Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 39 of about 723 results (0.022 seconds)M/S Holystar Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd. and anr Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on % + : Date of Decision :19. h December, 2013 17th January, 2014 W.P.(C) 7505/2013 & CM APPL. 16064/2013 M/S HOLYSTAR NATURAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD. & ANR ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Ramesh Singh, Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Goel, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through : ..... Respondents Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Adv. for UOI. Ms. Praveena Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.2 / BOB. With + W.P.(C) 7506/2013 & CM APPL. 16065/2013 PRADEEP PALIWAL Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. Ramesh Singh, Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Goel, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through : ..... Respondents Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, CGSC and Ms. Sara Sundaram, Adv. for UOI. Ms. Praveena Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.2 / BOB. With + W.P.(C) 7507/2013 & CM APPL. 16066/2013 PRADEEP PALIWAL ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Ramesh Singh, Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Goel, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & AN...
Tag this Judgment!Satinder Mahendru Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
$~37 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION (C) NO.5801/2013 SATINDER MAHENDRU Through Mr. Rajat Joseph, Advocate. ..... Petitioner versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through Mr. Arvind Sah, Advocate for N.D.M.C. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.WP(C) No.5801/2013 1. In substance, the petitioner is aggrieved of the refusal of the NDMC to allot alternate premises to him for the, Clock Tower Restaurant; being run by him near the Shivaji Stadium, Connaught Place, New Delhi; that was taken over by the respondent for the Commonwealth Games, 2012. The petitioner alleges that as many as 17 other allottees were also similarly dispossessed; and enquiries under the Right to Information Act ultimately revealed that, all those 17 allottees were allotted alternate premises by the NDMC. However, the representation of the petitioner in this behalf has been rejected by the NDMC by an order passed on 17 th August, 2012. In the...
Tag this Judgment!Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Sir Ganga Ram Trust Society
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.284/2011 % 17th January, 2014 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION ......Appellant Through: Mr. K.P.Mavi, Advocate and Mr. B.P.Sharma, Advocate. VERSUS SIR GANGA RAM TRUST SOCIETY ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Harvinder Singh and Ms. Alka , Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal is filed by the Employees State Insurance (ESI) department impugning the judgment of the ESI court dated 4.3.2011. By the impugned judgment the ESI court has allowed the petition under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) filed before the ESI court by the respondent herein. By means of the petition under Section 75 of the Act, the respondent herein had sought the quashing of the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the appellant under Section 45-A of the ESI Act determining the contribution amount payable by the respondent herein for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Sumit Arora Vs. Singh Motor Centre
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.28/2014 17th January, 2014 % SHRI SUMIT ARORA Through: ......Appellant Mr. V.K. Kalra, Advocate. VERSUS SINGH MOTOR CENTRE Through: ...... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.898/2014 (condonation of delay) For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 25 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. + FAO No.28/2014 and C.M. No.897/2014 (stay) 1. This is an appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the judgment of the Court below dated 29.7.2013 by which the application filed by the appellant/defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 27.8.2009 was dismissed.2. The facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the appellant/defendant for recovery of the principal amount of Rs.7,79,679/- alongwith interest on ...
Tag this Judgment!Harbhajan Singh Vs. Mahinder Singh@ Micy
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.188/2012 17th January, 2014 % HARBHAJAN SINGH Through: ......Appellant Appellant in person. VERSUS MAHINDER SINGH@ MICY Through: ...... Respondent None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. No one was present on behalf of the respondent on the first call. No one is present for the respondent even on the second call. Respondent was not even present on earlier dates of hearings being 24.9.2013, 27.9.2013, 7.11.2013, 5.12.2013, 11.12.2013 and 17.12.2013. I have therefore perused the record and am disposing of this appeal.2. The challenge by means of this appeal is to the impugned judgment of the appellate court dated 24.9.2012 by which the appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 25.8.2011. The trial court by the judgment dated 25.8.2011 decreed the suit of the appellant/landlord under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for possession against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Pal Singh Vs. Vaid Gopal Gosthwal
Court: Delhi
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.S.A. No.147/2011 Decided on :17. H January, 2014 VIJAY PAL SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Arvind Pandey, Advocate with appellant in person. versus VAID GOPAL GOSTHWAL ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) Review Petition No.8/2014 1. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. I have also gone through the averments made in the review petition. The present review petition has been filed by the appellant for review of the order dated 11.12.2013 stating that while passing the order, this court had wrongly noted that the appellant was present on the first call while it is stated that the appellant never came to the court on that particular date.2. The court had passed over the matter at the request of a person who had put in appearance when the matter was called. It is possible that the person who had appeared may not be the appellant but he must have done so on the instructions of the appellant or his...
Tag this Judgment!Rita Dutta Vs. Union of India Through Secretary and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, Member (J): 1. The Applicant in this Original Application has challenged (i) the Annexure A-3 Memorandum No.F.21(215)/RD/2008/KVS/DR/ 24504-05 dated 12.05.2008 issued to her by the Respondent No.3, namely, Dr. Sachi Kant, Assistant Commissioner proposing to hold an inquiry against her under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (ii) the Annexure A-2 Enquiry report dated 11.07.2011 furnished to her by the Respondent No.3 vide its Memorandum No.(662)/21(RD)/2007/KVS(DR)/1961-63 dated Nil September, 2011, (iii) the Annexure A-1 order No.(662)/21(RD)/2007/KVS(DR)/3597-3601 dated 12.03.2012 of the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect and (iv) the Annexure A-5 transfer order No.12011/KVS(ESTT.III) dated 03.06.2011. 2. The charges against the Applicant were as under:- Article-I Smt. Rita Dutta, while working as Upper Di...
Tag this Judgment!S.A.A. Abbasi Vs. the Chairman and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A): 1. Following relief has been sought in this O.A.:- (i) To grant to the applicant promotion to the post of Addl. CPFC from the date of promotion of immediate junior officer to the applicant. To grant arrear of pay with all other consequential benefits. To make payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the arrears of pay for the period from the date of due to the date of payment. May also issue such other order/direction as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the facts of the case. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant started his service as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner on 17.12.1990 on being selected as a direct recruit by UPSC. On 22.03.1995 he was promoted as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Grade-II and regularized as such on 22.09.1999. On 17.01.2006 he was promoted as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Grade-I on ad hoc basis. However, on 20.05.2009 he was awarded a major penalty of lowering by five stages in time scale f...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Daurala Organics Vs. Cce, Meerut I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The appellant in the year 2001 entered into a licence agreement with M/s Gerard Kessels Sociedad Anonima, Spain for use of the technology developed by them for manufacture of an organic chemicals - D (-) - para-hydroxyphenylglycine (hereinafter referred to as PHPG) for which royalty per annum was being paid @ 2.5% on the annual sales turnover. The intellectual property rights service became taxable in the year 2004. Since, the appellant were not paying service tax on the royalty amount being paid by them to their foreign collaborator whose technology was being used for manufacture of PHPG under licence, two show cause notices dated 07/1/08 and 11/3/08 were issued to them for payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 14,98,776/- alongwith interest for the period from October 2004 to December 2007 and also for imposition of penalty. The above show cause notices were adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 26/02/09 by which she confirmed t...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Chugh Vs. the Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Siddiqui(Oral Judgement): 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The complainant/respondent is a professional singer of high repute. He had taken a car loan from the HDFC Paharganj Bank Branch, New Delhi. The complainant was maintaining saving bank account No. 10117163266 with the State Bank of India, Appellant Bank and also having a current account No.10117107347. For payment towards monthly installments of loan, issued two cheques from his SBI account maintained with the OP/appellant Bank for an amount of Rs. 6789/- each on 7.11.09 and 7.12.09 respectively. The complainant also issued two cheques of Rs. 6789/- each from his current account maintained with the OP Bank on 7.6.2010 and 7.7.2010 in favour of the HDFC Bank. The earlier two cheques issued on 7.11.09 and 7.12.2009 were sent by the HDFC Bank to the appellant/OP Bank Khureji Khas for clearance which the appellant/OP Bank returned to the complaina...
Tag this Judgment!