Delhi Court January 2013 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.
Jitender @ Kalia Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d January, 2013 + CRL. M.C. 249/2013 JITENDER @ KALIA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Bankim K. Kulshrestha, Adv. versus + THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State. ASI Ram Goal, PS Mukherjee Nagar. CRL. M.C. 253/2013 JITENDER @ KALIA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Bankim K. Kulshrestha, Adv. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State. ASI Ram Goal, PS Mukherjee Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) CRL M.A.851/2013 (Exemption) in CRL. M.C. 249/2013 CRL M.A.860/2013 (Exemption) in CRL. M.C. 253/2013 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Applications are allowed. CRL. M.C. 249/2013 & CRL. M.C. 253/2013 1. By virtue of these two Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) the Petitioner invokes the inherent powers of the Court to summon four witne...
Vistar Construction (P) Ltd Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:23. 01.2013 W.P.(C) 5636/2010 VISTAR CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS + ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 3632/2012 PIYARE LAL HARI SINGH BUILDERS PVT LTD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr J K Mittal, Mr Arun Gulati and Mr Rajan Bharti, Advs. : Mr Sumeet Pushkarna, Adv. for UOI in WP(C) 5636/2010 Ms Sonia Sharma, Mr V C Jha and Mr Ashish Virmani, Advs. for UOI in WP(C) 3632/2012 For the Respondent CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) These writ petitions are being disposed of together as they raise common issues. Both the writ petitions are directed against the instruction dated 28.04.2008 issued by the Tax Research Unit, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India purportedly in exercise of the powers under Section 3...
Union of India and Others Vs. Harender Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
$~3 & 18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision : January 23, 2013 + W.P.(C) 2217/2011 UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS Represented by: versus ..... Petitioners Mr.Shaqib, Advocate HARENDER KUMAR & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Padma Kumar S.,Adv. AND W.P.(C) 3643/2011 UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS Represented by: versus O.P.MALIK & ORS Represented by: ..... Petitioners Mr.Shaqib, Advocate ..... Respondents Mr.Krishan Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(ORAL) 1. When WP(C) 2217/2011 was called for hearing, Mr.Krishan Kumar, Advocate drew our attention to an order dated May 25, 2011 passed in WP(C)3643/2011 directing that said writ petition should be listed for hearing along with WP(C) 2217/2011. Accordingly, after passing over WP(C) 2217/2011 we had directed the Registry to list WP(C) 3643/2011 today itself before us and accordingly the said writ petition has been listed at serial No.18 in...
Rahul Dev Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secretary and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A): 1. The applicant has sought the following relief:- (a) To set aside the impugned order/communication dated 22.03.2012 (Annexure A1) passed by Respondent No.3. To hold and declare that the applicant who has cleared Part II examination for the Post Code 044/07 in UR category for the post of Instructor (Maths) is eligible for the said Post and as such is entitled for the appointment to the said post. To hold and declare that the applicant has a right to be considered for appointment for Post Cod 044/07 in UR category for the post of Instructor (Maths) is eligible for the said Post. To direct the respondent to issue Letter of appointment to the applicant for the post of Instructor (Maths) (Post code 044/07) in the UR category). To pass any further order(s) which this Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the cas. Costs. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.08.2007 an Advertisement was issued in Delhi Newspaper by the respondents r...
M/S. L.G. Electronics India Private Limited Vs. the Asstt. Commissione ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
R.S. Syal, AM The Hon'ble President has constituted this Special Bench to adjudicate the following two questions: "1. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer was justified in making transfer pricing adjustment in relation to advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee? 2. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in holding that the assessee should have earned a mark up from the Associated Enterprise in respect of AMP expenses alleged to have been incurred for and on behalf of the AE?" 2. The factual matrix of the case is that L.G. Electronics Inc. (hereinafter called as LGK), is a Korean based company, engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and distribution of electronic products and electrical appliances such as television, audio/video equipments, washing machines, refrigerators and air-conditioners etc. Pursuant to the approval of the Govt. of India, conveyed vide letter dated 29-1-1997, LGK was permitt...
Sher Singh Vs. N.D.M.C. and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: January 22, 2013 + W.P.(C) 334/2013 SHER SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Malaya Chand with Mr.S.P.Mitra, Advocates versus N.D.M.C. AND ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Harshvardhan Singh for Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(ORAL) CM No.694/2013 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 334/2013 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Reliefs sought in O.A.No.963/2012 by the writ petitioner read as under:In view of the facts and grounds stated above the applicant/petitioner pray for the following relief:(A)(i) To quash and set aside the Impugned Memo (Annexure-A/1) and subsequent Inquiry Proceedings/ Findings of Inquiry Officer (Annexure-A/2) in the interest of justice. (ii) To quash and set aside the orders of Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-A/3), Appellate Authority (Annexure-A/4). OR (B) To ...
Nagendra Upadhyay Vs. the Govt of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 22, 2013 + W.P.(C) 7871/2012 NAGENDRA UPADHYAY ..... Petitioner Represented by:Mr.S.N.Tripathi, Advocate versus THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by:Mr.Satvik Verma, Advocate for respondents 1 and 3. Ms.Sangeeta Tomar, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.1. By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated September 20, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal) in OA No.4063/2011 whereby the request of the petitioner for issuing directions to the respondents for grant of Children Education Allowance (in short referred to as `the CEA) has been rejected.2. Petitioner is a TGT (Sanskrit) serving under respondents 1, 3 and 4. His claim for reimbursement of CEA in respect of his two children, namely Harsh Vardhan ...
Anil Bothra and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. d January, 2013 + CRL. M.C. 3978/2011 ANIL BOTHRA & ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate versus STATE & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State along with ASI Ram Gopal Singh, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar. Mr. J.S. Bakshi, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Petitioners invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of charge for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34, 406/34 and 506(ii)/34 IPC.2. A criminal complaint was preferred by the complainant Ashish Begwani alleging that the three Petitioners approached the complainant and allured him to deposit his money with their firm as they had a very flourishing and lucrative business and the complainant would be paid interest @ 24% per annum. The complainant was lured by the representatio...
Replika Press Private Limited and anr Vs. Assistant Commissioner of In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:22. 01.2013 WP(C) 13838/2009 REPLIKA PRESS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR ... Petitioners versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15 1) NEW DELHI ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr S. Krishnan For the Respondents : Mr Kamal Sawhney CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition impugns the notice dated 24.02.2009 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) seeking to re-open the assessment for the assessment year 2005-06.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of Section 147 have been wrongly invoked by the revenue inasmuch as the Assessing Officer is seeking to merely change his opinion which is not permissible in law. In order to examine this plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be necessary...
Asmita Sharma and anr Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. d January, 2013 + CRL. M.C. 3649/2012 ASMITA SHARMA & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Prem Kumar, Adv. with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. In this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) the Petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 16.04.2012 whereby the Petitioners prayer for dropping the proceedings for the offence punishable under Sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 3/181, 146/196 and 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the M.V. Act) was declined by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM). A Revision Petition filed against the order dated 16.04.2012 came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) by an order dated 07.09.2012.2. The f...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »