Delhi Court January 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commisioner of Income Tax Vs. Mohan MeakIn Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.964/2009, 967/2009, 1003/2009, 1013/2009, 1014/2009 and 1015/2009 Reserved on : November 24, 2011. % Date of Decision January 30, 2012. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I ..Appellant Through Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate. VERSUS MOHAN MEAKIN LIMITED .....Respondent Through Mr. C.S.Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Prakash Kumar, 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 six appeals filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (Act, for short). We have taken up ITA 964/2009 as the lead matter. In this appeal, the following substantial question of law was admitted on 22nd October, 2009:- ITA Nos.964, 967, 1003, 1013, 1014 and 1015/2009 Page 1 of 16 "Whether ITAT was correct in...
Ramesh Babu @ Bhandari Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : JANUARY 19, 2012 DECIDED ON: JANUARY 30, 2012 + CRL.A. Nos. 462/1997 RAMESH BABU @ BHANDARI ..... Appellant Through : Ms. Nandita Rao, (DHLSC) Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP for the State CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT %.1. This appeal challenges a judgment and order of a learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 27-8-1996, in SC No. 81/1996. The impugned judgment convicted the Appellant for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. The Appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also a prison term for 3 years rigorous imprisonment; both sentences were to run concurrently..2. The prosecution allegations were that on 19.09.1991, Police Station CRL.A. 462/1997 Page 1 Seelampur received information ( DD 10A, marked as Ex. PW-11/A), at 11.02 AM, about a shooting incident at Gali No.5, Subhash Mohalla....
Elof Hansson (i) Pvt. Ltd. and anr Vs. Shree Acids and Chemicals Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : January 20, 2012 Judgment Pronounced on: January 30, 2012 + RFA(OS) 17/2002 ELOF HANSSON (I) PVT. LTD. and ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, Ms.Seema Sundd, Ms.Shikha Bhardwaj, Ms.Ritika Ahuja, and Ms.Jai Shree Shukla, Advocates. versus SHREE ACIDS and CHEMICALS LTD. ....Respondent Through: Mr.Nikhilesh Krishnan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J..1. An ex-parte decree dated 05.02.2002 is challenged by the appellants, and suffice would it be to state that since the appellants did not participate at the trial, the fate of the appeal would be decided with reference to the pleadings in the plaint and the ex-parte evidence led at the trial..2. We therefore commence our journey by noting the relevant averment in the plaint. They are to be found in paragraphs 3 to 7 of the plaint, which we shall be soon reproducing, but before that w...
Sh.Shubham Mahendrawal Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.5500/2011 % Date of Decision: 30.01.2012 Sh.Shubham Mahendrawal .... Petitioner Through Mr.N.D.Kaushik, Advocate. Versus Union of India and Anr. .... Respondents Through Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA ANIL KUMAR, J. *.1. The petitioner has sought directions to the respondents to withdraw/set aside the letter dated 5th January, 2011 intimating the petitioner that he has been found unfit in SMB at MH Allahabad, in the AMB at Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt and in RMB at the Army Hospital (R and R) for the TES Course SER No.24 and for directions to the respondents to conduct a fresh eye test of the petitioner by an independent eye Hospital/center for night visual capacity. The petitioner has also sought directions to the respondents to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of the fresh eye test report from an independent eye hospital. WP(C) No.5500/2011 P...
Sushil Kumar Sahni and Others Vs.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: 1. As is submitted by the counsels appearing for the parties, these batch Original Applications involve closely related facts and common issues of law. Hence they are being disposed by this common order. The applicants in all these OAs are represented by the learned counsel Shri N.S. Dalal, while the respondents by different learned counsels, as mentioned above. As the lead case, OA No.2410/2011 (Ashok Kumar vs DTC) would be argued by the learned counsels, Shri N.S. Dalal and Shri J.S. Bhasin respectively for the applicant and the respondents. The references in this Order pertain to this case unless otherwise specified. 2. Through these OAs the applicants, previously appointed as Conductors and subsequently as Assistant Store Keepers, are seeking the benefits of second and third financial upgradations under the ACP/MACP Schemes, counting their service from the date of appointment as Conductors. Besides, they also seek quashing the impugned order dated 5.1.2011 in re...
N.K. Aggarwal Vs. Delhi Development Authority (Through Its Vice-chairm ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
ORAL: M.L. Chauhan: 1. The applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying, inter alia, for quashing the impugned order dated 8.4.2009 (Annexure A-12) whereby penalty of reduction of pay by 3% of basic pay + grade pay (one increment for one year) in the time scale of pay was imposed upon the applicant. It was also directed in the impugned order that the applicant will not earn the increment of his pay during the period of reduction and after expiry of penalty period reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay. The appeal preferred by the applicant was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure A-1) upholding the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. It is these orders, which are under challenge in this OA. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant under DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulation 1999 whereby the charges leveled against th...
Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority (Through Its Vice-c ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
ORAL: M.L. Chauhan: 1. The applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying, inter alia, for quashing the impugned order dated 14.7.2010 (Annexure A-1) whereby on departmental proceedings, the penalty of reduction to a lower post of Peon for a period of five years and on promotion after the expiry of the said period, the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments of pay was imposed upon the applicant and it was further directed that the applicant shall regain his original seniority in the grade of LDC. However, during the pendency of the OA, the appeal filed by the applicant was rejected vide order dated 24.2.2011 (page 87 of the paper book) and ultimately the applicant filed amended OA, thereby praying for quashing of the aforesaid order. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant while working as LDC in Speed Post Section, DDA during the year 2005 was found responsible for removing lease deed papers from three envelopes, which were duly pasted by LAB...
Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S Jayco India (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. As per the facts on record, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of chewing gum/bubble gum falling under Chapter 17 of the 1st Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act. Proceedings were initiated against them for denial of Modvat credit to the extent of Rs.70,90,852/- availed in respect of Boomer Tattoo (new design)/ Printed Transfers, during the period September, 2001 to August, 2002. The show cause notice issued on 03.10.02 alleged that the said Tattoos cannot be considered to be eligible Modvatable inputs. 2. It is seen that the show cause notice was dropped by the Commissioner vide his order dtd. 01.03.04 after laying down that the Modvat credit in respect of said Tattoos/Printed Transfers is available to the assessee. The said order of the Commissioner was appealed against by the Revenue before Tribunal. Tribunal vide its Final Order No.98/10-Ex, dtd. 24.02.10 allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue by observing as under...
Reserved On: 19.01.2012 Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (Crl.) No. 893/2009 Reserved on: 19.01.2012 Pronounced on: 27.01.2012 SHANKAR LAL ...... Petitioner Through: Mr. Shahid Ali, Mr. U.A. Khan and Mr. Mohd. Shariq, Advocates Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J..1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 163/2009 under Sections 3/4 of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA),1999 , registered at Police Station Seema Puri ..2. The said FIR was registered on 12.05.2009 after obtaining approval from the Joint Commissioner of Police for registration of case under Section 3(2) and 4 of MCOCA against the petitioner and his syndicate vide Order No. 2145/Pers. Sec./JT. CP (NDR) .The FIR was lodged relying upon the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and five FIRs registered against him..3. The details...
Vivek Kumar Vs. State of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2012
$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C.No.324/2012 % Judgment delivered on:27th January, 2012 VIVEK KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.K. K. Jha , Adv. versus STATE OF DELHI and ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for respondent No.1/State with SI Ishwar Singh, police station I.P. Estate, New Delhi in person. Mr.Ashish Kumar, Adv for respondent No.2/Medical Council of India. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) Crl.M.A.No.1157/2012(exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of. + CRL.M.C.No.324/2012.1. Notice issued..2. Mr.Navin Sharma, learned APP on behalf of respondent No.1/ Crl.M.C.No.324/2012 Page 1 of 10 State and Mr.Ashish Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.2/ Medical Council of India accept notice..3. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, matter taken up for disposal..4. Vide instant petition, the petitioner has sought to quash the FIR No.566/20...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »