Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Ashok Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: January 31, 2014 + CRL.A. 229/2002 ASHOK KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Avninder Singh, Advocate. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP with SubInspector Manoj Kumar, Police Station Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J1 Challenge in the present appeal is the impugned judgment dated 3rd April, 2001 and order on sentence, dated 4th April, 2001, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC), and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with payment of fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 307 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as un...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Committee and ors Vs. Mr Rakesh Kumar Shukla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
* + % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA No.284/2013 & conn. 31st January, 2014 RSA2842013 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS Through: ..... Appellants Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate. versus MR RAKESH KUMAR SHUKLA Through: + ..... Respondent None. RSA2672013 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS Through: ..... Appellants Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate. versus MS. SUMAN HANDA ..... Respondent Through + RSA2752013 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS Through: ..... Appellants Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate. versus MR. SULEMAN KHAN ..... Respondent Through + RSA2762013 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS Through: ..... Appellants Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate. versus MR. NARESH KHURANA ..... Respondent Through + RSA2772013 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS Through: ..... Appellants Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate. versus MS KIRAN VATI ..... Respondent Through + RSA2782013 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS Through: ..... Appellants Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate. versus MRS. SHIKHA SAXENA ..... Respondent Through + RSA2802013 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS RSA2...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Heera Lal Gond Andanr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.345/2012 15th January, 2014 % ANUPAM SHARMA Through: ......Appellant Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THR. GM NORTHERN RAILWAY ...... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This matter was called out in the pre-lunch session but no one appeared for the respondent though counsel for the appellant was present. Even on the second call after lunch although it is 2.50 PM, no one appears for the respondent. I have therefore heard the counsel for the appellant and after perusing the record am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.2. This first appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment dated 27.2.2012 by which the claim petition filed by the applicant /appellant was dismissed. The Railway Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment has held that compensation cannot be awa...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Ram and ors. Vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:31. t January, 2014 + CRL.A. 629/2000 KALI RAM & ORS. Through ..... Appellant Mr. K.K. Sharma, Amicus Curiae versus STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI Through ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP Inspector Arvind Kumar, SHO, Sub Inspector Anil, Police Station Kalyan Puri, Delhi. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. The celebration of birth of newly born child of Satbir turned into mourning when due to anguish of not receiving invitation to attend the party, neighbour Pramod and other family members went to the house of Satbir and stabbed him with knife, resulting in his death and causing simple and grievous injuries to Mahipal (PW1), Harbir(PW2), Jaipal(PW3) and Dharampal(PW4) who had also come to attend the function.2. The factual matrix of the case lies in narrow compass. On 14th September, 1990, there was a function in the house of Satbir on the occasion of birth of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dcit and Another New Delhi Vs. Flex International Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
TS. Kapoor, AM: 1. These are four appeals filed by the revenue against separate orders of Ld CIT(A) all dated 3.5.2010. The assessee has also filed cross objections to the appeals foiled by the revenue in all the four years. Similar grounds of appeals has been taken by the revenue and similar grounds in cross objections has been taken by the assessee. For the sake of convenience, the grounds of appeals for assessment year 2000-01 as well as cross objections for assessment year 2000-01 are reproduced below:- I.T.A. No.3720/Del/2010 (A.Y. 2000- 2000-01): 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in annulling the assessment made u/s 153C. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by holding that the seized documents on the basis of which proceedings u/s 153C were initiated do ot belong to the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in interpretin...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Saint-gobaIn Gyproc India Limited Vs. Cce, Rohtak
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The appellant are manufacturers of Gypsum Board jointing compound, Bonding Adhesive, Gypsum Plasters falling under Chapter 68 and 25 of the Central Excise Tariff. In March, 1985, they entered into an agreement with M/s. BPB Industries Public Ltd., England, a company registered in UK for manufacture of Gypsum Board Jointing Compound, etc. in collaboration with them by using their technology and technical assistance. In terms of Article 8.1, the appellant were to pay a lump sum amount of #400000/- outside India to a bank as specified by M/s.BPB in three instalments - one third amount after the date of the agreement, next one third within 30 days of M/s.BPB certifying that all the written information contained in the 1st schedule to the agreement has been supplied to the appellant and the remaining one third instalment within 30 days of the commencement of the commercial production or 4 years from the date of the agreement, whichever is earlier. The amount #400000 peri...
Tag this Judgment!Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi and Another Vs. Addl ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
A.D. Jain, Judicial Member: 1. These are cross appeals for Assessment Year 2006-07 against the Order dated 07.10.2010 passed by the Ld. CIT (A)-VIII, New Delhi. 2. ITA No.5527/Del/2010 has been filed by the assessee whereas ITA No.5791/Del/2010 has been preferred by the department. 3. In ITA No.5527/Del/2010, the following grounds have been taken by the assessee:- "1 (i). That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) having confirmed the disallowance of the claim of interest to the extent of Rs.14,82,540/- as attributable to earning of dividend income on mutual fund, there is no case of any further disallowance in terms of rule 8D as these rules are not relevant in the year under reference. (ii) That these rules are not in conformity with provisions of sec.14A and as such these rules are illegal and invalid. (iii) That there being no dispute or finding that there is a case of any expenses other than claim of interest to the extent of Rs.14,82,540/- relating to issue ...
Tag this Judgment!All India Cghs Employees Association Through Its General Secretary Jai ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Ashok Kumar, Member (A): 1. This OA has been filed against the order dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure-A/1) issued by Director General of Health Services, CGHS revising the grant of financial upgradations under the MACP scheme in lower grade pay scale. The impugned order also directs recovery of excess payment. 2. Facts of the case are that DOPT had issued an office memorandum regarding clarifications on the subject Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) dated 18.07.2001 (Annexure-A/3) inter alia to clarify on the issue as to whether placement/appointment in the higher scales of pay based on the recommendations of the pay commissions or committee set up to rationalize the cadres be reckoned as promotion/upgradation or not. DoPT in this OM clarified that where all the posts are placed in a higher scale of pay, with or without a change in designation; without requirement of any new qualification for holding the post in the higher grade, not specified in the Recruitment Rules for the existing p...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Nav Durga Steel Products. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Chan ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various excisable products falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise tariff. During the period 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, they sometime discharged the duty out of Cenvat credit account and sometime by way of depositing cash or out of PLA. Their factory was ultimately closed in the year 2009 and they surrendered their excise registration on 8.8.09. 2. At the time of surrendering their registration, they were having closing balance of Rs.4,42,489/- in their Cenvat credit account. They filed the application dated 11.1.10 for refunding unutilized Cenvat credit of Rs.4, 42,489/- dated 27.11.09. The show cause notice was issued on 21.12.09 seeking denial of refund claim filed by the applicant. 3. During the course of adjudication, the appellant took a stand that during the period involved, they had discharged their duty liability out of PLA even when they were having Cenvat credit in their Cenvat account. Said discharge of du...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Sampath, Administrative Officer, National Water Development Agenc ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Dr. B.K. Sinha: 1. In the instant OA, the applicant, an Administrative Officer in the National Water Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as NWDA) is aggrieved with the order of the respondents dated 08.01.2013 rejecting his representation seeking 3rd financial upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as MACPS) w.e.f. 27.6.2011 from the grade pay of Rs.5400/- to the grade of Rs.6600/-. 2. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he has proclaimed ombudsman, who has exposed the acts of corruption of respondent Nos. 2,3 and 5, on account of which they have been harassing him in so many ways, inter alia, by declaring him unfit for grant of 3rd financial upgradation under MACP vide the meeting of the Screening Committee held on 04.01.2013, despite the fact that all the five ACRs/APARs prior to 27.06.2011 are within the benchmark of Good and above. 3. The applicant has questioned the constitution of the Screening Committee consisting o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »