Delhi Court December 2014 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax - 15 (Erstwhile Cit-Ix) Vs. Shri Chintoo To ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
$~12. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No.790/2014 Date of decision:23. d December, 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 15 (ERSTWHILE CIT-IX) ..... Appellant Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Aamir Aziz & Mr. Shashank Menon, Advocates. versus SHRI CHINTOO TOMAR Through Nemo. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): The present appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) arises out of proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act recording the following reasons:Assessment of Chintoo Tomar for the A.Y. 2007-08 was completed in summary at an income of Rs.1,99,613/-. It apparent from the records that the during the financial year 2006-07, the assessee has earned capital gain of Rs.2,69,47,709/- out of which Rs.2,55,56885/- was claimed exempted u/s 54 by investing in residenti...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Roshinlal Gupta and Sons Vs. Presiding officer and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d December, 2014. % + W.P.(C) No.46/2003 M/S.ROSHINLAL GUPTA & SONS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv. Versus PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ramakant Tripathi, Adv. for R-2. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the Award dated 23rd March, 2002 of the Labour Court-X, Delhi in I.D. No.2258/95 (old I.D.No.381/88) answering the following reference:Whether the services of Sh. Nawal Kishore have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?. in favour of the respondent no.2 workman Sh. Nawal Kishore and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no.2 workman with full back wages.2. On 3rd January, 2003, notice of the petition was issued to the respondent no.2 workman and vide ex parte order the operation of the Awa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Police, Delhi Vs. Sh. Satish Chander
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % Date of Decision:23. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 2951/2013 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon & Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocates. versus SH. SATISH CHANDER Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Jayant Pawar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioner Commissioner of Police, has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 04.01.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.3781/2011. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application preferred by the respondent/ applicant and set aside the orders dated 24.08.2011 and 02.09.2011 passed by the petitioner. By these orders, the request of the applicant to withdraw the notice for voluntary retirement was rejected. The Tribunal has also reinstated the applicant in service with all co...
Tag this Judgment!Ion Exchange (India) Ltd. Vs. Panasonic Electric Works Co. Ltd. and An ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d December, 2014. + ARB.P. 662/2014 ION EXCHANGE (INDIA) LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Amey Nargolkar and Mr. Aaditya Vijaykumar, Advocates. Versus PANASONIC ELECTRIC WORKS CO. LTD. AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) impleading Panasonic Electric Works Co. Ltd., Japan (hereinafter called Panasonic Japan) as respondent No.1 and Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called Panasonic India) as respondent No.2 thereto, and pleading: (i) that Panasonic Japan through the Panasonic India, in the year 2010, approached the petitioner to discuss the possibility of a business venture / relationship and alliance; (ii) that during the course of negotiation, a Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement dated 6th December, 2010 was executed between the petitioner and ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Tara Logitech Private Ltd. Vs. M/S Religare Finvest Limited and An ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d December, 2014. + OMP No.1656/2014 & IA No.26202/2014 (for stay) M/S TARA LOGITECH PRIVATE LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Mr. Rajat & Mr. Priyadarshi Gopal, Advs. Versus M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: None. AND + OMP No.1657/2014 & IA No.26204/2014 (for stay) M/S TARA LOGITECH PRIVATE LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Mr. Rajat & Mr. Priyadarshi Gopal, Advs. Versus M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ..... Respondent I.A. No.26203/2014 in OMP No.1656/2014 & I.A. No.26205/2014 in OMP No.1657/2014 (both for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.2. The applications are disposed of. OMP Nos.1656/2014 & 1657/2014 3. Both these petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are preferred with respect to the a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. (India Tv) Vs. Crazi Mobapps an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:23. d December, 2014 % + CS(OS) 4037/2014 M/S INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE PVT. LTD. (INDIA TV) ..... Plaintiff Through Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Ms. Jaya Mandela, Mr. Karan Bajaj and Ms. Rukma George, Advs. versus CRAZI MOBAPPS & ORS Through ..... Defendants None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.26291/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing original documents and to file dim documents with insufficient left side margin. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to the same being produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents. The application is disposed of. I.A. No.26292/2014 (U/s 149 CPC) Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff states that she would be filing the Court fee within one week. In view of the statement made by the learned Senior co...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kala and Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:23. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 2780/2014 RAM KALA & ORS .... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Ravinder Sethi, Sr Advocate with Mr Rajiv Kr Ghawana, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Ruchir Mishra and Mr Mukesh Kr Tiwari No.1/UOI. For the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi. For the Respondent No.4/DDA : Mr Arun Birbal and Mr Sanjay Singh. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE I. S. MEHTA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. In this writ petition, the point urged is that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed because of the non-compliance of the mandatory condition of making the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within the stipulated period of one year from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the said Act.2. The petitioners in the p...
Tag this Judgment!Tanu Goel and Another Vs. Girish Chopra and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Cont. Cas (C) No.741/2014 Decided on :23. d December, 2014 TANU GOEL AND ANOTHER Petitioners Through: Mr. Sudhir Talwar, Advocate. Versus GIRISH CHOPRA & ORS Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioners are claiming action for wilful disobedience of the orders dated 31.3.2011 and 6.4.2011 passed by the learned single judge in C.S. (OS) No.669/2011 titled Tanu Goel & Anr. Vs. Girish Chopra & Ors.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents. Along with the suit, an application bearing No.4427/2011 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed for an ex parte ad interim injunction in respect of the third floor of property No.9, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi and terrace rights thereon, as it was alleged by the petitioners that the respondents had agreed to sell the same to them.3. After hearing the argum...
Tag this Judgment!Medical Council of India Vs. Muzaffarnagar Medical College and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d December, 2014 % + LPA No.788/2014 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA .. Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Manan Khera & Mr. Vishu Agrawal, Advs. Versus MUZAFFARNAGAR MEDICAL COLLEGE & ORS... Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Adv. for R-1&2. Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Chaudhary & Ms. Medha Arya, Advs. for R-3 / UOI. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 29th October, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing W.P.(C) No.7339/2014 filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. Muzaffarnagar Medical College (MMC) and its Chairman Sh. Satish C. Goel and impleading the respondent No.3 Union of India (UOI) only as the respondent thereto and by setting aside the letter dated 22nd July, 2014 of the respondent No.3 UOI,...
Tag this Judgment!Lavasa Corporation Ltd Vs. Krest Infratech Pvt Ltd and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:23. d December, 2014 % + CS(OS) 786/2013 & I.A. No.6910/2013 LAVASA CORPORATION LTD ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, Adv. with Mr. Rohit Gupta and Mr.Arnav Kumar Advs. versus KREST INFRATECH PVT LTD & ORS ..... Defendants Through Defendants are ex parte. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for damages, rendition of accounts and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing/passing off the plaintiffs registered trademark Lavasa.2. The suit and interim application were listed on 29th April, 2013, the Court has passed an ex-parte interim order restraining the defendants from using the plaintiffs registered trademark or any other word/mark identically/deceptively similar to Lavasa. The relevant and operative part of the order is reproduced below :I.A.No.6910/2013 (by the plaintiff u/O XXXIX R-1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC) 1. N...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »