Delhi Court August 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.
Sunil Goel Vs. M/S Rational Enterprises and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 1975/2010 % SUNIL GOEL Through versus Reserved on:5. h August, 2013 Decided on:22. d August, 2013 ..... Plaintiff Mr. S.N. Choudhri, Adv. M/S RATIONAL ENTERPRISES & OTHERS ..... Defendants Through Mr. Dinesh Garg with Ms. Rachna Aggarwal and Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Advs. for D.2 & 3. Ms. Shweta, Adv. for D.5 & 6. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA IA 15271/2011 (O. 1 R. 10 CPC & O.6 R.17 CPC by plaintiff) 1. By this application under Order I Rule 10 & Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, the plaintiff seeks leave to amend the plaint. By way of amendment, plaintiff seeks to implead defendant Nos. 4 to 6 as parties and add Paras 20A to 20K after Para 20 of the original plaint reciting the necessary facts and consequently amending Para 25 of the plaint relating to the cause of action, Para 26 relating to the Court fees and prayer clause.2. By the present suit the plaintiff has prayed for dissolution of partnership firm, rendition of...
Krishan Kumar and anr. Vs. C.P. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
$~R-89 & 90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: August 22, 2013 + W.P.(C) 2091/2002 KRISHAN KUMAR & ANR. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Anil Singal, Advocate versus C.P. & ORS. Represented by: + ..... Respondents Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate W.P.(C) 2145/2002 BALA KRISHAN & ANR. Represented by: ..... Petitioners Mr.Anil Singal, Advocate versus C.P. & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Original record of inquiry perused.3. Relevant facts to be noted are that on August 20, 1996, Inspector Satyaveer submitted a report to the ACP, Public Grievances W.P.(C) 2091/2002 & W.P.(C) 2145/2002 1 of 11 Cell, Delhi Police, recording therein that on August 19, 1996, he had made a surprise check of the staff posted at Ghazipur Check Post at 11.30 p.m. and had noted that Ct.Krishan Kumar ha...
Ramdhan JaIn Vs. Director of Education and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 9177/2009 22nd August , 2013 % RAMDHAN JAIN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Alok Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner who was an employee of the Hira Lal Jain Senior Secondary School, seeks the reliefs of payment of pension, gratuity and interest for delay in payment of the said amounts.2. Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that petitioner has received the pension and gratuity and the petitioner is now only seeking interest from the years 1986 to 1994 on account of delay in payment of terminal benefits of pension and gratuity.3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their counter affidavit have stated that petitioner was compulsorily retired. The writ petition shows that petitioner chall...
Surinder Madan Vs. Asistant Commissioner of Income Tax,circle 22(1),
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 364/2013 Reserved on:5. h August, 2013 Date of Decision:22. d August, 2013 % SURINDER MADAN Through ....Appellant Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Advocate. Versus ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22 1), NEW DELHI Respondent Through Mr. N.P. Sahni, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J.This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (Act, for short) by the assessee, an individual, relates to assessment year 200708.2. The appellant is engaged in export of garments and had incurred an expenditure of Rs.12,72,564/- in replacing the entire floor measuring about 9000 square feet with marble flooring in his factory and office. This amount represents purchase cost of marble and cost of laying/fixing the marble floor. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said amount holding that it was capital expenditure, since it was renewal or replacement ITA 364/2013 of a profi...
The Managing Committee of Nutan Vidya Mandir Senio Vs. Director of Edu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 10759/2009 22nd August , 2013 % THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF NUTAN VIDYA MANDIR SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ......Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate. VERSUS DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANR. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Advocate with Mr. Arjun Sayal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. K.K. Sabharwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) + W.P.(C) No.10759/2009 and C.M. No.9764/2009 (stay) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner-school impugns the judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal (DST) dated 30.4.2009 whereby the appeal of the respondent No.2/teacher before the DST was allowed and it was directed that the respondent No.2 herein will stand reinstated in service. The school management was also directed to act in terms of Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 for deciding the issue of payment of salary...
New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Israel @ Iliyas and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:22. d August, 2013 MAC.APP. 853/2012 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Minakshi Midha, Adv. versus ISRAEL @ ILIYAS & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. for R1 and R2. Mr. Vinod Sharma, Adv. for R3 & R4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 31.03.2012, whereby, ld. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- as a compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing the claim petition till realization.2. Ms. Minakshi Midha, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that instant appeal has been filed mainly on the ground that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant as a private vehicle whereas at the time of the accident, the said vehicle was carrying children, thus being used as a commercial vehicle.3. She has drawn ...
M/S M and B Footwear Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/S Madhuvesh Distributors and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 258/2009 Reserved on:2. d August, 2013 Decided on:22. d August, 2013 % M/S M & B FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Nishant Datta, Ms. Ruchita Datta and Ms. Garima Hooda, Advocates. versus M/S MADHUVESH DISTRIBUTORS & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. K.K. Kishore, Advocate for Defendant Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA I.A. 2084/2012 (leave to defend by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 u/Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC) 1. By this application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 seek leave to defend in the suit filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXVII for recovery of Rs. 55,51,232/-.2. Learned counsel for the Applicants/Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 states that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and in view thereof besides the leave to defend being granted, the suit is liable to be dismissed on this count itself even in the absence of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC ...
Mr. Vijay Kumar and anr. Vs. Mr. Neeru Rajput and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
$~R-7. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:22. 08.2013 + CS(OS) 1068/2008 MR. VIJAY KUMAR & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. G.S.Rana, Advocate versus MR. NEERU RAJPUT & ANR. Through: None. ..... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.(ORAL) 1. The matter was shown at item No. 7 in the Finals of cause list which was effectively item No.1 on 07.08.2013. None appeared for the defendants. I heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs for about 30 minutes. At about 03.45 p.m, I proceeded to judgment. The same was partly dictated in Court. As no time was left, the matter continued to remain on board and has been taken up today once again. Again, there is no appearance on behalf of the defendants.2. The two plaintiffs are the father and daughter. They have filed the present suit to seek a decree of specific performance in respect of the Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.2007 (Ex.CW1/D). The case of the plaintiffs is that defendant No. 1 ...
Deepa Dua Vs. Tejinder Kumar Muteneja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :11.07.2013 Decided on :22. 08.2013. IA No. 19136/2012 in CS(OS) 1363/2012 ..... Plaintiff DEEPA DUA Through Mr.Sanjeev Madaan and Mr.Amresh Mathur, Advs. alongwith husband of the plaintiff versus TEJINDER KUMAR MUTENEJA ..... Defendant Through Ms.Anjali J.Manish, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.1. This is an application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff and defendant are brother and sister. The present suit is filed for partition, declaration and permanent injunction by the plaintiff who claims to be a coowner of property No. E-134, Preet Vihar, Near Durga Mandir, Delhi110092.2. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the property was owned by her late father and mother. The father of the plaintiff and defendant died on 27 th January, 1992 without leaving any Will. The mother of the parties died on 9th January, 2006...
M/S Bab Vishwanath Buildcon Pvt Ltd ..... Plaintif Vs. Shiv Shankar Mi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
36# $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1702/2011 Decided on:22. d August, 2013 M/S BAB VISHWANATH BUILDCON PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Mayank Wadhwa, Advocate. versus SHIV SHANKAR MISHRA Through: ..... Defendant None. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. On the last date of hearing learned counsel for the Defendant had stated that he had already addressed arguments, though before the predecessor of this Court and does not wish to re-argue the matter.2. Today none is present on behalf of the Defendant. Since learned counsel for the Defendant had neither cooperated in the admission/denial of the documents nor is cooperating in hearing of the preliminary Issue Nos. 4 and 5 for which the matter is fixed for today, this Court has proceeded to decide the two issues after hearing the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, perusing the plaint and the written statement and the judgments on behalf of the parties placed on record. The two prelimi...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »