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.
M/S. Simka Hotels and Resorts Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON:06. 11.2012 PRONOUNCED ON:17. 01.2013 + W.P.(C) 4350/2012, C.M. APPL. 9016/2012 M/S.SIMKA HOTELS AND RESORTS ..... Petitioner Through: Sh. Rajat Navet, Advocate. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Sh. Amol Sinha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel, Sh. Anshum Jain and Sh. Rahul Kochar, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 29.3.2012 passed by Respondent no. 2, i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax (Commissioner, for short).2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.02.1997 the petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with M/s. Dalmia Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Edward Keventer (Successor) Pvt. Ltd for the purchase of 500 sq mtrs. of land or a residential flat not exceeding 300 sq mtrs, in Block ...
Bindu Rani Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. h January, 2013 % + LPA NO.499/2012 BINDU RANI Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhilash Mathur, Mr. Amandeep Joshi & Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advs. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. T. Mitra, Adv. for Ms. Anjana Gosain, Adv. for R-1. Mr. J.S. Vohra, Adv. for R-2 to 4. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 14.05.2012 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.10781/2009 preferred by the appellant. Notice of the appeal was issued. A reply to the memo of appeal has been filed by the respondents No.2 to 4. The counsels have been heard.2. The appellant had filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises, pleading: (i) that she possesses the qualification of Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) and is also holding the qualification of J...
J.P. Saini Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: January 17, 2013 + Ex.P.No.127/2006 J.P. SAINI Represented by: ..... Decree Holder Mr.Abhinav Tathagat, Adv. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Judgment Debtor Represented by: Ms.Mini Pushkarna, Adv. with Mr.Shantanu Tyagi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By award dated 12th June, 2005, the learned Arbitrator awarded a sum of `22,41,175/- in favour of the contractor towards the gross amount of bills passed by the Municipal Corporation. The learned Arbitrator further awarded interest @8% on the outstanding payments from the date the bills were passed till the date of payment. Further, an amount of `43,000/- was awarded as cost and `2400/- was awarded as statutory cost of stamp of award.2. The Municipal Corporation filed objections to the award, which was dismissed and the award passed by the learned Arbitrator was upheld by the Division Bench vide order dated 15th September, 2...
Yapi Kredi Bank (Deutschland) Ag Vs. Mr. Ashok. K. Chauhan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON:10. 05.2012 PRONOUNCED ON:17. 01.2013 FAO(OS) 511/2007, C.M. APPL. 14878/2008 & 3645/2012 YAPI KREDI BANK (DEUTSCHLAND) AG .Appellant Through: Sh. K.V. Viswanathan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Hari Priya Padmanabhan, Sh. Nehul Gupta and Sh. Simon Benjamin, Advocates. Versus MR. ASHOK. K. CHAUHAN AND ORS. Respondents Through: Sh. P.V. Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Vinay Garg, Advocate, for Respondent No.1. Sh. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Rajesh Yadav, Advocates, for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Sh. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Sh. A.P. Singh and Sh. Rajan Chawla, Advocates, for Respondent Nos. 5 to 13. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The appeal throws up an interesting question, i.e whether the amalgamation, of a company (which institutes a suit, that is pending) with another, results in its corporate death, and consequent abatement of the suit, FAO(OS) 511/2007, C.M. APPL...
Ranjit Dadlani Vs. State Nct of Delhi Thr. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
* + HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL. M.C. NO.1180/2012 & Crl.M.A. 4184/2012 Decided on :17. 01.2013 RANJIT DADLANI Petitioner Through: Mr.Mahabir Singh, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Rakesh Dahiya, Ms. Preeti Singh and Mr.Dilbagh Singh, Advocates. Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI THR. CBI Respondent Through: Ms.Sonia Mathur, Standing counsel for CBI CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 20.3.2012 passed by the learned Special JudgeIV, (PC Act) CBI, Delhi in case CC No.75/2008, whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was partially disallowed.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer in the office of AE, Subdivision 5B, CPWD Curzan Road, New Delhi. As per the prosecutions case, one Mohd. Ali Zamir made a written complaint to the S.P. Anti Corruption Branch, CBI on 11.3.1996 to the effect that he was the partne...
K.Subramanium and ors. Vs. Shiv Kumar Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
$~R-40 & R-40A * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 17, 2013 + W.P.(C) 4518/2001 UOI & ORS. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr.Gaurav Khanna, Advocate. versus SHIV KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent Represented by: Respondent No.1 in person. AND W.P.(C) 4175/2002 K.SUBRAMANIUM & ORS. Represented by: None. ..... Petitioners versus SHIV KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Respondent No.1 in person. Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr.Gaurav Khanna, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Same order dated February 15, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing O.A.No.2017/1999 filed by respondent Shiv Kumar Gupta in both the writ petitions has been assailed by the Union of India and 3 out of 9 private respondents impleaded by him in the original application.2. None appears for the 3 private respondents in the o...
Commissioner Value Added Tax Vs. M/S. a L D Automative Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON:27. 09.2012 PRONOUNCED ON:17. 01.2013 + ST.APPL. 5/2011 COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX ..... Petitioner Versus M/S. CARZONRENT INDIA PVT LTD + ST.APPL. 6/2011 COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX ..... Respondent ..... Petitioner Versus M/S. CARZONRENT INDIA PVT LTD ..... Respondent + ST.APPL. 7/2011, C.M. APPL. 10492/2011 & Cross Appeal 13377/2012 COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX ..... Petitioner Versus M/S. A L D AUTOMATIVE PVT LTD + ST.APPL. 8/2011 COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX ..... Respondent ..... Petitioner Versus M/S. L & T FINANCE LTD + ST.APPL. 9/2011 COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX Versus M/S. DIGITECH SYSTEMS ST.APPL.4/11, 5/11, 6/11, 7/11, 8/11, 9/11 & 16/11 ..... Respondent ..... Petitioner ..... Respondent Page 1 + ST.APPL. 16/2011 CARZONRENT (INDIA) PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Parag. P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and Ms. Monisha Handa, Advocates, ...
Remfry and Sagar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:6. h December, 2012 Date of Decision:17. h January, 2013 % + + + + W.P. (C) 8375/2010 W.P. (C) 8376/2010 W.P. (C) 8377/2010 W.P. (C) 8378/2010 REMFRY AND SAGAR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Mr. Cyril Abrol, Mr. Samridh Bhardwaj and Mr. Pravesh Sharma, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.These are four writ petitions filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the notices issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) and all proceedings consequent thereto.2. The petitioner is a law firm specialising in intellectual property and corporate laws. It was founded in 1827 by one Henry Oliver at Calcutta. In the year 1957 certain Englishmen took over the firm. By deed dated 04.04.1973 these gentlemen by names Hollow...
Kiran Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.437/2010 Decided on :17. 1.2013 KIRAN Appellant Through: Mr.D.K.Sharma, Adv. Versus UOI Respondent Through : Mr.J.P.Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Railway Claims Tribunal had erroneously dismissed the claim petition of the appellant filed u/S 1.of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act without appreciating the fact that the deceased had died in the railway accident and he had duly established this by the ticket of the deceased that he was a bonafide passenger.3. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned FAO No.437/2010 counsel and gone through the impugned Page 1 of 7 judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal as well as the record.4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a petition was filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act by the appe...
Anjuman-e-haideri (Regd.) Vs. the Chairman, Ndmc and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. h January, 2013 % + CONT. CAS(C) NO.820/2012 ANJUMAN-E-HAIDERI (REGD.) ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi, Adv. Versus THE CHAIRMAN, NDMC & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Madhu Tewatia & Ms. Sidhi Arora, Advs. for NDMC. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.Contempt is averred of the orders dated 17.05.2012 & 25.09.2012 in W.P.(C) No.646/2012 pending before this Bench. Vide order dated 17.05.2012, upon the counsel for the parties agreeing that the boundary wall as per the demarcation report, referred to in the said order, be constructed by the NDMC, NDMC was directed to go ahead with the construction of the boundary wall without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Vide subsequent order dated 25.09.2012, on the statement of the counsel for the relator / petitioner who is the respondent No.6 in the writ petition that inspite of the order...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »