Delhi Court October 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 2 of about 220 results (0.009 seconds)Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Vs. Transcorp International Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
$~1. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE No.91/2014 Date of decision:31. t October, 2014 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Sonia Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel & Mr. Vijay Chandra, Advocates. versus TRANSCORP INTERNATIONAL LTD. ..... Respondent Through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): The Commissioner of Service Tax has filed the present appeal under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against order dated 27th February, 2014 passed in appeal No.ST/206/2010 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT, for short).2. Appeals against the decisions of the CESTAT can be filed under Section 35G the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the jurisdictional High Court and before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, but the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi Vs. Menon Associates
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
$~29. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE No.93/2014 Date of decision:31. t October, 2014 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, NEW DELHI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Advocate. versus MENON ASSOCIATES ..... Respondent Through Mr. J.K.Mittal & Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): The Commissioner of Service Tax has filed the present appeal under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against order dated 2nd January, 2014 passed in appeal No.ST/1402/2011 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT, for short).2. Decisions of the CESTAT can be challenged under Section 35G the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the jurisdictional High Court and before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, but the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court do not enjoy con...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Kumar Moza Vs. Govt. of J and K and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 1104/2013, 2874/2013 and 2884/2013 Date of decision:31. 10.2014 s IN THE MATTER OF: UMESH KUMAR MOZA ASHOK KUMAR DHAR ROOP KISHAN KAUL ..... Petitioner ..... Petitioner ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. B.L. Wali, Advocate versus GOVT. OF J & K AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Suhail Malik, Advocate CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. By this common judgment, the Court proposes to decide all the three connected cases, as the facts are quite similar and the grievance raised by the petitioners are identical. For the purpose of ready reference, the facts mentioned in WP(C) No.1104/2013 are being referred to.2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 1104/2013 has sought directions to the respondent No.1/Government of Jammu & Kashmir and the respondent No.2/ Department of Health & Medical Education, Government of Jammu & Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as the Department) to amend the Government Order dated 18.7.2011 (Annexur...
Tag this Judgment!Kutub Singh and ors. Vs. Delhi Jal Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:23. 09.2014 Pronounced on:31. 10.2014 + W.P.(C) 3292/2011, C.M. NO.6919/2011 KUTUB SINGH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through : Sh. Krishna Dutt Thapliyal, Advocate. Versus DELHI JAL BOARD AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Sh. P.P. Khurana, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Nishakant Pandey, Advocate, for DJB. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The petitioners in these proceedings challenge a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 18.02.2011 in T.A. No.1191/2009. That application had initially been preferred as a writ petition before this Court which was directed to be transferred to the CAT. The initial order of 05.02.2010 was made by the CAT which was challenged by the petitioner, the Delhi Jal Board (hereafter called the DJB). The order of this court, in writ proceedings, dated 26.08.2010 noticed that the CAT had not earlier worked out the v...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.Rakesh Nanda Vs. Ms.Renu Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.M.(M) No.963/2014 and C.M. No.17688/2014 (Stay) 31th October, 2014 % MR.RAKESH NANDA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.R.D.Itorora, Advocate. Versus MS.RENU GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 13.8.2014 by which the Additional Rent Controller has directed the petitioner herein/respondent to file the written statement. The impugned order simultaneously records that whatever documents were with the petitioner in the trial court/respondent herein have already been supplied to the petitioner herein/respondent in the trial court, in the same form as were existing with the respondent herein, and consequently the present petitioner should file the written statement.2. Since the impugned order is a short order, I reproduce the same...
Tag this Judgment!Pclit Solutions Pvt Ltd. Vs. Mtech Solutions
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
$~17 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. 647/2013 % Judgment reserved on :25. 09.2014 Judgment pronounced on :31. 10.2014 PCLIT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Anil Sapra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sandeep Sharma and Ms.Rupali Kapoor, Advocates. versus MTECH SOLUTIONS Through : ..... Respondent Mr. Avneesh Garg, Advocate. CORAM HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT1 The petitioner herein is dealing in the business of leasing out facilities and services to call centre industry. The respondent herein operates a BPO (Call Centre) and is also in the business of providing IT enabled services. Both the parties entered into a Campaigning Services Agreement on 1.11.06 whereby the premises at Plot No.21, Electronic City, Sector 18, Gurgaon with 166 calling seats, offices and training rooms were taken on rent by respondents herein.2. In the said agreement, the respondent was required to deposit the security of USD31800which included USD24000 for security for seats an...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Narendra and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:26. 09.2014 Pronounced on:31. 10.2014 + W.P.(C) 2259/2012, C.M. NO.6050/2014 SH. NARENDRA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Pragnya Routray, Advocate. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The petitioners in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter "CAT") dated 23.11.2011, in O.A. No.1179/2011, by which the CAT held that the petitioners were not entitled to the grant of pay-scale of 5000 8000, or to be designated Public Health Inspectors (PHIs) in the respondent (hereafter MCD).2. The brief facts are that in the 1970s, MCD had employed vaccinators in the pay-scale of 260 430, for the purposes of vaccinations for smallpox. In 1977, smallpox was eradicated. Under the e...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Rajender Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
$~A-2 to 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:31. 10.2014 + MAC.APP. 103/2008 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant versus RAJENDER KUMAR & ORS. + + ..... Respondents MAC.APP. 104/2008 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. versus ..... Appellant JAWAHAR SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents MAC.APP. 105/2008 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant versus ANJU & ORS + ..... Respondents MAC.APP. 108/2008 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant versus MADHU & ORS MAC.APP.103/2008 & connected matters + MAC.APP. 114/2008 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant versus AMRESH & ORS + ..... Respondents MAC.APP. 115/2008 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant versus HARSH & ORS. + + ..... Respondents MAC.APP. 116/2008 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus ..... Appellant RAJENDER KUAMR & ORS. ..... Respondent MAC.APP. 117/2008 UNITED INDIA INSRUANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant versus RAJENDER KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents Appearance:Mr.K.L.Nandwani, Ad...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Mohan Lal Vs. Ms. Komal Nigan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI C.M.(M) No.407/2012 & C.M.No.6296/2012 (Stay) 31st October, 2014 % SH. MOHAN LAL Through ..... Petitioner Mr.J.S.Lamba with Mr.Ahmad Shahrooz, Advocates. versus MS. KOMAL NIGAN & ORS. Through CORAM: + ..... Respondents Mr.Anil Kumar Saxena, Advocate. C.M.(M) No.522/2012 & C.M.No.7939/2012 (Stay) SH. MOHAN LAL Through ..... Petitioner Mr.J.S.Lamba with Mr.Ahmad Shahrooz, Advocates. versus TIKAM SINGH NIGAN & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr.Anil Kumar Saxena, Advocate. HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Both these petitions challenge the similar orders passed by the trial court being the impugned orders of same date 17.1.2012, and therefore I am disposing of these petitions by this common judgment.2. By the impugned order dated 17.1.2012, the application filed by the applicant/petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for impleading him as a def...
Tag this Judgment!Veena Manghani and ors. Vs. Subhash Arora
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + OMP No.885/2014 Judgement Reserved on:5. h August, 2014. Judgement pronounced on:31. t October, 2014 % VEENA MANGHANI & ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr.Shahid Ali, Mr.Mohd.Shariq & Mr.Satish Kumar, Advocates versus SUBHASH ARORA Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA ..... Respondent JUDGMENT1 Vide this petition, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 13th May, 2014, whereby the claim of the respondent was decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC, on several grounds.2. The facts show that the respondent was the claimant before the Arbitrator and the case of the respondent before the Arbitrator was that the petitioners were the owners of property No.W-54, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, measuring 500 square yards and vide agreement to sell dated 07.02.2012 (due to inadvertent typographical error has been wrongly mentioned as 07.01.2012) had purchased the said property for a total consideration of Rs 25 crore. The respond...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »