Delhi Court April 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.
M/S. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): 1. After hearing both sides, I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of textile goods and were availing the benefit of Notification No. 29/04-CE and Notification No. 30/04-CE whereas the notification No. 29/04-CE permitted concessional rate of duty subject to availment of modvat credit, Notification 30/2004-CE allowed unconditional exemption. The appellant was within his rights to use both the notifications simultaneously. 2. However, it so happened that during the period April, 2007 to June, 2007 in Appeal No. 224/10 and during the period August 2006 to March, 2007 involved in Appeal No. 225/10, the appellants only availed the benefit of notification No. 30/04. During this period, they also received cenvatable capital goods on which they availed credit. 3. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the availment of such credit. Whereas the revenues contention is that credit is not available to them in terms of Rule 6(4) of Cenva...
Sunny Vs. Sujata
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
(ORAL) CM No. 7545/2012 (exemption) Exemption as prayed for is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. MAT.APP. 38/2012 1. Admit. 2. With the consent of parties the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. Briefly, the facts are as under:- The parties had filed a joint petition under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) for dissolution of their marriage and decree of divorce by mutual consent stating therein that their marriage was solemnized on 24.06.2011 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Since that day itself, they are living separately from each other. Efforts of reconciliation between them had also failed. Accordingly, they decided to dissolve their marriage u/s 13B (1) and (2) of the Act out of their free will and desire. They had also stated having settled all their claims. Along with the petition u/s 13B (1) of the Act, an application under Section ...
Jageshwar Parshad Sharma Vs. Raghunath Rai and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The Appellant challenges a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, decreeing OS No. 1394/79. The appellant was arrayed as defendant in the respondents’ suit which sought decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell (hereafter “the agreement”) dated 6.6.1977 (executed by the appellant in their favour) and consequential decree for possession (of ground floor part) and also for damages. 2. The plaintiffs had contended that the Defendant No. 1 (hereafter “the appellant”) executed the agreement to sell the property No. 227 in Block E, Greater Kailash, New Delhi measuring 208 sq. yards in their favor for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. They had paid Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. 21,000/- as earnest money and Rs.79,000/- as advance part payment) to him on 9.6.1977 at the time of execution and presentation for registration of the agreement before the Sub-Registrar. The appellant had delivered vacant physical ...
Ms. Nayan Bharti Vs. Dr. S.S. Srivastava and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
REVA KHETRAPAL, J. IA No.15229/2010 (under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant No.1) 1. The defendant No.1 in the aforesaid suit has filed the present application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint inter alia on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 2. The prayer in the present plaint is for a decree of partition by metes and bounds in favour of the plaintiff and handing over of the vacant physical peaceful possession of one-fifth portion of the suit property being House No.R-66, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi measuring 311 square yards to the plaintiff and against the defendants and in case the same is not possible, for sale of the suit property and division of the sale proceeds in equal shares i.e. one-fifth share each between the parties to the suit. The plaintiff further prays for a decree for mesne profits/damages for unauthorized use and occupation of four-fifth portion of the suit property...
Surjeet Singh Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ/order/direction in the nature of habeas corpus to the respondents to produce minor children viz. Jasmine Kaur and Vaani Kaur, daughters of the petitioner before this Court and giving their custody to him. Respondent No.2 before this Court Mrs. Harpreet Kaur is the wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized in India on 17.11.2003. The petitioner was a permanent resident of New Zealand prior to his marriage. In February, 2004, both of them came to live in New Zealand. Respondent No.2 also acquired permanent residency of New Zealand in the year 2006. The petitioner became a New Zealand citizen in March, 2008. Both the children were born in New Zealand and consequently acquired citizenship of that country. The petitioner, respondent No.2 as well as both their children came to India on 6.3.2009. The petitioner had planned to return to New Zealand on 10.4.2009, whereas...
Deep Chand Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby OA No. 3303/2010 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are stated herein below: On 10.2.1992, the petitioner was appointed as a Group ‘D’ employee (Messenger-cum-Cleaner) in the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage and was posted at Locust out post Jaisalmer. On 16.4.1999, he was transferred to the Central Integrated Pest Management Centre (CIPMC) at Faridabad. The Locust out post as well as CIPMC formed part of the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation in Ministry of Agriculture. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Staff Selection Commission (SCC) to hold departmental examination from Group ‘D’ employees, the petitioner applied for the post of Lower Divisional Clerk ...
Sudhir Kumar Mehta Vs. Mamta Mehta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
VEENA BIRBAL, J. 1. Present is an appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’), whereby appellant seeks to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 26th November, 2008 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, East, KKD, Delhi whereby the petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce filed by the appellant-husband under section 13(1)(ia) of the Act has been dismissed. 2. The facts relevant for deciding the present appeal are as under:- The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Arya Samaj rights and customs on 27.6.2004 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Arun Vihar, Noida, U.P. It was the second marriage of the parties. Appellant-husband was a widower at the time of marriage whereas respondent-wife was a divorcee. Out of the earlier marriage of appellant has two children i.e., daughter Shelly Mehta and son Sumit Mehta born on 28.8.2000 and 1.9.2002 respectively. After the birth of his second child, his ...
Polyplex Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL) We have heard counsel for the parties in this appeal, which pertains to the assessment year 2001-02. The following substantial questions of law are framed: (i) Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”, for short) was right in holding that DEPB credit utilized by the assessee and profit earned on sale of DEPB credit would constitute profits under Section 28 (iiid) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that interest income earned shall be excluded while applying Explanation (baa) to Section 80 HHC? (iii) Whether the Tribunal has correctly applied Explanation (1)(iv) to Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while computing the book profits? 2. As far as question no.(i) is concerned, it has to be answered in negative i.e. in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the Revenue. In Topman Exports v. CIT, (2012) 3 SCC 593 it has been held by the Supreme Court that DEPB credit which is utilized is co...
National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Savitri Devi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. impugns a judgment dated 09.04.2010 whereby in a Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act a compensation of Rs.2,42,800/- was awarded in favour of the Respondent Savitri Devi, the deceased’s mother. 2. The manner of the accident as stated by the Respondent No.1 is extracted from para 2 of the impugned judgment hereunder: “2. Brief facts of the petition as stated by the petitioner are that on 5.5.07 at about 1.30 p.m. when deceased Pankaj alongwith his sister Gita and his nephew Master Anurag was going from Delhi to Village Bhadshyana, Bahadur Garh on a motorcycle no..DL 5 SV 6123 and when they reached at Gondi Sarai Village, above the Pulia near Hapur bypass UP, one unknown truck came from opposite side and hit them, as a result of which, deceased Pankaj and his nephew received fatal injuries and died on the spot and sister of the deceased Pankaj Shukla suffered grievous injuries on her pers...
Rohit Shekhar Vs. Narayan Dutt Tiwari and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 23rd September, 2011 of the learned Single Judge allowing I.A. No. 10394/2011 of the respondent no.1 (defendant no.1 in the Suit) in CS(OS) No. 700/2008 filed by the appellant. Notice of the appeal was issued and the counsels have been heard. 2. CS(OS) No. 700/2008 is filed by the appellant for declaration, that he is the natural born son of the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 Dr. Ujjwala Sharma, and that the respondent no.1 is the father of the appellant and for perpetual injunction restraining respondent no.1 from denying in public or otherwise the fact that he is the father of the appellant. The said suit is pending consideration. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant filed I.A. No. 4720/2008 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) for direction to the respondent no.1 to submit himself for a DNA test and/or any other test required to determine the pare...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »