Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 36 of about 723 results (0.021 seconds)Uttam Jit Singh @ Bobby Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :20. h January, 2014 + CRL.A. 1474/2011 UTTAM JIT SINGH @ BOBBY ..... Appellant Through : Mr.K.K.Manan with Mr.Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. SI Ram, PS Lajpat Nagar. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(ORAL) 1. Uttamjit Singh @ Bobby (the appellant) questions the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 27.05.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.11/2009 arising out of FIR No.545/07 registered at Police Station Hauz Khas by which he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 28.05.2011 he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine `10,000/-.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 31.08.2007 at around 04.00 P.M. at Chirag Delhi Flyover, he robbed `48,000/-, 300 U.S.Dollar, a golden ring and golden bracelet from the complainantAshwani Kumar. H...
Tag this Judgment!University of Delhi Vs. Vijay Prakash Vijay and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on January 20, 2014 + W.P.(C) 350/2014 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr. G.K.Pathak, Advocate. versus VIJAY PRAKASH VIJAY AND ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate for R5 & R6. Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for UGC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated September 09, 2013 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Appeal No.ND.36 (62) 2013-P.A and order dated December 17, 2012 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, the Act) under Section 7 (4) (C) read with Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 11 of Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972.2. Vide order dated September 09, 2013, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal without going into the merits on the ground that it is beyond the power of the Appellate Authority to take cogniz...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Manpower Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner-cum- ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.30/2014 20th January, 2014 % M/S MANPOWER SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. ......Appellant Through: Mr. Trideep Pais, Advocate. VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER-CUM-REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESIC & ANR. ...... Respondents Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ESI Act) impugning the judgment of the ESI Court dated 22.7.2013 which has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 75 of the ESI Act. The petition under Section 75 of the ESI Act was filed by the appellant challenging the demand of damages of Rs.8,03,688/- under Section 85B of the ESI Act.2. A reading of the impugned judgment of the ESI Court shows that the appellant had led evidence of one witness PW-1Sh. Rahul Garg. The respondent led evidence of five witn...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa Rani and ors. Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.80/2009 % 20th January, 2014 PUSHPA RANI & ORS. .....Appellants. Through: Mr. Subhash Chand, Advocate VERSUS DDA Through: ...... Respondent. Mr. Rakesh Mittal and Mr. Kamlesh Anand, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This regular second appeal is filed impugning the judgment of the appellate court dated 11.12.2008 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the trial court dated 29.11.1997. Trial court had partly decreed the suit by decreeing the relief of injunction but the prayer of the plaintiff for quashing of the demand was rejected. The effect of both the judgments is that the suit of the plaintiffs filed for declaration before the trial court to question the demand raised by the respondent-DDA for shop No.C-500, Sabzi Mandi, New Delhi upon Sh. Hund Raj, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-plaintiffs, stands d...
Tag this Judgment!Shailabala Mishra Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University and anr.
Court: Delhi
#37 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 383/2014 SHAILABALA MISHRA Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Tripurari Ray, Advocate versus JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate Date of Decision :20. h January, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :(a) Issue a declaratory writ declaring that re-submission of the M.Phil dissertation after rejection is to be read in the Ordinance of Jawaharlal Nehru University; (b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to permit the petitioner to resubmit her M.Phil dissertation after carrying out improvements; (c) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for the harassment suffered by her on account of malicious conduct of Respondent No.2; 2. (d) Lay down guide lines to ensure th...
Tag this Judgment!Trilok Singh and anr. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:20th January, 2014 + CRL.A. 281/1999 TRILOK SINGH & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP along with SI Sunil Kumar, P.S. Tughlak Road. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA J.(ORAL) 1. By the impugned judgment dated 15.12.1998, Trilok Singh and Atma Singh have been convicted for murder of Harcharan Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short IPC) and under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder Tarsem Singh on 30.11.1990 at about 10:45 pm. Appellant Atma Singh has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Conviction of Trilok Singh under Section 302 and 307 IPC is by relying upon Section 34 of the IPC. By order on sentence dated 16.12.1998, both the appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- under S...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saroj Kanta Bansal
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Siddiqui(Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) against the judgment and order dated 22.3.2006 passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Partap Bus Terminal, Mezzanine Floor, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1035/03. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that complainant/respondent and her husband had taken Mediclaim Policy No. 8540597/2001 for a sum of Rs. 2 Lacs each for the period 5.3.2001 to 4.3.2002. During the validity period of the insurance policy, Mrs Saroj Kanta Bansal was admitted to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre on 4.7.2001 for treatment of her heart disease (CAD), where she incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2,08,160/- which was paid on 14.4.01. Thereafter a claim was filed with the appellant/OP for reimbursement. When no proper response was received, complainant/respondent sent legal notice to OP/appellant. However, the OP/appellant repudiated the claim on the ground that the...
Tag this Judgment!Patron Detective and Security Services Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. Raghuram, J. 1. At the stage of considering the stay application since the issue falls within a narrow compass we dispose of this substantive appeal after hearing Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Advocate for the appellant and the ld. A.R. for the respondent-Revenue. We do so after waiving the pre-deposit requirement. 2. By the order dated 4.4.2011, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur II confirmed service tax demand of Rs.2,59,116/- apart from directing recovery of the said amount along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act , 1994 (the Act) and penalties under Sections 75A, 76, 77, 78 of the Act. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order which was rejected in toto by he Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur I, dated 10.1.2013. 4. Security Agency was legislated to be a taxable service with effect from 16.10.98.The appellant obtained registration for providing the taxable security agency service with effect from 24.4.2002. On information receive...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Bando (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C., (icd), New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. A very short dispute is involved in the present appeal. The appellants imported heavy engineering items for further sale and filed bills of entries. The value of the said goods was reflected in Euros, whereas the invoices were in US$. According to the appellant, this was done inadvertently on the part of CHA. 2. The above wrong reflection of invoices in the bills of entries resulted in excess payment of duty to the extent of Rs.1,24,685/-. The appellants claimed refund of the same, which was originally denied on the ground of non-challenge of bill of entry. However, Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for verifying the unjust and undue enrichment aspect. In the present proceedings, both the authorities have rejected the refund on the ground unjust and undue enrichment. 3. On going through the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that the appellants have submitted before him the balance-sheets for t...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Crest Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E, Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. The very short issue involved in the appeals is that the appellant availed CENVAT credit of duty paid on the capital goods to the extent of 100% during the financial year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, whereas they were required to avail 50% of the credit in the first financial year in which the capital goods were received and the balance 50% was to be availed during the next financial year. 2. In the above background, proceedings were initiated against them by way of issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 05.02.2008, proposing denial of the entire 100% credit. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the proposal in the Show Cause Notice and also imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs. 3. On appeal against the above order, Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the balance 50% of the credit was available to the appellant in the next financial year and as such, the confirmation of the same is not justified. He also observed though the appellant has taken the entire 1...
Tag this Judgment!