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.
Nand Lal Vs. Bakshi Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) 5498/2010 Reserved on:13. h September, 2012 Decided on:6. h December, 2012 NAND LAL Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Adv. versus BAKSHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Malhotra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the award dated 30th January, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court in an industrial dispute ID No. 156/2003 whereby the learned Labour Court held that the workman has failed to prove his case and refused to grant him any relief.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the learned labour court has failed to appreciate that the services of the workman were terminated and that he did not leave his services of his own free will. The Petitioner who had a permanent job and was employed for over four years would not whimsically tender his resignation and thereafter within a month i...
University of Delhi and anr. Vs. Nalini Prabhakar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:4. h December, 2012. Pronounced on:6. h December, 2012. + LPA No.289/2012 & C.M.No.6543/2012 (stay) CM Nos.6542/2012 (Delay) & UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Beenashaw Soni, Mr. Aayush Chandra, Ms. Ankita Mishra and Ms. Namrata, Advocates. versus NALINI PRABHAKAR Through: ..... Respondent Mr. S.K. Rungta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prashant Singh, Ms. Pratiti Rungta and Ms. Rashmi J., Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW : D.MURUGESAN, CHIEF JUSTICE CM No.6542/2012 (Delay of 209 days in filing the appeal) 1. The above application filed by University of Delhi seeks for a direction to condone the delay of 209 days in filing the appeal challenging the order dated 29.07.2011 passed in the writ petition.2. The respondent filed the writ petition challenging the decision of the Executive Council (EC) of the University of Delhi dated 30.0...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Morgan Finvest Pvt Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:6. h November, 2012 Date of Decision:6. h December, 2012 % + ITA 1855/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr.Puneet Gupta, Standing Counsel. Versus MORGAN FINVEST PVT LTD. ......Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha & Mr.Somnath Shukla, Advs. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.This is an appeal filed by the CIT under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short).2. Admit.3. The following question of law is framed:Whether the Tribunal erred in law in deleting the penalty of `14,46,239/- imposed by the assessing officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and confirmed by the CIT (Appeals)? 4. The appeal relates to the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee, respondent herein, is a private limited company engaged mainly in the business of investment and to undertake and transact financial se...
Chandeswar Chaudhary and ors. Vs. Vaij Nath Chaudhary and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
$ 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:6. h December, 2012 + MAC. APP. 596/2009 CHANDESWAR CHAUDHARY & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. A.C. David with Mr. Chaudhary, Advocates. A.K. Versus VAIJ NATH CHAUDHARY & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Ranjan Roy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Gulshan Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mr. Ram N. Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 19.09.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby in a Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act) a compensation of `2,60,500/- was awarded for the death of Sanjeev Kumar, a bachelor aged 15 years who was working as a helper with a private company.2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that deceased was earning `3,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal...
igi Airport Restaurant Vs. Silva Raj and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:06. 12.2012 LPA No.1056/2011 INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. .. Appellant versus VINOD & ORS. .. Respondents LPA No.135/2012 IGI AIRPORT RESTAURANT .. Appellant versus SUBRAMANIUM & ORS. .. Respondents LPA No.203/2012 IGI AIRPORT RESTAURANT .. Appellant versus SILVA RAJ & ANR. .. Respondents and LPA No.217/2012 THE MANAGEMENT OF ASHOK HOTEL (ITDC) .. Appellant versus PERUMAL & ANR. .. Respondents Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Appellants For the Respondents : Mr V.K.Rao, Sr Advocate with Mr Ayushya Kumar in LPA Nos.1056/2011 & 217/2012. Mr Karunesh Tandon in LPA Nos.135/2012 & 203/2012. : Mr S.S.Upadhyay. CORAM: HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. This batch of appeals raises a common question of law and is being disposed of by this common order.2. The common question of law involved in these appeals relates to whether a court can go...
Renu Brij Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TEST.CAS. 109/2011 RENU BRIJ ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Jagjit Singh with Mr.Bhagat Singh, Advs. versus STATE AND ORS Through ..... Respondent Ms.JyotiKataria Proxy Adv. for Mr. B.S. Dhir for D-2 to 5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR % 1. ORDER 06 12.2012 The petitioner has filed the present petition under sections 213, 228, 273 ofIndian Succession Act, 1925 read with section 41 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 13 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking reendorsement over the probate already granted in favour of the petitioner by a foreign court in respect of the Will dated 12.3.2009 executed by her husband, late Sh. RusiBrij who died on 20.5.2009 in New Jersey,USA. Copy of the death certificate is placed on record. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are son and daughter, Respondent no.4 is the mother and respondent no. 5 is the brother of the testator.2. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the said Will, the deceased appointed Petitione...
Uoi and anr Vs. Dr. B.N. Mittal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:06. 12.2012 W.P.(C) 9562/2007 UOI AND ANR ..... Petitioners versus DR. B.N. MITTAL ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Petitioners For the Respondent : Mr R.V. Sinha with Mr A.S. Singh : Mr K.K. Khurana, Sr Advocate with Ms Tamali Wad CORAM: HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.(ORAL) 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.03.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal) in O.A. No.2339/2004 the petitioner had challenged the Disciplinary Authoritys order dated 09.07.2004 whereby he had been awarded the punishment of 100% cut on pension on permanent basis along with forfeiture of the entire gratuity amount.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with a Charge Memo on 14.12.1999 containing three articles of charge. The disciplinary proceedings were init...
Ramesh Chawla and ors. Vs. Varun Grover and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
$ 12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:6. h December, 2012 + MAC. APP. 170/2012 RAMESH CHAWLA & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Vineet Hans with Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocates. Versus VARUN GROVER & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `2,78,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Ranjana Chawla who was carrying on a business in the name and style of Ankur Fabrics.2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the insurer; the finding on negligence has attained finality.3. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that deceased Ranjana Chawla was in business and was having an income of `1,80,000/- per annum. The deceased was survived by her husband, a daughter and a son. It was also established that App...
Govt of Nct of Delhi and ors Vs. Gajraj Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:06. 12.2012 W.P.(C) 45/2010 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ... Petitioner versus ... Respondent GAJRAJ SINGH Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent : Ms Latika Chaudhary for Mrs Avnish Ahlawat : Mr Anil Singal CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 2189/2008, whereby the respondents said Original Application has been allowed.2. The respondent had contended before the Tribunal that the written test, which was conducted for the post of Head Constable, comprised of three questions which ought not to have been considered for the purpose of marking. It was contended that question No. 53 was marked incorrectly inasmuch as the Answer Key was wrong. In fact, it was contended t...
Sanjeev Kansal Vs. Laxmi Chand Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:06. 12.2012 CS(OS) 177/2011 SANJEEV KANSAL Through: Mr B.B. Gupta, Adv. ..... Plaintiff versus LAXMI CHAND SHARMA Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN ..... Defendant JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a suit for grant of mandatory injunction or in the alternative for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell dated 25.03.2010. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant Shri Laxmi Chand Sharma, who died during pendency of the suit, was the owner of Property No.41-A/1, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi and vide agreement dated 25.03.2010, he agreed to sell the aforesaid property to him for a consideration of Rs 77 lakh. This is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had received earnest money, amounting to Rs 1 lakh form him by way of a cheque and the balance sale consideration of Rs 76 lakh was agreed to be paid on or before 30.10.2010, at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »