Delhi Court November 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rajan Nanda Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:24. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 & 5560/2011 NARESH TREHAN ..... Petitioner versus RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 251/2010 & CM No.526/2010 AAA PORTFOLIO PVT LTD AND ANR. ..... Petitioners versus RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 206/2010 & CM No.392/2010 ESCORTS LTD ..... Petitioner versus RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 214/2010 & CM No.445/2010 CPIO CUM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Petitioner versus RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 202/2010 & 389/2010 ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters versus RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 207/2010 & CM No.394/2010 RAJAN NANDA ..... Petitioner versus RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Ms Shyel Trehan and Ms Manjira Dasgupta in...
Sanjay @ Vicky Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 20, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: November 24, 2014 % + CRL.A. 1151/2010 SANJAY @ VICKY Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Anurag Jain, Mr.Vivek Sood, Ms.Janhavi Mahana and Mr.Jaydeep Tandon, Advocates. Appellant produced from custody. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for the State with Inspector Dheeraj Singh, PS Mayur Vihar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Sanjay @ Vicky is convicted for the murder of his wife vide the impugned judgment dated August 18, 2010 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `20,000/- vide the impugned order dated August 27, 2010.2. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the judgment contends that the testimony of PW-2 Smt.Sudama is not sufficient to convict the appellant as according to her she had seen the appellant along with the deceased at 11.00 PM on October...
Ishwar Dayal Kansal Vs. Motion Pictures Association
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:24. h November, 2014 % + CS(OS) No.1954/2011 ISHWAR DAYAL KANSAL Through ..... Plaintiff Plaintiff in person versus MOTION PICTURES ASSOCIATION .....Defendant Through Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajender Agarwal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) 1. This is a suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The issues in the matter were framed vide order dated 28th April, 2014. Vide the same order it was also directed that issues No.1 and 2 be treated as preliminary issues.2. Submissions have been made by both the sides on issue No.2 which is whether the suit claim is within time?.3. It is the case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint that the plaintiff in December, 1999 made an offer to the defendant to purchase the suit property, pursuant to the advertisements by the defendant in the newspapers ...
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dijo Davis and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
$~A-10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:24. 11.2014 MAC.APP. 155/2012 ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through Ms.Suman Bagga and Mr.Saral Chaturvedi, Advocates. versus DIJO DAVIS & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr.S.N.Parashar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) CM No.2035/2014 (delay in re-filing) This is an application for condonaton of delay of 351 days in re-filing of the appeal. It is urged that certain objections were raised by the Registry and cross-objections were taken back by the counsel to remove the same but the cross-objections got misplaced in the office of the counsel for the appellant. This was found in December 2013 and the cross-objections were thereafter refiled. Hence, it is urged that the delay of 351 days in re-filing of the present cross-objections may be condoned. Subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- which will be payable by respondent No.1 to the Delhi High Court Bar...
Kamaljeet Singh and Ors Vs. State of Nct Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4218/2014 & Crl.M.A. No.14577/2014 KAMALJEET SINGH & ORS Through ..... Petitioners Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondents Through Ms.Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor with Sub Inspector Sukhvinder, P.S. Gandhi Nagar. Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, Advocate with complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.10/2010 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC on 10.01.2010 at police station Gandhi Nagar, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.2. Issue notice. Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. R. K. Aggarwal, Advocate for Respondent No.2/complainant, enter appearance and accept notice. The second respondent, Smt. Gurvinder Kaur, who is present in person, is also identified by the Investigating Officer Sub Inspector ...
Ihhr Hospitality ( andhra) Pvt Ltd Vs. Seema Swami and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Order pronounced on: November 24, 2014 CS(OS) No.1450/2011 IHHR HOSPITALITY (ANDHRA) PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vineet Jhanji & Mr.Imran Moulaey, Advs. versus SEEMA SWAMI & ORS Through + ..... Defendants Mr.Anupam Srivastava, Adv. with Ms.Sharmistha Ghosh, Adv. for D-1 to 3, 6, 7 & 9 to 15. Mr.Sandeep Bisht, Adv. for D-17. Mr.Ajay Mehrotra, Adv. for D-30 along with Mr.Amit Kumar, Senior Executive, in person. Mr.Aditya Madan, Adv. for D-31. Mr.R.P.Vats, Adv. for D-32. Ms.Richa Oberoi, Adv. for Mr.Ateev Mathur, Adv. for D-33. Suit against D-4 & 5 already decreed vide order dated 22nd January, 2012. Defendant No.28 was deleted vide order dated 4th February, 2013. CS(OS) No.1466/2011 IHHR HOSPITALITY PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vineet Jhanji & Mr.Imran Moulaey, Advs. versus SEEMA SWAMI & ORS Through ..... Defendants Mr.Anupam Srivastava, Adv. with Ms.Sharmistha Ghosh, ...
M/S Continental Construction Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
$~5, 6 & 96 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Nos. 8075/2014 & 8077/2014 Date of decision:24. h November, 2014 M/S CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate. versus STATE BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through Mr. S.L. Gupta & Mr. J.P. Gupta, Advocates. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.8138/2014 M.S. BASI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. H.L. Tiku, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bhowmik Nayyar & Mr. Amit Dhupar, Advocate. versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. S.L. Gupta & Mr. J.P. Gupta, Advocates for SBI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): Counsel for the petitioners have been informed that wife of one of us (Sanjiv Khanna, J.) is holder of some shares of the State Bank of India. Counsel for the petitioners state that they have no objection to the present Bench hearing these writ petitions.2. The only issue an...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jubilant offshore Drilling Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
$~1. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA6942014 Date of decision:24. h November, 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel & Mr. Abhishek Singh Baghel, Advocate. versus JUBILANT OFFSHORE DRILLING PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) This appeal by the Revenue relates to Assessment Year 2008-09 and impugns the order dated 14th February, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) in the case of M/s. Jubilant Offshore Drilling Private Limited.2. We have examined the assessment order, but it is difficult to appreciate and accept the logic and reasoning of the Assessing Officer to hold that the business of the assessee had not been set up and, therefore, expenditure of Rs.1,69,72,374/- should be treated as pre-operative expenses. The said expenditure was accordingly disall...
Jagmal Vs. Ramesh Chand Aggarwal and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:24. h November, 2014 + CS (OS) 735/ 2011 JAGMAL ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Smita Maan, Adv. versus RAMESH CHAND AGGARWAL AND ORS. Through: ..... Defendants Mr. Aditya Chandra, Adv. for D-1 and D-10. Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Adv. with Mr. Anupriya Singh, Adv. for D-2. Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Adv. for D-7, 8, 9, 11 and 12. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL IA No.9211/ 2011 (Order VII Rule 11 CPC) in CS (OS) 735/ 2011 1. By virtue of this application, Defendant No.2 lays challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present civil suit. The contention raised by the Plaintiff is that for the purpose of deciding maintainability of the suit, only the pleadings in the suit are to be considered. In the plaint, the Plaintiff has himself claimed that the land, the subject matter of the suit is an agricultural land covered by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (the Act of 1954).2. This suit for permanent injunction ...
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Meenakshi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:24. h November, 2014 % + MAC.APP. No.62 /2014 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Manish Kaushik for Mr. K. L. Nandwani, Advocate. Versus SMT. MEENAKSHI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has assailed the award dated 20.09.2013, whereby keeping in view the age of the deceased that is 21 years on the date of accident, i.e., 01.03.2009, the learned Tribunal while granting compensation has added 50% in his actual income towards future prospects.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that as the respondents/claimants have failed to prove that deceased Rajesh Kumar was in regular employment and the learned Tribunal keeping in mind the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, has considered the salary of the deceased...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »