Delhi Court March 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.
Lal Singh and Another Vs. Govt. of G.N.C.T. of Delhi, Through Its Chie ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) 1. These two OAs came to be linked up together for hearing after the orders dated 16.12.2011 were passed in MA No. 3369/2011, filed in OA No.4482/2011, praying for the matters to be clubbed together for hearing. MA No.3369/2011 for clubbing of the two cases having been allowed, these cases were heard together, and were reserved for orders together, and are, therefore, being disposed of through this common order. In order to trace the history of the origin of this controversy, we may borrow from the judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court dated 10.08.2010 in Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Madhu Bhushan Anand, CWP No.14027/2009; in which in the opening paragraph itself the Honble Delhi High Court had summarized the genesis of the problem as given below:- With the promulgation of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 and the Constitution of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, municipal functions in Delhi except NDMC area and the area falling under the jurisdic...
Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/S. Honeywell International India ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Diva Singh, Judicial Member: 1. This is appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 2nd July, 2012 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, New Delhi pertaining to the Assessment Year 2006-07 on the following grounds:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in directing the AO to compute the deduction u/s 10A by excluding these communication expenses from the total turnover as well? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding that computer peripherals an accessories are eligible for depreciation @ 60% ignoring the fact that the Apex Court in the case of CITI CORP Maruti Finance Ltd. Observed that there is a question of law involved therein? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding the training expenses as revenue expenses? 2. The relevant facts of the case are that in the year under consideration the...
Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. No.549/2007 Judgment reserved on:28. h February, 2013 Judgment delivered on:21. t March, 2013 % SANJAY KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.K. Bachchan, Advocate. Versus ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed for enhancing the compensation amount on the ground that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on the basis of the evidence adduced by the appellant.2. Though, in the instant appeal it is stated that the appellant was 22 years old and his income at the time of accident was Rs.4,500/per month, but the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is only 16.3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the law is well settled by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009), 6 SCC 121.according to which for the age group betwee...
Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Krishna Mohan Tiwari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : March 21, 2013 + W.P.(C) 6153/2012 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat and Ms.Latika Chaudhary, Advocates. versus KRISHNA MOHAN TIWARI ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.S.S.Tiwari, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Not for the reasons given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the writ petition has to be dismissed and the final direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide impugned order dated February 09, 2012 has to be upheld. The reason is OM not F.2(78)-EIII(a)/66 dated February 04, 1966 which reads as under:In order to remove the anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 1-4-1961 drawing a lower rate of pay in that post than another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to a...
Dr. Rajiv Kumar Vs. Shivaji College Through Its Principal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No. 743/2009 21st March, 2013 DR. RAJIV KUMAR Through: ......Petitioner. Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.S.Nehra, Advocate & Ms. Tinu Bajwa, Advocate. VERSUS SHIVAJI COLLEGE THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Mathur, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Dr. Rajiv Kumar seeking appropriate writ/directions for quashing of the order dated 28.1.2009 passed by the respondent no.2/governing body of the College terminating the services of the petitioner as a Lecturer (Chemistry) from the College. The College is respondent no.1 and the governing body is sued as respondent no.2.2. It is undisputed that petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer with the respondent no.1 pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.5.2008. As per the advertisement, so far as the posts for the ...
Dda Vs. Asha Pal Gulati Thr. Lrs and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
$~10 & 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :21. t March, 2013. + LPA No. 1084/2004 D.D.A. Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan & Ms. Latika Dutta, Advocates versus ASHA PAL GULATI THR. LRS & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. L.K. Garg, Advocate with Mr.Pawan Gulati, LR-1 in person AND + LPA No. 1133/2004 D.D.A. Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan & Ms. Latika Dutta, Advocates versus KRISHAN VERMA Through: ..... Respondent None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. These two appeals challenge separate judgments of two learned Single Judges dealing with identical issues concerning the true and correct interpretation of clause II (3)(b) of the Perpetual Lease Deed executed by the DDA in favour of the lessees/writ petitioners.2. Briefly, the facts in LPA No. 1084/2004 are that the petitioner succeeded in a public auction held by the DDA i.e. the appellant on 16.0...
M/S Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Limited Vs. the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:21. 03.2013 W.P.(C) 1638/1994 M/S PURE DRINKS (NEW DELHI) LIMITED .Petitioner versus THE MEMBER, SALES TAX TRIBUNAL & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Rajesh Jain, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This is an old matter of 1994. It has been specifically listed today for hearing. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent and that is why we have been constrained to hear this matter in the absence of the respondent.2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.02.1994 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The point in issue relates to the chargeability of interest under section 27(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is an admitted position th...
Dda Vs. Krishan Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :21. t March, 2013. + LPA No. 1133/2004 D.D.A. Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan & Ms. Latika Dutta, Advocates versus KRISHAN VERMA Through: ..... Respondent None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA For detailed judgment, kindly refer to decision dated 21st March, 2013 in LPA No. 1084/2004. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J MARCH 21 2013 rd...
Bela Kapoor and ors Vs. Vandana Kapoor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:21. t March, 2013 % + CS(OS) 1375/2010 IA No.8887/2010 (u/O 3.R-1&2), 9663/2011 (u/S 15.CPC) , 10192/2011 (u/O 11), 10193/2011 (u/O 1.R-1), 16223/2011 (objection of plaintiff no.2 to settlement deed) & 5594/2012 (U/O 3.R 2A). BELA KAPOOR & ORS Through: .....Plaintiffs Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advs for Kiran Vijhani. Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajeshekher Rao & Ms. Simon Benjamin, Advs. for P-4. Versus VANDANA KAPOOR & ORS. .... Defendants Through: Mr. P. Banerjee & Mr. M. Baruah, Advs. for D-1 & D-2 Mr. Rajiv Talwar, Advs. for D-4. AND + CS(OS) 2298/2010, IA No.15120/2010 (u/O 3.R-1&2), 15121/2010 (u/O 2 R-2) & 15122/2010 (u/O 1.R-12&14). VANDANA KAPOOR Through: ..... Plaintiff Versus SATISH KAPOOR AND ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajeshekher Rao & Ms. Simon Benjamin, Advs. for D-1. Mr. Rajiv Talwar, Adv. for D-5 AND + CS(OS) 2299/2010 & IA No.15125/2010 (u/...
Monika and ors Vs. Govt of Nct and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
$~32-34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ + CRL.M.C. 2428/2010 MONIKA & ORS Through ..... Petitioners Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sagar & Ms.Ruchi Jain, Advocates Versus GOVT OF NCT & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate for R-2 + CRL.M.C. 2429/2010 STANDARD CHARTERED BANK ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sagar & Ms.Ruchi Jain, Advocates versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate for R-2 + CRL.M.C. 2430/2010 AMARJEET SINGH BINDRA & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sagar & Ms.Ruchi Jain, Advocates. versus G.E. MONEY FINANCE SERVICES LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR ORDER 21 03.2013 % 1. The challenge in these three petitions has been made to the maintainability of the contempt petition bearing No. 331/1 and the notices of contempt dated 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »