Delhi Court May 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.
Ms. Kriti Kohli Vs. Sh. Hari Nand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 11.11.2011 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of double the amount of advance price paid i.e. a total of Rs. 8 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Trial Court has dismissed the suit as it held that the agreement to sell was not entered into with the appellant/plaintiff, but with her mother-Smt. Manju Kohli, and thus only Mrs. Manju Kohli could have been the plaintiff and not the present plaintiff-Ms. Kriti Kohli. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff as the proposed buyer and the respondent/defendant as the proposed seller entered into an agreement to purchase/sell the suit property bearing No.32A, Jain Nagar Extension, Delhi, admeasuring 333 sq. yds. The total sale price was fixed at Rs. 45,95,400/-, and out of which amount, the a...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Kanahiya Lal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs. 15,07,318/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in an accident which occurred on 09.01.2009. 2. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant are: (i) This was a head-on collision, thus there was contributory negligence on the part of the First Respondent. The compensation awarded should be reduced by 50%. (ii) The First Respondent suffered 80% disability on account of amputation of his right leg below knee. The Claims Tribunal did not give any finding as to the actual loss of earning capacity and simply reduced it on surmises to 50%. It should have been taken as less than 40%. 3. The Claims Tribunal dealt with the issue of negligence as under: “6. Since the present claim petition has been instituted under the provisions of Section 166 MV Act, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to establish on record the negligence attributed to R-1, driv...
Indian Pilots Guild Vs. Air India Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J FAO(OS) No. 206/2012 and CM Nos. 8974/2012 (stay) and 8976/2012 (for suit record) 1. This Appeal brings to fore the competing rights of parties in a lis, which has its genesis in the merger of two national air carriers, i.e., Air India and Indian Air Lines. In this, internecine and passionate battle of rights there are several dramatis personae. The appellant, which is a trade union representing evidently 600 pilots of erstwhile Air India is one such party, the respondent which is the management is the other party. But there is an important party to this lis which, often goes unrepresented, which is, the passenger. The respondent, that is, the management, in this litigation, seeks to represent this powerless, but important player, i.e., the passenger. One may or may not be able to decipher the motive of the respondent for doing so, but surely, as is well known, of which we can take judicial notice, that the respondent would find it difficult to survive if the pas...
India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Santosh Choudhary and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant New India Assurance Company Limited impugns a judgment dated 20.12.2007 whereby a compensation of Rs.16 lacs was awarded to Respondents No.1 to 5 for the injuries suffered by Late Satyapal Choudhary in a motor accident which occurred on 14.10.2002 and ultimately resulted in his death on 14.02.2004 i.e. after about a period of 16 months of the accident. 2. In the entire compensation, except the compensation of Rs.2,92,760/- awarded towards loss of dependency, no other compensation has been disputed. The compensation of Rs.16 lacs was largely awarded towards the medical treatment of the deceased. The compensation awarded is tabulated hereunder:- Sl. No. Compensation under various heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal 1.Compensation of Loss of DependencyRs.2,92,760/-2.Medical ExpensesRs. 9,05,204/-3.Other ExpensesRs. 2,82,890/-4.Love and Affection and Loss of EstateRs. 10,000/-5.Loss of ConsortiumRs. 5,000/-6.Funeral ExpensesRs. 2,000/-7.Compensation towa...
Cit Vs. Telsuo Mitera and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL) 1. The revenue has preferred these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) in the case of Telsuo Mitera, Isao Sakai Yoshimi Kamano and Yuji Horikawa. These appeals pertain to the assessment year 2006-07. As a similar issue arises for consideration, we are disposing of these appeals by this common order. 2. The question/issue raised in the present appeal is whether the tax paid by the employer (Japan Airlines International Company Limited) is a “perquisite” within the meaning of Section 17(2) and, therefore, in terms of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (for short, Rules) cannot be taken into consideration for computing value of the perquisite “rent free accommodation”. 3. Relevant portion of Rule 3 and the Explanation thereto applicable with effect from 01.04.2001: - “3. Valuation of perquisites.-For the purpose of computing the income chargeable under the head “Salaries...
In the Matter of Davinder Pal Singh Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of the letter dated 30.09.1987 issued by the respondent/DDA rejecting his request for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of his shop being Shop No.T-721, Zakhira Chowk situated at the Zakhira Flyover area. The petitioner also seeks directions to the respondent/DDA to rehabilitate him in lieu of his shop that was demolished by the respondent, from where the petitioner claims that he was running an automotive repair shop in the name of M/s Pal Auto Electric Works in the year 1984. 2. It is averred in the writ petition that on 15.11.1984, the petitioner’s shop was burnt down during the riots that took place in the area after the assassination of Late Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India. The petitioner claims to have filed a complaint dated 15.11.1984 with the local SHO with regard to the arson and the loss of goods suffered by him, which was duly received at P.S. ...
Fantasy Fashion Vs. Asim Kumar Sinha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner, who is an accused in Complaint Case no.1541/1 of 2005 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, has impugned the order dated 10.10.2011 passed in Criminal Revision No.202/2011. 2. Vide impugned order, learned ASJ, I/C Saket Courts, after considering the grounds on which the petitioner/accused wanted to recall CW-1 - the complainant for further cross examination, affirmed the order dated 29.07.2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The prayer to further cross examine CW-1 was declined for the reasons given in para 8 and 11 of the impugned order which are extracted as under :- “8. Recall of CW-1 was prayed by the accused on the ground that the accused wanted to confront him with certain documents which had come on record subsequent to his cross-examination which were not available earlier. He referred, in this context, to the ledger account of Sunil Garments as produced by DW-3 which contains details of payments by another fir...
Union of India Vs. G.Krishnan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The petitioner, Union of India assails the order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Appeal No.CIC/SG/A/2012/000374, whereby the second appeal preferred by the respondent, Sh. G. Krishnan has been allowed, and a direction has been issued to the petitioner to provide an attested copy of the summary of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) Report and the report on the Athirappilly Hydro Electric Project, Kerala to the respondent before 05.05.2012. It has further been directed that the WGEEP report be placed on the website of the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF) before 10.05.2012. A further direction has been issued to the (MOEF) to publish all reports of commissions, special committees or panels within 30 days of receiving the same, unless it is felt that any part of such report is exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1) and Section 9 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Further directions have been issued ...
Essel Shyam Communication Ltd and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income T ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
SANJIVKHANNA, J. ITA 130/2011 preferred by Essel Shyam Communication Ltd. and ITA Nos.284/2011 and 279/2011 preferred by the Revenue arise out of the common order dated 31stMarch, 2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the tribunal). The appeals pertain to the assessment year 2005-06. We may note that the Revenue has preferred two appeals as there were cross appeals by the Revenue and one by the assessee before the tribunal against the order of the first appellate authority. 2. By order dated 12th July, 2011, the following substantial questions of law were framed in the respective ITAs:- ITA 130/2011 “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that income earned by the appellant from development of software upgrades for Network Management Systems for smooth and trouble free working of VSAT service provided by the appellant, as part of business of telecommunication services, was not eligible for deduct...
Ranjeet Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. The instant Appeal is being filed while challenging the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, whereby he was held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act with fine of Rs.1 Lac. Also challenged the order on sentence dated 18.01.2011 whereby he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years for the offences punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C. has been extended to the Appellant. 2. Mr. K.B. Andley, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has argued only on one issue that under Section 2 (vii-a) of NDPS Act, the quantity of the substance recovered should be more than 20 Kgs. If the quantity is less, then person cannot be convicted for the offences mentioned above. 3. For the convenience, Section 2 (Vii-a) of the NDPS Act is reproduced as under:- “Commercial quantity”, in rel...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »