Delhi Court December 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 102 of about 1,089 results (0.023 seconds)Indian Airlines Vs. Angelique International Limited and Anr
Court: Delhi
$~R-101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA5692005 Reserved on 21st November, 2014 Delivered on 1st December, 2014 INDIAN AIRLINES Through ..... Appellant : Mr. Amit K. Pateria, Adv. Versus ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ANR..... Through : None ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.1. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that wrong delivery of goods will fall within the ambit and scope of Clause 18 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (the Act, for short), thus, suit for recovery of `6,46,800/- filed by the respondent No.1 against appellant was barred by time, having been filed after two years of loss of goods, in view of Rule 29 of the first Schedule and Rule 30 of the second Schedule to the Act.2. By placing reliance on M/s. Vij Sales Corporation vs. Lufthansa Airlines, 1981 2 ILR (Del) 749, which was later on followed in Old Village Ind. Vs. British Airways 1991 RLR443 trial court, in the context of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Vs. Ng Technologies Ltd.
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:1. t December, 2014 + ITA No.82/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ..... Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates. versus NG TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ashish Makhija, Mr. Karamveer Jindal, Advocates for the Official Liquidator. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) pertains to assessment years 2006-07 and was admitted for hearing vide order dated 7th December, 2012, on the following substantial question of law:Whether the ld. ITAT was correct in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee in holding that the assessee had discharged the onus cast upon it under Explanation-I Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act?. We note that the assessee company has gone into liquidation and the Official Liquidator...
Tag this Judgment!Rohit Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 17, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 01, 2014 % + CRL.A. 261/2014 PRADEEP @ KULDEEP Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Advocate with Mr.Amit Kala, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP Insp.Anil Sharma CRL.A. 116/2014 ROHIT Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP Insp.Anil Sharma CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARDEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PARDEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. On March 27, 2008 a joint written complaint Ex.PW-5/A was handed over by Ram Prasad PW-2, father of Rajan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), Babloo @ Mirajuddin PW-5, the owner-cum-driver of an Innova motor vehicle bearing registration No.DL7X1951 and Hari Om Gupta PW-6, the proprietor of Himanshu Tours and Travels, informing the SHO of PS Mayur Vihar that Kuldeep and Pradeep, having mobi...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Gupta Vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:18. 03.2014 Date of Decision:01. 12.2014 + CM (M) No.415 of 2012 And CM No.6397 of 2012 B.R. GUPTA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv. versus PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vikram Singh & Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated 24.02.2012, whereby the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) allowed the respondents (tenant) appeal against an order dated 24.08.2011 of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC). Consequently, the RCT set aside the order impugned before it and afforded protection to the tenant from eviction under Section 14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act). Background of the case 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner (landlord) had sought eviction of the tenant from property No.47, 1st Floor, Bunglow Road, Kam...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Antil Vs. Staff Selection Commission and Ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8362/2014 Decided on : IN THE MATTERS OF : SANDEEP ANTIL0112.2014 ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin K. Gupta, Advocate versus STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate for R-4/FCI. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing and setting aside the show cause notice dated 10.06.2013 and the order dated 27.01.2014 issued by the respondent No.3/Regional Director (NR) of the respondent No.1/Staff Selection Commission (in short SSC), whereunder he was informed that his candidature in the Combined Recruitment for Assistant Grade III in General, Depot, Technical and Accounts Cadre and Hindi Posts (AG-II) in the Examination, 2012 held for respondent No.4/FCI was cancelled and he was debarred for a period of three years from the Commissions examinations.2. With the consent of the parties, the...
Tag this Judgment!Alok Kumar and Ors Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr
Court: Delhi
$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5450/2014 ALOK KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate with petitioners. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents Through Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor. W/SI Kailash, P.S. Vasant Kunj. R2/Complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. No.18627/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off. Crl.M.C. No.5450/2014 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.538/2007, registered under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, on 19.07.2007, at police station Vasant Kunj, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.2. Issue notice.3. Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, enters appearance and accepts notice. The second respondent / complainant, who is present in person, is identified by the Inv...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeev Nanda Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:1. t December, 2014 % + CRL.M.C. 4484/2014 SANJEEV NANDA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Kapur and Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocates. versus CBI Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP for CBI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.(ORAL) 1. By filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short), the petitioner Sanjeev Nanda seeks modification of order dated 29.04.2008 passed by this Court in Bail Application No.749/2008.2. Succinctly stating the facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1978 read with Section 120B of IPC in case RC No.AC1/2008/A0001 registered by CBI. The petitioner was arrested on 08.03.2008 at Mumbai. He moved an application for bail bearing Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Champa Devi Vs. Sh. Param Ved Goel
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CM(M) No.1004/2014 1st December , 2014 SMT. CHAMPA DEVI Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal and Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocates. VERSUS SH. PARAM VED GOEL Through: ...... Respondent 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 court below dated 19.7.2014 by which the application of the petitioner/plaintiff for restoration of the suit which was withdrawn by her on 23.7.2007 has been dismissed after recording of evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff with respect to whether the petitioner had or had not given the consent.2. The court below records that though the case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that she is an illiterate lady and she did not know that she is appearing in court and making a statement for withdrawal of the suit but the petitioner/plaintiff cannot be believed inasmuch as ...
Tag this Judgment!Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. Vs. the Government of Nct of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:1. t December, 2014 + CRL. M.C. 4512/2014 & CRL.M.A. 15439/2014 RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R Jawaharlal with Mr. Siddharth Bawa, Advocates. versus THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, APP for the State. Insecticide Inspector Somvir Arya CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.(ORAL) 1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) the petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.09.2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, North-West, District Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Criminal Complaint No.274/01/13 whereby the application for retesting of the sample by Central Insecticides Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as CIL) was dismissed.2. Brief facts as stated in the complaint of respondent No.2 are that on 30.01.2013 the notified Insecticide I...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 28, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 01, 2014 % + CRL.A.1460/2010 BABU Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with Inspector Keshav Kumar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Babu is convicted for the offence of murder of his wife Gunjan and directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year.2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the deposition of Master Pushkar, son of Babu and the deceased cannot be relied upon being tutored as his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded after three months of the incident during which period he was staying with his maternal grandparents. Even the dying declaration of ...
Tag this Judgment!