Delhi Court December 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.
Heena Bahal Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve:6. h December, 2012 Date of Pronouncement:19. h December, 2012. + LPA No.795/2012 & C.M.No.20255/2012 C.M.No.20257/2012 (Additional Document) HEENA BAHAL (stay), ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Akhil Sibbal with Ms. Pallavi Langar and Ms. Smirti Dutta, Advs. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for the University of Delhi. Mr. APS Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW : D.MURUGESAN, CHIEF JUSTICE 1 This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant was not allowed to appear in the 2 nd Year final examinations in B.A.(Hons.), Economics on the ground that there was shortage of attendance. Having noticed that as per the prospectus requiring a minimum attendance of 66.66% in lectures...
Anviti Thakur Vs. State Bank of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7739/2011 & CM No.17533/2011 ANVITI THAKUR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. K.S. Kashyap, Advocate. Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rajiv Kapur and Ms. Vatsala Rai, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT ORDER % 18.12.2012 W.P.(C) 7739/2011 In view of the common judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.5267/2011, the instant petition is accordingly disposed of. CM No.17533/2011 (for exemption) With the disposal of the petition itself, the instant application has become infructuous. The same is disposed of accordingly. SURESH KAIT, J.DECEMBER 18 2012 sb...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Savita Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h December, 2012 + MAC. APP. 542/2012 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate. Versus SAVITA DEVI & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The present Appeal is dismissed in terms of the judgment passed today in MAC.APP.541/2012 titled ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. PARVIN DEVI & ORS.2. For detailed order, please see the above mentioned judgment. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 18 2012 pst...
Saurabh Tripathi Vs. University of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h December, 2012 % + LPA No.819/2012 SAURABH TRIPATHI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Abhay Mani Tripathi, Adv. Versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya & Mr. Varun Gupta, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.This intra-court appeal impugns the interim order dated 11.12.2012 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7700/2012 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition has been filed by the appellant impugning the Notification dated 10.10.2012 of the respondent University doing away with the practice earlier prevalent, of grant of Special Chance beyond the span period for various courses, i.e. the maximum period in which a course offered by the respondent University is to be completed. As per the earlier practice, the Standing Committee (Students) of the Academic Council of the respondent University and the Vice Chance...
Lalit Mohan Aggarwal Vs. the Management of Central Bank of India and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h December, 2012 % + LPA No.818/2012 LALIT MOHAN AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Adv. Versus THE MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. R.S. Mathur, Adv. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.This intra-court appeal accompanied with an application for condonation of 444 days delay in preferring the same, impugns the order dated 05.08.2011 of the learned Single Judge, allowing W.P.(C) No.859/1988 preferred by the respondent Central Bank of India. The said writ petition was preferred impugning the award dated 23.11.1987 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference: Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Lalit Mohan Aggarwal with effect from 19.1.84 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concer...
Onkar Prasad Jaiswal Vs. State Bank of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
$~27 to 33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:18. 12.2012 W.P.(C) 5267/2011 & CM No.10682/2011 (for stay) ONKAR PRASAD JAISWAL Through: ..... Petitioner Ms.Tara V. Ganju and Ms. Etti Sharma, Advocates. Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rajiv Kapur and Ms. Vatsala Rai, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. + AND W.P.(C) 5268/2011 & CM No. 10684/2011 RITESH PRASAD Through: ..... Petitioner Ms.Tara V. Ganju and Ms. Etti Sharma, Advocates. Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rajiv Kapur and Ms. Vatsala Rai, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. + AND W.P.(C) 5600/2011 & CM No. 11426/2011 SUNIL KUMAR PASWAN Through: ..... Petitioner Ms.Tara V. Ganju and Ms. Etti Sharma, Advocates. Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rajiv Kapur and Ms. Vatsala Rai, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. + AND W.P.(C) 6234/2011 & CM No. 12556/2011 ANURAG THAKUR Through: ..... Petitioner Ms.Ta...
Mundra Credit and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. .................. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment:18.12.2012 COMPANY PETITION NO.423 OF 201.In the matter of MUNDRA CREDIT AND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. Transferee/Petitioner No. 1 AND KINSFOLK INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED Through: Transferor /Petitioner No.2 Mr. Ashish Aggarwal Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. K.S. Pradhan, Deputy Registrar of Companies for the Regional Director Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Advocate for the Official Liquidator. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1. This Second motion joint petition has been filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter Co. P.No.423 of 2012 referred to as Act) by the petitioner Companies seeking sanction of the Scheme of Arrangement (hereinafter referred to as Scheme). The petitioner companies had earlier filed C.A. (M) No.126 of 2012 seeking directions of this Court for dispensation of the meetings. Vide Order dated 28.08.2012 this court allowed the application and dispensed with the req...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ParvIn Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
$ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h December, 2012 + MAC. APP. 541/2012 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate. Versus PARVIN DEVI & ORS. Through: + ..... Respondents Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate. MAC. APP. 542/2012 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate. Versus SAVITA DEVI & ORS. Through: + ..... Respondents Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate. MAC. APP. 543/2012 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate. Versus NIRU AGGARWAL & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate. + MAC. APP. 544/2012 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate. Versus KUSUM DEVI & ORS. Through: + ..... Respondents Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate. MAC. APP. 545/2012 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate. Versus PARVESH JAIN & ORS. Through: + ..... Respondents Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate. MA...
Union of India and Another Vs. Indian Bank and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:11. 10.2012 % + Judgment delivered on:18. 12.2012 W.P.(C) 2063/2011 MMTC Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. A.K. Chhabra, Advocate. versus SURJIT SINGH KANDA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Ms. Seema Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.4/Indian Bank. + W.P.(C) 4553/2011 UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate. versus INDIAN BANK AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Seema Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.1/Indian Bank. Mr. Sachin Chopra and Mr. Kamal Bansal, Advocates for the respondent No.2. Mr. A.K. Chhabra, Advocate for the respondent No.3/MMTC. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. The aforesaid two writ petitions preferred by MMTC Ltd. (referred to as MMTC) (WP(C) No. 2063/2011) and the Union of India (W.P.(C.) No. 4553/2011) - pursued by the ...
M/S Bharti Televentures Ltd Vs. Addl./Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
$~12 & 13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h December, 2012 + + ITA 1395/2006 ITA 1656/2010 M/S BHARTI TELEVENTURES LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kaanan Kapoor, Advocate. versus ADDL./JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J: (OPEN COURT) The present appeals are directed against a common order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.03.2006 in cross-appeals filed before the Tribunal. The questions of law sought to be urged are: (i) (ii) Whether the Tribunal fell into error in holding that the software expenses to the extent of `2,69,35,669/- incurred by the assessee were capital in nature? (iii) 2. Whether the Tribunal fell into error in holding that `1,35,05,869/- paid by the assessee as installation expenditure by the assessee was capital in nature and has to be treated as such in assessment proceedings? Whether...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »