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.
Sh. Manoj Gulshan and ors. Vs. M/S. Parsons Brinckerhoff International ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: July 01, 2013 + RFA (OS) No.118/2009 SH. MANOJ GULSHAN & ORS. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.Puneet Taneja, Advocate versus M/S. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF INTERNATIONAL INC. ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Dhirendra Negi, Advocate and Mr.Mohit Bakshi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of ` 7,04,628/- with interest and recovery of specific movable properties consisting of 15 KVA diesel generator, one split 3.0 ton Airconditioner and 2 split Airconditioners of 1.5 ton capacity each or in the alternative recovery of ` 5,04,690/- against the appellants. (For convenience the respondent would be referred as plaintiff and appellants as defendants).2. The facts leading to the matter are that the plaintiff through a property broker approached the defendants for taking the property bearing No.9/20 ground...
State of Up Vs. Ram Kumar Sachan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : July 01, 2013 + W.P.(C) 2283/2012 STATE OF U.P. Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr.Anil Mittal, Advocate versus RAM KUMAR SACHAN & ANR. Represented by: None ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) CM No.4881/2012 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. W.P.(C) No.2283/2012 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. Since we are in agreement with the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), we would be brief. As per the charge-sheet issued against the respondent the allegation is that after he handed over charge on July 25, 2000 he passed an order and ante dated the same to July 17, 2000.3. On the basis of said two facts/circumstances the Inquiry Officer held the charge to be proved. The Central Administrative Tribunal has opined that the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer do...
R.K. Chauhan Vs. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Through It ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2013
Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A) 1. The instant Original Application filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is directed against the Office Order dated 11.07.2012 whereby his officiating appointment against the post of Dy. General Manager (Civil) granted vide order dated 16.10.2009 has been withdrawn. The applicant has, therefore, prayed for the following main relief(s):- Set aside and/or quash the impugned Office Order No.PER/2445 dated 11.07.2012 (Annexure A-1) thereby restoring the officiating appointment of the applicant against the post of Dy. General Manager (Engg.-Civil); Permanently restrain the respondent authority who seeks to implement the impugned order (Annexure A-1) that was passed without affording any opportunity to the applicant and without any reason assigned and by violating the principles of natural justices to victimizing the applicant and also that the same being violative of DOPT Office Memorandum No.11012/9/86-Estt....
Commissioner of Income Tax -xiii Vs. Rajinder Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2013
$~3. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No.65/2013 Date of decision:1. t July, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XIII ..... Appellant Through Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus RAJINDER KUMAR ..... Respondent Through Mr. M.P. Devanath & Mr. R. Ramachandran, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we frame the following substantial question of law:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting addition of Rs.78,51,800/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?.2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, we have heard arguments and proceed to dictate our decision on the aforesaid question.3. The respondent-assessee is an individual and an architect by profession. It is an accepted position and it is recorded and noted in the assessment order itself that the assessee is following cash system of accou...