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.
V.K.Joshi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:04. 01.2013 W.P.(C) 8618/2010 V.K.JOSHI .. Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Ms Jyoti Singh, Sr Advocate with Mr Amandeep Joshi. : Mr Anuj Aggarwal with Mr Ashish Virmani. CORAM: HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. This writ petition assails the order dated 20.08.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.334/2010. By virtue of the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner for being entitled to promotion from the year 2003, that is, when according to the petitioner, he had the requisite period of service for being considered for promotion to the next higher grade.2. The facts, in brief, are as under:(i) On 11.01.1998, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant in the Central...
Union of India and anr. Vs. Manash Sarkar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
$~2 & 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 04, 2013 + WP(C) 4300/2012 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAYS & ANR. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.V.S.R.Krishna, Advocate with Mr.Abhiskeh Yadav, Advocate. versus SITA RAM Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Manjeet Reen and Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocates. AND WP(C) 6339/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.V.S.R.Krishna, Advocate with Mr.Abhiskeh Yadav, Advocate. versus MANASH SARKAR Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.H.K.Bajpai, Advocate for Ms.Meenu Mainee, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. A common question arises for consideration in the two captioned writ petitions which challenge two separate orders, but on the same subject, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing OA No.665/2011 and OA No.3041/2011 filed by the respon...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S Intercontinental Trading and In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:04. 01.2013 ITA 193/2004 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Appellant versus M/S INTERCONTINENTAL TRADING & INVESTMENT CO.LTD. ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. : Mr C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr Prakash Kumar, Adv. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1.This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 11.09.2003, passed in ITA (SS) No. 110/Delhi/2002 in respect of the block period 01.04.1986 to 02.11.1996.2. The appellant/revenue has proposed the following questions as substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether the learned I.T.A.T. was correct in law in holding that Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under the provision of Section...
Union of India Vs. Adil Singh 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...
M/S. Ralson Industries Ltd. (Now Known as Da Rubbe Vs. M/S. Adhunik Tr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI REVIEW APPLN. 1/2013, C.M. 2 & 3 of 2013 in CM(M) 1010/2012 Date of Decision:04. 01.2013 M/S. RALSON INDUSTRIES LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS DA RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD.) Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Diwan, Adv. with Ms.Kavita Goel, Adv. Versus M/S. ADHUNIK TRANSPORT ORGANISATION LTD. Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.(Oral) 1. This review application is filed seeking review of the order dated 10.09.2012 passed in CM (M) 1010/2012 directed against the order dated 6.08.2012 of Addl. District Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner was allowed, subject to deposit of 50 % of the suit amount.2. The present application is filed seeking review on the ground that the petitioner company was entitled of benefits under Section 22 of the Sick Industries Companies Act, 1985 (for short the SICA), which stipulates that no coercive action could be taken against the sick compan...
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...
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...
Smt. Rekha Chandra Vs. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Develop ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) No.2673/2012 % SMT. REKHA CHANDRA Through: January 04, 2013 ...... Petitioner Ms. Nanda Devi Deka, Mr. C.P.Rajwar and Mr. Aman Panwar, Advocates. VERSUS NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND ORS ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Munjal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sudershan Rajan and Mr. Rajat Agnihotri, Advocates for R-1 to R-4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This case was partly argued yesterday on behalf of the petitioner by her senior counsel. During the course of hearing, a proposal came up for bringing about of a compromise formula to dispose of this writ petition by which the petitioner had challenged her transfer order dated 20.4.2012 transferring the petitioner to Goa, Regional Office.2. The compromise solution which was proposed was in view of the assertion made on behalf of the petitioner that as per the policy of the employer/respond...
Glaxo Group Limited and ors Vs. Mr. Rajesh Bansal and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) No. 1013/2007 GLAXO GROUP LIMITED & ORS Plaintiffs Through: Ranjan Narula VERSUS Defendants MR. RAJESH BANSAL & ORS Through: None. % CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL JUDGMENT :REVA KHETRAPAL, J.1. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction inter alia seeking to restrain the Defendants from infringing its registered trademarks BETNOVATE, DEPENDAL and CROCIN, copyright in the packaging pertaining thereto, passing off, delivery up and damages.2. The Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 are members of the GlaxoSmithKline group of companies, of which GlaxoSmithKline Plc. is the parent company. Plaintiff Nos. 1, 2 and 4 viz. Glaxo CS(OS)No.1013/2007 1 Group Limited, SmithKline Beecham Plc. and SmithKline & French Laboratories Limited are companies incorporated under the laws of United Kingdom and England, while Plaintiff No. 3 viz. GlaxoSmithKline Asia Private Limited is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 195...
Pld International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reebok India Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO.PET. 612 of 2012 PLD INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Mr. Angad Mehta and Mr. Samaksh S. Goyal, Advocates versus REEBOK INDIA COMPANY ..... Respondent Through: Mr. C. Mukund, Mr. Ravi Kumar and Ms. Firdouse Qutb Wani, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 04 01.2013 1. By this petition under Section 433 of the Companies Act 1956 (Act), the Petitioner, PLD International Pvt. Ltd., seeks the winding up of the Respondent M/s. Reebok India Company.2. The case of the Petitioner is that in terms of an agreement dated 26th April, 2010 entered into between the parties, a copy of which agreement is enclosed with this petition as Annexure P-2, the Petitioner gave on rent to the Respondent the ground floor of the property at 422-425, Ghitorni Market, Opposite Metro Pillar No.132, MG Road, New Delhi-110 030 (hereafter rented premises) on a monthly rent of Rs.4,25,000/- subject to deduction of...
- ‹ Prev
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- Next ›
- Last »