adjudicate upon the claims of the petitioner against the respondent..2. The brief facts of the case leading upto the filing of this petition are that by contract agreement dated 31.05.2002, the petitioner/Contractor was appointed by the respondent to construct 68 flats in the society complex at Plot No.19-B, Sector 6, Dwarka, New Delhi. The said Arb. P. No.269 of 2010 Page 1 of 10 agreement provided the entire scope of contract, the deposits...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »