Delhi Court July 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.
Subramanium and anr. Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:16. 05.2013 Judgment delivered on:02. 07.2013. + WP(C) 5024/2007 SUBRAMANIUM AND ANR. ......Petitioners Vs DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION AND ORS. .....Respondents ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Ms Aruna Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms Anusuya Salwan & Ms Renuka Arora, Advocates for respondent no. 1/DMRC. Ms Zubeda Begum, Advocate for Respondent no. 2/ Commissioner of Police. Ms Suparna Srivastava, Standing Counsel and Ms Anooja Srivastava, Advocate for Respondent no. 3/ MCD. CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 1.The petitioners are the hapless parents of an eight (8) year old, who died while playing with his friends in the area around the place of his residence. The eight (8) year old Lalu alias Bharat died on account of asphyxia caused by drowning in a storm water drain, which was meant to be enclosed. Deprived of a proper play ground, Lalu on the fateful day alongwit...
Piramal Healthcare Limited Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :14. 02.2013 Judgment delivered on :02. 07.2013 + WP(C) 2673/2011 PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LIMITED ......PETITIONER Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....RESPONDENTS ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Sibal, Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Punam Singh and Mr. Sidhartha Silwal, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr. Saqib and Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Advocates CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 1.This writ petition essentially seeks two reliefs. The first relief sought is for issuance of a direction to quash the letter dated 09.07.2010, issued by respondent no.1. The second relief, which is a consequential relief, seeks refund of Rs.18 Crores paid by the petitioner as one time license fee alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. w.e.f. 20.05.2010. There is also an ancillary prayer made, which is directed against the respondents for production of documents and records perta...
Emeter India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. .....
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:2. d July, 2013 + CO.PET. 609/2012 EMETER INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sharad Vaid and Ms. Shilpi Jain, Advocates for Petitioner Mr. K.S. Pradhan, Dy. Registrar of Companies for the Regional Director Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Advocate for the Official Liquidator CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR R. V. EASWAR, J.: (ORAL) 1. This second motion petition has been filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) by Emeter India Private Limited (hereafter referred to as Petitioner Transferor Company) seeking sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation (Scheme) of the Petitioner Transferor Company with Siemens Technology and Services Private Limited (hereafter referred to as Transferee Company).2. The registered office of the Petitioner Transferor Company is situated within the National Capital Territory of Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Court. The registered office of the Transferee Company is situate...
Anusar Gupta Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :01. 07.2013 Judgment pronounced on :02. 07.2013 W.P.(C) 3926/2013 ANUSAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr A.K. Singla, Sr. Adv with Mr Nitink K. Gupta and Mr Deepak, Advs. Versus ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, NEW DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Mukul Gupta Sen, Ms Anjali Chauhan and Mr Rishab Kaushik, Advs for Respondent No. 1 Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv with Mr Rajeshwar Dagar and Mr Swastik Solanki, Adv for R-3/Applicant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN V.K. JAIN, J.The respondent No. 1, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, conducts entrance test for admission to various medical courses, including MDS. Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, inter alia, provides out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study or faculty, 27% seats shall be reserved for Other Backward Classes, it also provides for reserving 15% seats for Scheduled Castes and...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Om Pal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : July 02, 2013 + W.P.(C) 5537/2011 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION .....Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Saroj Bidawat, Advocate. versus OM PAL SINGH ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.K.Venkatraman, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that inadvertently copy of WP(C) 7781/2002 has been annexed as Annexure P-3 to the writ petition. Counsel states that copy of WP(C) 19816/2004 was to be filed as an annexure because of the reason said writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and was registered as T.A.No.1364/2009. Impugned decision dated April 07, 2010 decides said writ petition. Counsel has handed over to us a photocopy of WP(C) 19816/2004.2. Arguments heard.3. The respondent was employed as a driver with DTC. On July 31, 1997 he met with an accident. The respondent could not res...
Commissioner of Income Tax-x Vs. M/S Aar Bee Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:02. 07.2013 ITA Nos. 148/2012, ITA 149/2012 & ITA 2/2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-X Appellant Respondent versus M/S AAR BEE INDUSTRIES Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr N. P. Sahni For the Respondent : Mr C.S. Aggarwal, Sr Advocate with Mr Prakash Kumar, Ms Pushpa Sharma CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACJ 1.These appeals (ITA No.149/2012, 148/2012 and 2/2013) relate to the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09, respectively. The first two appeals arise out of the common order dated 24.06.2011 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, in ITA Nos.179180/Asr/2011, respectively. The third appeal (ITA 2/2013) arises out of the order dated 27.07.2012 No.343/Asr/2011. passed by the said Tribunal in ITA All the three appeals have been preferred by the revenue. In the first two appea...
Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Developm Vs. M/S Delhi Tanne ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + (1) W.P.(C) 587/2013 DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate. versus M/S DELHI TANNERIES AND LEATHER GOODS MGF. CO. AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocate for Mr. V.K.Tandon, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr. H.L.Tikku, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arun Batta, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. AND + (2) W.P.(C) 796/2013 NIAMAT KAUR ANAND & ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. H.L.Tikku, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arun Batta, Advocate versus OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND ANR. W.P.(C) 587/2013 Through: % Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocate for Mr. V.K.Tandon, Advocate. Date of Decision : July 02, 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.W.P.(C) 587/2013 1. The Petitioner in the present writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 9.8.2012 passed by the learned District Judge...
J. Nehru Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:07. 03.2013 Judgment delivered on:02. 07.2013 + WP(C) 3883/2011 J.NEHRU ......PETITIONER Vs UNION OF INDIA .....RESPONDENT ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Petitioner in person For the Respondents: Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC with Mr. Tushar Singh, Advocate CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 1.This writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 10.09.2010 passed by the respondent, i.e., the Union of India, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Department of Fertilizers. 1.1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order as it seeks to convey the respondents displeasure qua his alleged role in the time and cost overrun vis--vis the Namrup Revamp Project of Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. (in short HFCL), since then, known as, Brahmputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. (in short BVFCL). 1.2 BVFCL is a public sector undertaking under the administrative control of the Departm...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:02. 07.2013 WP(C) NO. 1609/2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Petitioner versus INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION & ORS. ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr Kamal Sawhney, Adv. with Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv. : Mr Mukul Rohtagi, Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advs. with Mr Saurabh Kirpal, Mr Mahesh Agarwal, Mr Akshay, Mr Ankit Shah, Ms Manasi, Advs. for the Respondents 2 to 5 CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACJ 1.This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Principal Bench, New Delhi under Section 245D(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). By virtue of the impugned order dated 24.01.2013, the Income Tax Settlement Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Settlement Commissio...
Vikramaditya Bhartia Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.6513/2011 VIKRAMADITYA BHARTIA Through: . Petitioner Mr. S.K. Rungta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prashant Singh and Ms. Pratiti Rungta, Advocates Versus DDA Through: . Respondent Ms. Shobhana Advocate Takiar, CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL % Date of decision: July 02, 2013 JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.1. The petition impugns the demand contained in letter dated 1 st October, 2010 of ` 13,00,286/- of the Respondent-DDA on the Petitioner on account of alleged misuse charges in respect of Shed not A-94, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-II, New Delhi. The Petitioner claims to have paid the said amount to the RespondentDDA under protest and seeks a mandamus to the Respondent-DDA to refund the said amount to the Petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum.2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present petition is that Plot not A-94, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi was purchased on lease by the Petitioner in an auction h...
- ‹ Prev
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- Next ›
- Last »