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.
Gaurav Gandhi Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
$~17. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8283/2011 % Judgment dated 05.12.2012 GAURAV GANDHI Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.R.K. Saini and Mr.Vikram Saini, Advs. versus DDA Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Manika Tripathy Pandey and Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Pleadings are complete in this matter.2. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties, present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.3. The necessary facts, to be noticed for disposal of the present petition, are that the father of the petitioner had registered himself under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, for allotment of an LIG flat. At the time of registration, two addresses were provided by petitioner to the DDA residential address being Flat No.884/1212, Paschimpuri Janta Flats, Pocket-2, New Delhi, and the occupational address being C/o Shri Sant Lal Gupta, B-137, Shakurpur, J.J.Colony, Delhi. In the year 1991, the fat...
Babita Pal and Others Vs. Jagdish Bansal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
15. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DATE OF DECISION:05. 12.2012 + FAO(OS) NO. 569/2012 BABITA PAL AND OTHERS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. H.S.Phoolka, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.M.Anis, Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur & Mr. Gursimranjit Singh, Advs. Versus JAGDISH BANSAL Through: ..... Respondent Dr. (Mr.) Surat Singh & Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.C.M. No. No. 19831/2012 (for condonation of 6 days delay in filing the appeal) & C.M. No. No. 19832/2012 (for condonation of 23 days in refiling the appeal) Notice, which is accepted by learned counsel for the respondent. For the reasons set out in the applications, the delays in filing and refiling the appeal are condoned subject to payment of Rs. 7,500/- as costs to the respondent. The applications are allowed. The costs to be paid within a week. C.M. No. 20278/2012 (under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC) Notice, which is accepted by learned counsel for the responden...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Ganapati Finance Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:18. h October, 2012 Date of Decision:5. h December, 2012 % + ITA 475/2006 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Gayatri Verma, Advocate. Versus M/S. GANAPATI FINANCE LTD. ......Respondent Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor with Mr. Ankit Gupta, Mr. Vikas Jain and Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.: This is an appeal by the CIT under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the following substantial questions of law were framed on 30.7.2007:1. Whether the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing depreciation of `30,00,37/- to the assessee on leased out LPG cyclinders? 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowing depreciation of `19,99,440/- to the assessee on leased out Air Jet Spindle Assembly and Positar Disc? The figure of `30,00,37/- in question No.1 should a...
M/S. Digamber Garments and anr. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:30. 10.2012 Judgment delivered on:05. 12.2012 % + WP(C) No. 4688/2002& 6198/2010 M/S. DIGAMBER GARMENTS & ANR ...... Petitioners Vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners: Mr. Manoj Goel with Mr. Jagmohan Sharma, Mr. Gopal Verma and Ms. Viparna Gaur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Renuka Arora with Mr. Kunal Kohli and Mr. Vikas Sood, Advocates CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J WP(C) No. 4688/2002 & WP(C) No.6198/2010 & CM No.12267/2010 1. These writ petitions have been filed to essentially challenge the communication dated 10.07.2002 issued by the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (in short DSIDC) i.e. Respondent No.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned communication as their allotment to plot No.8 (Pocket-F) Sector-5, situate at Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi, admeasuring 200 sq. mtrs., stands cancelle...
Mrs. Mithlesh Sharma and ors Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: % + Judgment delivered on:09. 08.2012 05.12.2012 W.P.(C) 3725/2011 MRS. MITHLESH SHARMA & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sumit Bansal, Mr. Ateev Mathur & Ms. Sumi Anand, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: + ..... Respondents Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 & 3. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ajay Arora, Mr.Govind Kumar & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates for the respondent No.4/MCD. W.P.(C) 3726/2011 SHRI RAMESHWAR GOPAL & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: WP(C) Nos. 3725-26/2011 ..... Respondents Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ajay Arora, Mr.Govind Kumar & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates for the respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT V...
Tej Pal Singh Vs. U.O.i. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: November 19, 2012 Judgment delivered on: December 05, 2012 + W.P.(C) No.126/2000 TEJ PAL SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate versus U.O.I. & ANR Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Rajinder Nischal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in CISF on April 15, 1988. He had reported posting at CISF Unit, ONGC, Dehradun on July 01, 1996.2. Under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1969 charges were levelled vide letter dated March 03, 1998 i.e. (i) for his repeatedly unauthorized visiting the family quarter of Lady Ct.Anita Devi at odd hours; (ii) entering into the office of the Coy. Commander Insp.M.S.Sahi and misbehaving with him on February 19, 1998; and (iii) attempting for assault on Ct.Jarnail Singh and attempt to snatch rifle from Ct.Ram Singh Jalal posted at ITD Gate and threatenin...
Narendra Singh Decd Thr Lrs and anr Vs. Balmukand and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:05. 12.2012 + CM(M) 1576/2010, CM 22095/2010 NARENDRA SINGH DECD THR LRS & ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Samar Bansal, Adv. versus BALMUKAND & ANR ..... Respondent Through: + Respondents in person. CM(M) 1646/2010, CM 23205/2010 DARSHAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Samar Bansal, Adv. versus BALMUKAND & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Respondents in person. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.(Oral) 1. By this common judgment, both the above referred petitions are being disposed of as they arise out of the two identical orders of Addl. Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT).2. The petitioners are the tenants under the respondents in respect of their respective portions of the suit premises. Their eviction was sought by the respondents under Sections 14(1)(b), 14(1)(d), 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act). Identical separate orders were passed against them under Section 15(2) of the Act. There bein...
K.L. Chandna Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :09. 04.2012 Judgment pronounced on :05. 12.2012 W.P.(C) 12993/2009 K.L. CHANDNA ..... Petitioners versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Petitioners : Mr K.G. Mishra For the Respondents : Mr Jagat Arora CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J 1.The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking following reliefs:(a) Issue appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondent bank to fix the pension payable to the petitioner on the basis of wages/salary payable to the petitioner in terms of respondent bank letter dated 3rd March, 2009. (b) Direct respondent bank to pay the difference of arrear of enhanced pension mentioned as above less the pension already paid along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till actual date of payment. (c) Direct respondent bank to pay th...
Ghanshyam Prasad Yadav Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. A. 997/2012 Reserved on:22. d November, 2012 Date of Decision:5. h December, 2012 % GHANSHYAM PRASAD YADAV ....Appellant Through Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate. Versus STATE Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP. + Crl. A. 297/2012 SUDHIR PRASAD YADAV @ BOXER .Appellant Through Mr. D. K. Sharma, Mr. O.S. Punia & Mr. Depak Panwar, Advocates. Versus STATE .Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. P. GARG SANJIV KHANNA, J.By the impugned judgment, dated 24th September, 2011, the two appellants Ghanshyam Prasad Yadav and Sudhir Prasad Yadav (hereinafter referred to as A1 and A2, respectively) have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short), for murder of Mahesh Kukreja, on 29th November, 2008, in his office, at 1st Floor of Property No. 2263/68 Gali Raghunandan, Naya Bazar, Delhi. The appellants have been sentenced to life impr...
Ms. Manjula Singh Vs. Miss Punita Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.219/1984 % December 05, 2012 MS. MANJULA SINGH Through: ...... Plaintiff Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocate. VERSUS MISS PUNITA SINGH Through: ...... Defendant Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This is a partition suit. Originally, the two parties to the suit were two sisters. There were two properties of which partition was sought. First was the property at plot No.29, Block 171, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. The second property was land admeasuring 2200 sq yds, situated at village Kilokri, Opp. Gurdwara Bala Sahib, off. Ring Road, New Delhi.2. So far as the property at Sunder Nagar is concerned, the same has been sold long back after passing of the preliminary decree and therefore qua that property no orders are required to be passed.3. Today, the suit is listed for consideration of objections to the report of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »