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.
Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. National Association of Softwar ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
R.V. EASWAR, J. 1. These nine appeals are filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 1998-99, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. They have been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. 2. The respondent-assessee is the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM). The appeals in ITA Nos.472/2011 and 18/2011 for the assessment year 1998-99 are taken as the lead matters. 3. The assessee is a trust registered under Section 12A of the Act by order dated 29.06.1998. In respect of the assessment year 1998-99, it filed a return of income declaring “nil” income on 22.10.1998. The return was first accepted under Section 143(1)(a) on 26.03.1999 but was subsequently selected for scrutiny. Accordingly notices were issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. In the course of the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer examined the financial statements such as income and expenditure accou...
Rajnish Sharma Vs. Harish Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
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 23.9.2011 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff filed under Order 37 CPC by dismissing the leave to defend application filed by the appellant/defendant. 2. A reading of the plaint shows that the suit has been filed on the basis of a cheque for Rs. 3 lacs dated 3.11.2008 which was dishonoured. The plaint also makes a mention of another receipt (date not given) by which the appellant/defendant promised to pay this sum of Rs. 3 lacs, and which is stated to be filed with the plaint. Therefore, the case of the respondent/plaintiff in the plaint was that he was entitled to an amount of Rs. 3 lacs with respect to which not only the cheque was dishonoured but a receipt dated 16.12.2009 was signed by the appellant/defendant. 3. In the leave to defend application filed by the appellant/de...
Narendera Kumar Widhani and Another Vs. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners impugning the summoning order dated 14.11.2006 and the order dated 23.12.2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Special Court (Electricity) in Complaint Case No.853/2006. 2. In brief, the case of the petitioners is that petitioners No.1 and 2 are owners of Flats No.502-503, 5th floor, Siddarth Building, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi and also registered consumer qua the respondent BSES for supply of electricity in the said flats vide K. No.2530N3390030 and 2530N3390034 respectively which stood disconnected since September, 2005. The aforesaid flats were leased out to M/s Sidhvi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vide lease agreement dated 21.05.2006 for running call centre. As per clause 8 of the lease agreement, the lessee i.e. the tenant shall be responsible to pay all charges of electricity and water to the authorities concerned. 3. There was an inspection of the premises by the officials of BSES on 13.07.2006. ...
Nirmaljit Singh Narula Vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral) 1. Mr Nirmaljit Singh Narula, plaintiff herein, filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and damages for Rs.50 crores for defamation against seven defendants, including, defendant No.1 Star India Pvt. Ltd., Mr Uday Shanker, CEO of defendant No.1, Mr Shrivardhan Trivedi and Ms Sumaira Khan, both Anchors of defendant No.1. 2. When the suit and interim application were listed first time on 24.04.2012, summons and notice were issued to the defendants for 27.04.2012. 3. On 27.04.2012, Mr Saikrishna Rajagopal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the defendants No.1 and 2, who informed the Court orally that it is the Media Contents and Communication Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., who was telecasting the news on the Star News Channel. Hence, the defendants No.1 and 2 were not necessary parties to the suit. He was granted time to file the affidavit in this regard and the matter was adjourned to 01.05.2012 for taking necessary steps by the plaintiff. 4. On 0...
Brijesh Gupta Vs. Vijender Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,18,000/- awarded to the Appellant for having suffered injuries in an accident which occurred on 13.06.2007. 2. In the absence of any Appeal by the owner, driver or the Insurance Company, the finding of negligence has become final between the parties. 3. The compensation of Rs.1,18,000/- awarded under various heads is tabulated hereunder: Sl.No. Compensation under various heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal 1.Medical ExpensesRs.85,000/-2.ConveyanceRs. 5,000/-3.Special DietRs. 3,000/-4.Pain and SufferingsRs. 25,000/- ...
Urmil Gulati Vs. Shiv Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,14,770/- awarded to the Appellant for having suffered injuries in an accident which occurred on 18.09.1991. 2. The Appellant suffered head injury a wound on her right eye, fracture shaft humerus with radial N. Palsy (R), subtrochanteric fracture (R) fever , fracture pubic ramie(R) side, fracture both bones (R) leg and multiple wounds. Immediately after the accident, the Appellant was removed to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital for want of satisfactory treatment. She was shifted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where she was operated upon by Dr. K.L. Kalra. Various documents proved on record (Exs. PW2/1 to PW2/73) would show that she remained admitted in Government Hospital in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and was last operated in Parmarth Mission Hospital by Dr. K.B. Raj on 09.10.1998. She remained admitted in Parmarth Mission Hospital from 08.10.1998 to 11.10.1988. It is, therefore, evident that the Appellant r...
Upma Khanna and Another Vs. Tarun Sawhney and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Respondent No.1, Tarun Sawhney, sought specific performance of two agreements to sell both dated September 16, 2009, whereunder he paid Rs.90,00,000/- to defendants No.1 to 5 and additionally Rs.10,00,000/- to defendant No.5. It be noted that appellant No.1 is defendant No.3 and appellant No.2 is defendant No.5. The agreements pertain to property No.BP-32, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi. 2. Late Ms.Usha Bhagat had executed an agreement to sell on August 14, 1969 in favour of defendant No.5 agreeing to sell to him one-half undivided share in the property. Ms.Usha Bhagat was the sister of defendant No.5. The brother and sister fell apart. Defendant No.5 had to litigate with his sister and pursuant to a decree, in execution, got half ownership right in the property No.BP-32, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi. 3. Usha Bhagat died on March 01, 2006. She remained unmarried. Defendants No.1 to 5 are her legal heirs. They litigated with respect to a will dated April 10, 2003, but...
Veronica Vas Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 84/2004 and charge sheet filed under Section 419/420/467/471/474 IPC read with Section 12 of the Passport Act pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24th March, 2004 on receiving a secret information, the Petitioner was apprehended from Aurangzeb Road by ASI Imroj Man and a passport bearing number E6424484 in the name of Deena Asthamakar Yoma Desouza was found in her possession .The petitioner had told her name to be Deena to the ASI. Her personal search was conducted by Lady Ct. Jaywanti and another passport bearing no. A-7889977in the name of Veronica Vas was found in her bag along with its photocopy. After preparation of site plan and registration of case under Section 12 of the Passport Act, the petitioner was interrogated by the police. During her interrogation, the petitioner gave her sta...
Rakesh Saini Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Rai ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
ORAL: Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 10.07.1998 whereby he was removed from service, order dated 14.12.1998 whereby his appeal was rejected, order dated 07.10.2003 whereby his revision was rejected. He has further sought direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits including the back wages. 2. The brief facts as stated by the applicant are that he was served with a charge-sheet in 1996 for unauthorized absence. He had produced the medical certificate showing that his wife and mother were sick but without appreciating those certificates, Enquiry Officer gave his report holding the charge as proved against the applicant. On the basis of findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, disciplinary authority removed him from service vide order dated 10.07.1998 (page 33). Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal but his appeal was rejected on 14.12.98 (page 35) as barred by time without going into the merits of the ca...
Sh. B.T. Manglani Vs. Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice-cha ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
The OA-173/2009 had been allowed vide the Tribunal’s order dated 03.09.2009. However, on a challenge through the W.P.(C) No. 3274/2010, vide the Delhi High Court’s order dated 30.03.2011 the aforesaid order of the Tribunal has been set aside. Reviving the O.A., it has been remanded for fresh adjudication on merit in light of the observations made in the High Court’s order. 2. The applicant superannuated as a Superintending Engineer (SE) under the DDA on 30.09.1995. At the time of the retirement, he was in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/-, replaced after the Fifth CPC as Rs.12000-16500/-. His pension was fixed accordingly. The applicant, however, has been agitating claims for re-fixation of pension on the basis of certain recommendations by the Fifth CPC and consequent decisions thereafter. The claim of the applicant is for revision of pension treating the last pay drawn in the scale of Rs.14300-18300/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. His representation was last rejected vide the D...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »