Delhi Court October 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 8 of about 220 results (0.032 seconds)Sanjay Singh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr
Court: Delhi
$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4832/2014 SANJAY SINGH Through Mr. M.T. Malik, Advocate. ..... Petitioner versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor. Sub Inspector Sahdev, Tomar. Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate for R2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. No.16603/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off. Crl.M.C. No.4832/2014 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.165/2012 registered under Section 379 IPC read with Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act (Amend) 2003 at police station Jaitpur on 18.05.2012, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.2. Issue notice. Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate for respondent No.2 / BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., enter appearan...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Sharma Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on : October 10, 2014 Judgment Delivered on : October 29, 2014 + CRL.A.937/2012 ANAND SHARMA Represented by: .....Appellant Mr.Samrat Nigam, Advocate versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Represented by: .....Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Mr.Kush Sharma, Advocate for complainant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Shruti Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the Deceased) suffered burn injuries past midnight (around 2:30 in the middle of the night) on the intervening night of August 02, 2006 and August 03, 2006, or to put it differently at 02:30 hours on August 03, 2006. There could be only three alternatives for the deceased suffering burn injuries : (i) suicide; (ii) accidental fire; and (iii) being set on fire. The plea of suicide by the deceased has not been advanced either by the prosecution or by the defence. In this view of the matter, the core question which needs d...
Tag this Judgment!Novartis Ag and ors Vs. Cadila Helathcare Ltd
Court: Delhi
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1052/2014 NOVARTIS AG & ORS Through ..... Plaintiffs Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Gupta, Senior Advocate, Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate, Ms.Mamta Jha, Advocate, Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate, Ms. Shipla Arora, Advocate & Ms. Kritika Seth, Advocate. versus CADILA HELATHCARE LTD ..... Defendant Through Ms. Prathibha M. Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bijal Chhatrapati, Advocate, Ms. Bitika Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Anusuya Nigam & Mr. Vihan Dang, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL ORDER2910.2014 % I.A.16018/2014(delay in filing the reply) & I.A.17037/2014(delay in filing the written statement) 1. These applications are for condonation of delay in filing the written statement and reply to the injunction application beyond the specified period of 90 days and the time as granted by the Court.2. The Defendant applicant seeks extension of time in filing reply to the injunction application and written stateme...
Tag this Judgment!Debashis Mukherjee Vs. Competition Commission of India
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7312/2012 Decided on 29.10.2014 IN THE MATTER OF : DEBASHIS MUKHERJEE ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate with Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Mehak Tanwar and Mr. Vardaan Dhawan, Advocates CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia that the respondent/Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as respondent/CCI) be directed to consider his candidature for engagement as an Expert in the field of law, by giving weightage to his qualifications and experience.2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 28.03.2012, the respondent/CCI had published a notice on its website, inviting applications from eligible candidates for engagement of fifteen experts/professional to assist the Commission in the discharge of its functions under the Competition Act. A...
Tag this Judgment!Mangala Khattar and ors Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 2755/2012 & CM No.2548/2014 W.P.(C) 4055/2013 & CM Nos.9557 & 13329/2013 Decided on :29. 10.2014 IN THE MATTERS OF WP(C) No.2755/2012 MANGALA KHATTAR AND ORS Through ..... Petitioners Mr. Zeyaul Haque, Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Anjum Javed and Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Siddharth Dias, Adv. for R-2/ FPAI. Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC for R-3. AND W.P.(C) 4055/2013 DR. J.B. BABBAR & ORS. Through ..... Petitioners Mr. Zeyaul Haque, Adv. versus FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF INDIA NEW DELHI & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr. Siddharth Dias, Adv. for R-1/ FPAI. Mr. Rajiv Nanda, ASC for R-2. Mr. Apar Gupta, Adv. for UOI. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(ORAL) 1. This common judgment shall dispose of the petitions filed by the petitioners as the issues raised in these writ petitions are common. For the sake of convenience, facts of W.P.(C) 4055/2013 are taken note o...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhbir Singh Kemwal Vs. Gnct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:29. h October, 2014 + W.P.(C) 3316/2010 & Crl. M.A. 469/2011 and CM. No.2393/2011 SUKHBIR SINGH KEMWAL Represented by: ..... Petitioner Petitioner in person. Versus GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Mr. Nishant Prateek and Mr. Shrey Chathly, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.W.P.(C) 3316/2010 1. Vide the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to set aside the impugned order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the Financial Commissioner whereby order dated 10.04.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner was set aside and the appeal of the respondent Nos.3 & 4 was allowed.2. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Anant Ram was declared Bhumidhar of Khasra No.41/12(2.08), situated within the revenue estate of Village Nangli Poona, Delhi, under Section 74 (4) of the Delhi ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S Vodafone Essar South Ltd.
Court: Delhi
$~1. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No.594/2014 Date of decision:29. h October, 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sachit Jolly, Mr. Rahul Sateeja & Ms. Gargi Bhatt, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): This appeal by the Revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 2003-04, impugns the order dated 7th February, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) on the following issues:i) Whether on the fact of the case ITAT could have deleted the disallowance of provisions for network repair and maintenance and credit verification cost, provision of consultancy charges and provision for car hiring charges amounting to Rs.28,62,275/- and Rs.29,90,064/-?. ii) Whether payment towards brand launch expenses can be treated as revenue expenditure...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Sachdeva and ors Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr
Court: Delhi
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4848/2014 LALIT SACHDEVA & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Advocate versus STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. P.K. Mishra, APP with ASI Kusum, PS Bindapur CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) CRL.M.A. 16647/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off. CRL.M.C. 4848/2014 1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.359/2012 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Bindapur on 07.11.2012 on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.2. Issue notice.3. Counsel for the State enters appearance and accepts notice. The complainant, Payal Sachdeva, is present in person. The Investigating Officer, Assistant Sub-Inspector Kusum, Police Station Bindapur, who is also present in Court,...
Tag this Judgment!Mohit Kumar Vs. Quality Printers Pvt. Ltd.and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.957/2014 29th October , 2014 % MOHIT KUMAR Through: ......Petitioner Petitioner in person. VERSUS QUALITY PRINTERS PVT. LTD.& ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kunal Sinha, Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Mr. Sahil, Advs. for R-1 and 2. Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal and Mr. Ekansh Agarwal, Adv. for R-3. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. for R-4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) Caveat No.938/2014 Counsel appears for the caveator. Caveat stands discharged. CM No.17630/2014 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. CM(M) No.957/2014 & CM No.17629/2014(stay) 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the order of the trial court dated 1.10.2014 by which the trial court has rejected an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure...
Tag this Judgment!Sh.Anil Kumar Dabas Vs. Sh.Khazan and ors
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI C.M.(M) No.239/2011 & C.M.No.4409/2011 (Stay) 29th October, 2014 % SH.ANIL KUMAR DABAS Through ..... Petitioner None versus SH.KHAZAN & ORS Through ..... Respondents Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for R4/DDA. 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 orders passed by the trial court on 11.1.2011 and 29.1.2011 by which only an injunction order was passed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff restraining the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 from creating any third party interest in the suit property being plot no.88, Pocket No.10, Block No.B, Sector 23, Dwarka, New Delhi admeasuring 80 sq. yds. and petitioner/plaintiff was not successful in getting a direction for the DDA to deposit the original title deeds of the suit property in the Court. The subject suit is a suit for specific performance.2. On behalf of ...
Tag this Judgment!