Delhi Court November 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 23 of about 1,333 results (0.022 seconds)Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Manju Finance Corporati ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: November 26, 2014 + ITA No.339/2002 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Akash Vajpai , Advocate Versus M/S. MANJU FINANCE CORPORATION, NEW DELHI ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(Oral) 1. This appeal by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, in short) impugns the order dated 15.04.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, in short) annulling and setting aside block assessment proceedings under Section 158BD of the Act. The block assessment period involved is 01.04.1986 to 29.08.1996.2. By order dated 01.02.2005, the following substantial question of law was framed:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, non-issuance of notice under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would vitiate the proceedings initiated under Section 158BC of the Act?.3. The respond...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Public School Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organi ...
Court: Delhi
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:26. h November, 2014 + W.P.(C) No.890/2011 SRI GURU TEG BAHADUR PUBLIC SCHOOL ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Rajiv Shukla, Mr. Shubham Saxena and Ms.Anamika Saraff, Advocates. Versus EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Balraj Dewan, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner School seeks setting aside of the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, and the order dated 19.09.2005 passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (for short Commissioner), whereby the petitioner Establishment was directed to make compliance under all the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the EPF Act), w.e.f. 01.02.2005, subject to the right of the Department to shift back the date of coverage if subsequently ...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Mukund Krishna Barman Vs. Sh. Surender Kumar Malhotra (Deceased) T ...
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RC.REV.No.266/2013 & C.M.No.11369/2013 (Stay) 26th November, 2014 % SH. MUKUND KRISHNA BARMAN ......Petitioner Through: Mr.Vibhor Goela, Advocate. VERSUS SH. SURENDER KUMAR MALHOTRA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS ...... Respondents Through: Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This rent control revision petition filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 26.4.2013 by which the ARC has dismissed the leave to defend application and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to a portion of the ground floor of house no.E-5/33, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51 as shown in red colour in the site plan filed with the eviction petition.2. I may note that the evictio...
Tag this Judgment!Brig (Retd.) M.M. Sharma Frgs Vs. Lt. Gen. Depinder Singh
Court: Delhi
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement delivered on:26. 11.2014 + O.M.P. 741/2013 BRIG (RETD.) M.M. SHARMA FRGS ..... Petitioner versus LT. GEN. DEPINDER SINGH ..... Respondent Advocates appeared in this case: For the petitioner: Mr A.B. Pandey, Advocate For the respondent: Dr. Roxna Swamy, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 The petitioner herein is the sole proprietor of a concern going by the name of Trishul Publications. The predecessor-in-interest of this proprietorship concern is another concern, which went by the name of Dattatreya Prakashan. 1.1 The disputes between the parties herein arose out of the publication agreement executed between them, which was entered between them in September, 1991. The said publication agreement, broadly, defines the rights of the parties herein with respect to a book written by the respondent, entitled IPKF In Sri Lanka. 1.2 The petitioner (i.e., the original claimant), was aggrieved by the fa...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Seth Vs. Ruchika Abbi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:26. h November, 2014 + CS (OS) 2902/2014 SURAJ SETH Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Jagat Singh, Adv. with Mr. Bhagat Singh, Adv. versus RUCHIKA ABBI Through: ..... Defendant Mr. Anil Malhotra, Adv. with Mr. Rajat Bhalla, Adv. and Defendant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL G.P. Mittal, J.(Oral) IA No.19884/2014 (O.VII Rule 11 CPC) in CS(OS) 2902/2014 1. This suit for declaration and injunction has been filed by the Plaintiff primarily seeking ante suit injunction. The Plaintiff is the husband of the Defendant. As per the averments made in the plaint, the parties got married in January, 2001 at New Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.2. According to the Plaintiff, after the marriage, the parties stayed at Virginia, USA. They were blessed with a baby girl on 24.12.2007. Certain averments have been made about the ill habits of the Defendant in para 4 and other paragraphs of the plaint which are not very releva...
Tag this Judgment!Shri C.P.Sehgal Vs. Smt. Archana Gupta
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. No.501/2011 & RC. Rev. No.505/2011 26th November , 2014 % RC.Rev. No.501/2011 SHRI C.P.SEHGAL Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. ARCHANA GUPTA ...... Respondent Through: Mr. S.D.Dixit, Advocate. Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate. RC.Rev. No.505/2011 SHRI C.P.SEHGAL VERSUS SMT. ARCHANA GUPTA ...... Respondent Through: Mr. S.D.Dixit, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) RC.Rev. No.501/2011 1. This rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) impugning the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 29.10.2011 by which the Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kapil @ Dayal Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. h November, 2014 Delivered on:26. h November, 2014 CRL.A. No.664 of 2008 DEEPAK @ D.K. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate with Appellant in person. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Isha Khanna, APP WITH CRL.A. No.665 of 2008 KAPIL @ DAYAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate with Appellant in person. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP. AND CRL.A. No.806 of 2008 SURENDER @ JEETU Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Mukul Sharma with Mr. Ramesh K. Sharma, Advocate with Appellant in person. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2611.2014 1. These three appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 23rd July 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (SJ) in SC No.83 of 2006 holding the Appellants guilty of the offenc...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak @ D.K. Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. h November, 2014 Delivered on:26. h November, 2014 CRL.A. No.664 of 2008 DEEPAK @ D.K. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate with Appellant in person. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Isha Khanna, APP WITH CRL.A. No.665 of 2008 KAPIL @ DAYAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate with Appellant in person. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP. AND CRL.A. No.806 of 2008 SURENDER @ JEETU Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Mukul Sharma with Mr. Ramesh K. Sharma, Advocate with Appellant in person. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2611.2014 1. These three appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 23rd July 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (SJ) in SC No.83 of 2006 holding the Appellants guilty of the offenc...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Kumar Nagpal Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.8195/2014 & CM No.19073/2014 (for directions) & CM No.19074/2014 (for exemption). SATISH KUMAR NAGPAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC for R-1&2 with Mr. Jitender Singh, Section Officer, Deptt. Of Horticulture, CPWD, Ministry of Urban Development. Mr. Digvijay Rai with Mr. Ratish Kumar, Advs. for R-4. Ms. Zubeda Begum, St. Counsel (GNCTD) with Ms. Sana Ansari, Adv. for GNCTD. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW % 1. ORDER2611.2014 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation, seeks directions, (i) to the Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation and the Dy. Director General (Horticulture), (a) to take proper maintenance and care of the Sadiq Nagar Sports Complex by putting proper boundary walls and separating the same from the adjacent Ce...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Kusum Rani Vs. Smt. Uma Vati
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC. REV.Nos.379/2014 & 381/2014 26th November, 2014 % 1. RC. REV. No.379/2014 MS. KUSUM RANI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Shiv Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Soumya Kumar, Advocate. Versus SMT. UMA VATI ..... Respondent Through:2. RC. REV. No.381/2014 SH. MOTI RAM Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Shiv Gupta, Advocate. Versus SMT. UMA VATI ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Both these petitions can be disposed of by this common judgment inasmuch as the impugned judgment of the Rent Controller is same in both the cases. The landlady being the respondent is same in both the cases and the need which has been projected for eviction of the petitioners/tenants is the same viz of opening of a computer institute by both her sons in the entire ground floor of the premises ...
Tag this Judgment!