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.
Defence Estate Officer Vs. Lac and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: December 13, 2012 Pronounced on: January 04, 2013 + (i) R.F.A. No. 838/2002 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Ms.Sonia Mathur and Mr.Sushil Dubey, Advocates versus ADIL SINGH & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Ravinder Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ajoy B.Kalia, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K.K. Kiran, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Rajesh Yadav and Ms.Ruchira, Advocates for Respondent No.4. + (ii) LA. APP. No. 305/2007 DEFENCE ESTATES OFFICER ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Sonia Mathur and Mr.Sushil Dubey, Advocates versus LAC & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K.K. Kiran, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Rajesh Yadav and Ms.Ruchira, Advocates for Respondent No. 2(a) to 2(d). + (iii) R.F.A. No. 324/2003 DEFENCE ESTATES OFFICER ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Sonia Mathur and Mr.Sushil Dubey, Advocates versus LAC & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K.K. Kir...
Kranta Aakash @ Prakash Kumar Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL M.C. NO.3015 OF 201.Decided on :4. h January , 2013 KRANTA AAKASH @ PRAKASH KUMAR Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate. Versus THE STATE & ANR. Through: Respondents Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.60/2012, under Sections 420/468/471 IPC, registered at Police Station Tuglak Road.2. The ground for quashing of the aforesaid FIR is that the petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant have arrived at a compromise as a consequence of which the petitioner is purported to have paid a sum of `41,000/- to respondent No.2 vide demand draft No.001084 dated 25.8.2012 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Janpath, New Delhi.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a complaint was received from Munender Singh, s/o Sh. Ram Swroop Singh, r/o Village Ruppra, Post Office Jaitpur, District Agra (U.P.) that on 20.6.2012, accu...
i.C.A.R and anr. Vs. Amar Nath and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
$~R-3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: January 4, 2013 + W.P.(C) No.3394/2001 I.C.A.R & ANR. Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Gagan Mathur, Advocate. versus AMAR NATH & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Chittaranjan, Advocate for R.1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(ORAL) 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned decision dated November 02, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal directing writ petitioner to pay salary to the respondent in the scale applicable to a Cook.2. It is not in dispute that the writ petition, I.C.A.R. through its Subordinate Office I.A.R.I. sent a requisition to the Employment Exchange to forward names of persons registered with the Employment Exchange and desirous of being employed as a Cook. Amongst others, the Employment Exchange forwarded the name of the respondent who had got himself re...
Defence Estate Officer Vs. Lac and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: December 13, 2012 Pronounced on: January 04, 2013 + (i) R.F.A. No. 838/2002 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Ms.Sonia Mathur and Mr.Sushil Dubey, Advocates versus ADIL SINGH & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Ravinder Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ajoy B.Kalia, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K.K. Kiran, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Rajesh Yadav and Ms.Ruchira, Advocates for Respondent No.4. + (ii) LA. APP. No. 305/2007 DEFENCE ESTATES OFFICER ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Sonia Mathur and Mr.Sushil Dubey, Advocates versus LAC & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K.K. Kiran, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Rajesh Yadav and Ms.Ruchira, Advocates for Respondent No. 2(a) to 2(d). + (iii) R.F.A. No. 324/2003 DEFENCE ESTATES OFFICER ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Sonia Mathur and Mr.Sushil Dubey, Advocates versus LAC & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K.K. Kir...
India Trade Promotion Organisation Vs. India International Textile Mac ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON:03. 05.2012 PRONOUNCED ON:04. 01.2013 + RFA (OS) 10/2007 INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A.B. Dial, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ananya Datta Majumdar, Advocate. versus INDIA INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE MACHINERY EXHIBITIONS SOCIETY ..... Respondent Through: Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohinder Rupal, Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % The present appeal by the unsuccessful defendant (hereafter ITPO) is directed against the judgment and decree of a learned Single judge of this Court, dated 11-10-2006 in CS (OS) 1861/1994.2. The plaintiff, a registered society (hereafter referred to variously as the Society and the plaintiff) used to promote the interests of the RFA 10/07 Page 1 textile business. ITPO is a Central Government agency and custodian of a piece of land in New Delhi which houses trade fairs, i.e. the Pragati Maidan.3. The Society...
Hargiyan Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:04. 01.2013 CRL. A. 388/1997 HARGIYAN SINGH ... Appellant ... Respondent versus STATE Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent /State : Mr Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Amicus Curiae with Mr Pankaj Kumar and Mr Prakash Chandra : Ms Richa Kapur CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MS JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.04.1997 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi in Sessions Case No.105/1996 arising out of FIR No.232/1990 under Section 302 IPC registered at police station Nand Nagri. By virtue of the said judgment, the appellant Hargiyan has been convicted for the murders of Smt. Rukmani and Mohd Sharif and the appellant has been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. This appe...
Sher Singh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:4. h January, 2013 + CRL. M.C. 4169/2012 SHER SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Rishi Pal Singh, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State. Ms. Vinita Kumari, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) preferred by the Petitioner for quashing of FIR No.183/2010, under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC, Police Station Sultan Puri and consequential proceedings arising out of the same.2. FIR No.183/2010 was registered on the basis of the statement made by Respondent No.2 Ms. Sinku Kaur to the effect that she got married to the Petitioner on 06.04.2004. Her father had expired two years before her marriage. After ten days of the marriage, she was being harassed and taunted for not bringing sufficient dowry.3. After filing of the FIR, the marriage betwe...
Rajinder Nath Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: December 17, 2012 Pronounced on: January 04, 2013 + (1) W.P. (C) No.1215/2000 M/S. DELHI TRANSPORT SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Vishwa Bhushan Arya and Mr.Vasudeva Arya, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal, Central Government Standing Counsel AND + (2) W.P. (C) No. 1556/2000 RAJINDER NATH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.S.K.Chaudhary, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal, Central Government Standing Counsel CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % 1. JUDGMENT The commonality in the above captioned two writ petitions is that both the writ petitioners have suffered eviction orders and to W.P. (C) No. 1215/2000 & 1556/2000 Page 1 challenge the eviction of petitioners, they have questioned the title of respondent. It is in this context, these two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petiti...
Defence Estate Officer Vs. Lac and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: December 13, 2012 Pronounced on: January 04, 2013 + (i) R.F.A. No. 838/2002 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Ms.Sonia Mathur and Mr.Sushil Dubey, Advocates versus ADIL SINGH & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Ravinder Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ajoy B.Kalia, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K.K. Kiran, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Rajesh Yadav and Ms.Ruchira, Advocates for Respondent No.4. + (ii) LA. APP. No. 305/2007 DEFENCE ESTATES OFFICER ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Sonia Mathur and Mr.Sushil Dubey, Advocates versus LAC & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K.K. Kiran, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Rajesh Yadav and Ms.Ruchira, Advocates for Respondent No. 2(a) to 2(d). + (iii) R.F.A. No. 324/2003 DEFENCE ESTATES OFFICER ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Sonia Mathur and Mr.Sushil Dubey, Advocates versus LAC & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K.K. Kir...
Shanti Kiran India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Trade and Tax Deptt
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % RESERVED ON:07. 08.2012 PRONOUNCED ON:04. 01.2013 ST.APPL. 34-39/2012 + SHANTI KIRAN INDIA PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vinod Srivastava with Mr. Ravi Chandhok, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER TRADE & TAX DEPTT. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Babbar, Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT 1 The present judgment will dispose of six appeals preferred under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereafter called VAT Act) challenging a common order of the Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal (VAT Tribunal) dated 05.01.2012. The question of law urged in the present case is: Whether in the facts and circumstances, the VAT authorities were justified in disallowing the input credit claimed by the appellant, a purchasing dealer.2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the case are that the appellant trades in electrical goods and is a registered dealer under the VAT A...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »