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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagpreet Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:11. h December, 2012 + MAC. APP. 346/2011 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate. Versus JAGPREET SINGH & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Santosh Chauriha, Advocate for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The only ground of challenge in the instant Appeal is that the driving licence possessed by Respondent No.2 (Hari Narain Chaudhary) driver of the offending vehicle was fake. Thus, Respondent No.3 owner of the offending vehicle and the insured committed a breach of the terms and conditions of policy entitling the Appellant Insurance Company to avoid its liability.2. During the inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, the Appellant failed to adduce any evidence that the driving licence possessed by the driver was fake. The report produced before the Trial Court pertains to some other licence. Para 24 of the impugned judgment is extracted hereund...
Tarlochan Singh and ors. Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + I.A. No.11281/2012(by D-2 & D-3 u/Order IX Rule 7 CPC) and I.A. No.11283/2012(by D-2 & D-3 u/Section 5 of Limitation Act ) in CS(OS) 99/2004 Date of Decision:11. h December,2012 IN THE MATTER OF TARLOCHAN SINGH AND ORS. ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr.S.K.Dubey, Ms.Zeenat Masoodi, Ms.Bhagyashree Pati, and Mr.Malay Dwivedi, Advocates versus UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. .... Defendants Through Mr.Madan Gera and Ms.Vriti Anand, Advocates for D-2 & D-3 CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. The present applications have been filed by the applicants/defendants No.2 & 3, who are husband and wife, praying inter alia for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 8.9.2004 and for condonation of delay of 2360 days in filing the accompanying application, under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `CPC).2. Vide order dated 8.9.2004, the defendants No.2 & 3 were proceeded against ex-parte and the plaintiffs were directed...
Sudhir Hilsayan Vs. Chairman, Dr. Ambedkar Foundation and
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P (C) No. 8428/2010 % Judgment reserved on:5. h December, 2012 Judgment delivered on:11. h December, 2012 SUDHIR HILSAYAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj V. George, Mr K. Gireesh Kumar and Mr. Alex Joseph, Advs. Versus CHAIRMAN, DR. AMBEDKAR FOUNDATION AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. L.K. Garg, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Vide the instant petition, petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to complete the selection process for the post of Editor.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Scholar with Masters Degree in Agronomy and Mass Communication with Diploma in Journalism from Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), New Delhi, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. He is highly qualified with 15 years of editorial experience.3. It is submitted that initially, petitioner was appointed as Editor on contractual basis in Dr. Ambedkar Foundation i.e. resp...
Ram Swaroop Vs. Sh. S.J.P. S. Kanwar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CS(OS) No. 2021/2000 11th December, 2012 RAM SWAROOP ...... Plaintiff Through: None. VERSUS ...Defendant SH. S.J.P. S. KANWAR Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.25 lakhs. The suit for recovery has been filed on the ground that the plaintiff had given this amount of ` 25 lakhs to the defendant for purchasing land, but the defendant failed to purchase the land or return back the amount.2. The facts of the case are that plaintiff has been carrying out the affairs of a society namely, Sarvpriya Sehkari Avas Samity Ltd. as its President. The defendant is stated to be an old friend and family acquaintance of one Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Ex-DCP, Delhi Police who was also an office bearer of the society. Plaintiff also knew the defendant for more than 7 years. The societys membership is stated to be consisted ...
Smt.Shanti Devi Vs. Colleague Travels Pvt. Ltd. and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:11. h December, 2012 + MAC.APP. 744/2005 SMT.SHANTI DEVI ...... Appellant Through: Ms.Manjeet Chawla, Advocate versus COLLEAGUE TRAVELS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Through: None. .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appellant Smt.Shanti Devi who is the legal representative of the deceased Hari Ram impugns a judgment dated 19.04.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of ` 1,90,000/- was awarded in favour of the Appellant for the death of her husband Hari Ram who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 22.11.1995.2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of composite negligence of the driver of the Bus not DL-1P-8186 and the driver of the Maruti Van not DL2C-1283 in which the deceased was travelling. The Claims Tribunal thus held that there was negligence to the e...
Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : December 05, 2012 Judgment Pronounced on :December 11,2012 + WP(C) 6268/1999 MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Dy.Comdt.Bhupinder Sharma, BSF. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Exercising power conferred by Rule 22 read with Rule 177 of the BSF Rules and Section 11 (2) of the BSF Act, after serving a show cause notice upon the petitioner, his services were terminated.2. On the subject whether such administrative termination was recognized by law, as per decision dated March 21, 2006 dismissing WP(C) 6577/2002 Ct.Akhilesh Kumar v.D.G.BSF & Ors. it was observed by a Division Bench of this Court as under:Considering the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the considered opinion that ratio of the aforesaid decisions of this Court as also of the Sup...
D.T.C. Vs. the P.O., I.T. No. Ii and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) No. 5344/2003 Decided on:11. h December, 2012 D.T.C. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Adv. versus THE P.O., I.T. NO. II & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. for R-2. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 19th September, 2002 whereby the approval application of the Petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the ID Act) was dismissed as the Petitioner failed to prove the alleged misconduct.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the decision of the learned Trial Court is contrary to the law laid down in DTC. Vs. Sardar Singh (2004) 7 SCC 57.wherein it has been held that even if absence is treated as leave without pay the same is a misconduct. The learned Trial Court misdirected itself in passing the impugned award and the same is liable to be set aside and the matter be remande...
Shankar Lal Vs. Assistant Commissiioner (Lande;) and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:11. h December, 2012 % + LPA No.642/2012 SHANKAR LAL Through: ..... Appellant Mr. V.C. Gautam & Mr. Rahul Mohod, Advs. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER (L&E) & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Sadhana Sharmam Adv. with Mr. Shashi Rattanpal, AO (L&E) & Mr. Praveen Kumar, JCF. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 28th May, 2012 of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.3309/2012 preferred by the appellant, with liberty to the appellant to seek his remedies, as may be available on the Civil side.2. The appellant is employed as an Assistant Engineer with the respondent Delhi Jal Board (DJB) and by virtue of his employment has been allotted Quarter not G-8/II, Okhla Water Works, New Delhi. It appears that the appellant and certain other allottees of other quarters had carried out unauthorized additions/alterations in their respective quarters a...
Director of Income Tax Vs. Mc Donalds Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
$~12 & 13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Dated of decision :11. 12.2012 + + ITA 908/2011 ITA 909/2011 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX Through: versus MC DONALDS CORPORATION Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel. ..... Respondent Mr. G. C. Shrivastava with Mr. Robin David, Mr. Chitranshul Sinha and Mr. Febin Mathew, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J: (OPEN COURT) In these appeals the Revenue impugns a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) dated 18.02.2011 made in ITA No.4433 & 4434/Del/2010. The common question of law framed is as follows: Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that jurisdictional pre-condition for issuance of notice under Section 147/ 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not satisfied in the present case and, accordingly, the re-assessment proceedings are bad in law? 2. The assessee entered into a master licensing agreement (MLA) ...
Cit Vs. Ultra Modern Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:11. 12.2012 + ITA 262/2012 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus ULTRA MODERN EXPORTS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The Revenue is in appeal, aggrieved by the order of the ITAT dated 14.06.2011 in ITA-87/del/2011. The question of law urged is: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT could have deleted the entire addition of Rs.4,34,00,000/-, citing the reason that the AO has not doubted the identity of the share applicants and by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. besides other cases like Dhirajlal Girdhari Lal v. CIT, 261 TR 736.2. The facts necessary for deciding this case are that for AY 2007-08, the AO held that the assessee ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »