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.
Gopal Kishan Vs. Union of Inida and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 45/2013 GOPAL KISHAN Through: versus UNION OF INIDA & ANR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Mr. Rahul Vidhani, Ms. Sudipa Das Gupta, Mr. A.K. Goel and Mr. Arun Jain, Advocates ..... Respondent Mr. Ruchir Mishra and Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN ORDER 16 01.2013 % On 6.9.1961, the respondent no.2 before this Court sought registration of a trademark consisting of the word STANDARD and a device. At the time of seeking registration, the respondent no.2 did not claim any prior use of the aforesaid mark. The case of the appellant is that the said application was not pursued and on 2.12.1975, respondent no.2 submitted another application for registration of the mark consisting of the letter S inside a triangle and the word STANDARD above the triangle and the word India below the triangle. This time, respondent no.2 claimed use since p...
Khushi Seva Sanstha (Regd) Vs. the State and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2000/2012 KHUSHI SEVA SANSTHA (REGD) Through: Mr. Alamgir, Adv. versus THE STATE & ORS Through: ..... Petitioner ..... Respondent Mr. Ravi Sikri with Mr. A. Kumar, Advs. for R-5 and 6. Mr. Suman Kukrety for Ms. Farida Satarawala Chopra, Adv. for R-4 Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv. for R1 Ms. Anooja Srivastava for Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Adv. for MCD/R-3 Mr. Ajay Verma, Standing Counsel for DDA with Mr. Kamal Nijhawan and Mr. Dinesh Patel, Adv. for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN ORDER 16 01.2013 % Alleging encroachment and illegal construction in the Greenbelt of Khasra No. 225 situated in Village Arakpur Bagh Mochi, Delhi, belonging to the Government and particularly alleging construction by respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the wall adjacent to a monument, the petitioner has sought direction to respondent no.2 DDA and respondent no.3 Municipal Corporation of Delhi to forthwith demolish the structure and ...
Commissioner of Income Tax-viii Vs. Ajai Shukla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:16. 01.2013 ITA 606/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII ... Appellant versus AJAI SHUKLA ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel with Ms Gayatri Verma, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr S. Krishnan, Adv. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred by the revenue in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 from the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ITA No.2896/Del./2011.2. The only issue that is sought to be raised here before us concerns the deletion of the addition of `70,18,518/- by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also by the said Tribunal. The said addition had been made by the assessing officer on account of purported unexplained investments by invoking Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. The...
Precious Jewels and anr. Vs. M/S Varun Gems
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: January 04, 2013 Judgment delivered on: January 16, 2013 + FAO (OS) No.609/2012 PRECIOUS JEWELS & ANR. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.Jitender Kumar Sethi, Advocate with Mr.Tanmay Mehta, Advocate versus M/S VARUN GEMS Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Sudhir Chandra, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. Plaintiff Varun Gems filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair trade dealing, rendition of accounts of profits, damages etc. against two defendants namely Precious Jewels and Ravi Rakyan. The suit along with the interim application was listed before Court on June 01, 2012. Summons in the suit were issued and in the interim application, a detailed order was passed against the defendants by issuance of an ex parte ad-interim injunction wh...
Gopal @ Titu and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 434/2011 Reserved on:10. h December, 2012 Date of Decision:16. h January, 2013 % GOPAL @ TITU & ANR. ..... Appellants Through Mr. Pradeep Rana, Mr. Sumit Choudhary and Mr. Anil Kumar Rana, Advocates. Versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG SANJIV KHANNA, J: The appellants Gopal @ Titu and Rakesh Kumar @ Dhanna impugn their conviction under Section 302/201/379/12-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) vide judgment dated 6th January, 2011 in Session Case No. 135/09, arising out of FIR No. 348/06, P.S. Alipur. They have further impugned the order of sentence dated 19th January, 2011 by which they have been sentenced, under Section 302, for life imprisonment and fine of Rs 25,000 on each, in default of which they shall undergo SI for ten months, under Section 120B for life imprisonment and fine ...
Sh. Biltu Roy and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.4344/2010 % January 16, 2013 SH. BILTU ROY & ANR. Through: ...... Petitioners Mr. I.C. Mishra, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Atul Batra, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition seeks a direction for payment to the petitioners of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (SSS Pension), and as per which scheme a person who was an absconder for over six months is granted this pension.2. The petitioners have pleaded that they were absconders and ultimately the criminal case against them and 37 other persons (i.e a total of 39 persons) was withdrawn by the order of Mr. S.S. Prasad, Ist Class Magistrate, Madhubani, Bihar on 31.5.1946. The petitioners plead that one Mr. Sukhai Thakur and whose name is found at serial No.29 of the very same GR No.834/1942 has ...
Rajeev Kumar Vs. Delhi Police and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : January 16, 2013 + W.P.(C) 8080/2012 RAJEEV KUMAR ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.K.Venkatraman, Advocate. versus DELHI POLICE AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Richa Kaushal, Advocate for Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Advocate for R-1&2. Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. It is settled law that an advertisement which fouls a statutory standing order cannot prevail over the statutory standing order.2. The subject of physical standards to be achieved for being recruited as Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police is governed by Standing Order No.208/2010 as per which departmental candidates and ex-servicemen have to qualify 1600 metre race in 7 minutes if they are up to the age of 30 years; in 8 minutes if they are above the age of 30 years and up to 40 years; and in 9 minutes if they are above 40 years; all other have...
Ukt Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
T.S. Kapoor, Accountant Member 1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the combined order of CIT (A) dated 30/8/2011. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by assessee in both these years are similar, however, the amount as per ground no.7 in both years is different which is Rs.32,85,500/- in respect of A.Y. 2005-06 and Rs.30,41,975/- for A.Y. 2006-07. Moreover the assessee has taken additional ground in A.Y. 2006-07 which is recorded as ground of appeal no. 11. For the sake of convenience, the grounds of appeal in respect of A.Y. 2006-07 are reproduced below: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2.(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the reassessment framed under section 143(3) despite the fact that no notice under section 143(2) has been issued, a fact admittedly by th...
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. M/S Chandra Global Fina ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi dated 16.12.2010 for AY 2005-06. 2. The only ground raised by the revenue in this appeal reads as under:- "1. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has erred on facts and in law in directing the Assessing Officer not to treat otherwise the income declared under the head Short Term Capital Gains ignoring the fact that during the year under consideration the assessee was engaged in the business of trading and investment of shares and securities." 3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) was served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had an income from sale of investment and he treated the same as business income instead of income under the head "capital gains". With th...
Ghasita Singh Vs. Ram Prag Koiree
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2013
$~6 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No. 674/2010 and CM Appl. Nos. 16886 & 16888/2010 Decided on 15th January, 2013 GHASITA SINGH ..... Appellant Through :Mr. Anil Panwar, Adv. versus RAM PRAG KOIREE Through ..... Respondent : Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K. PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. By the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal trial court has dismissed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by appellant against the respondent.2. Appellant had prayed in the plaint that by way of decree of declaration it be held that respondent has no right, title or interest in the property bearing no. D-563, Mahavir Enclave, Part III, New Delhi 110045 (for short hereinafter referred to as suit property) and it is the plaintiff who is actual owner thereof. It was further prayed that respondent be restrained from dispossessing the appellant and his tenants from the suit property.3. Case, as set up by the plaintiff, in the plaint is tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »