Delhi Court December 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 14 of about 1,089 results (0.025 seconds)Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. and Ors. Vs. M/S Pioneer Agrovisio ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on :23. d December, 2014 % + CS(OS) No.1626/2013 PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC. & ORS. Plaintiffs Through Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sudeep Chatterjee and Ms. Jaya Nandelia, Adv. Versus M/S PIONEER AGROVISION LIMITED & ORS. Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining violation and infringement of rights in the trade mark/ trade name/ logo/ label PIONEER , domain name, passing off & dilution, damages/rendition of accounts, delivery-up, etc.2. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff No.1, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. is the worlds leading developer, producer, and supplier of agricultural seeds and advanced plant genetics to the agricultural industry. It produces, markets, and sells hybrid seed, corn hybrids, improved varieties of sorghum, sunflower, soybean, alfalfa, canola and wheat, as well...
Tag this Judgment!Balraj Singh Malik Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. d December, 2014. + W.P.(C) No.8302/2014 & CM No.19254/2014 (for stay) BALRAJ SINGH MALIK Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjay Sharawat with Mr. Ratish Kumar, Advs. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns Rule 102(2) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 2007 (Rules) framed under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 (the Act) to the extent it enables the General Body of the Co-operative Group Housing Society to fix higher charges of essential services in respect of dwelling units which are on rent and in possession of tenants, on the ground of being ultra vires Sections 76, 89 and 93 read with Section 137(2) and other provisions of the Act and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Axiomatica...
Tag this Judgment!Vikram Bakshi and Anr Vs. Mc Donalds India Pvt Ltd and Ors
Court: Delhi
* + HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IA Nos.6207/2014 in C.S.(OS) No.962/2014 Decided on : DECEMBER22 2014 VIKRAM BAKSHI AND ANR Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr.Mukul Rohatgi and Mr.Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocates with Mr. Rishi Sood, Advocate for P-1 and P-2. versus MC DONALDS INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS Through: ..... Defendants Mr.Harish Salve and Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocates with Mr.Rahul P. Dave, Mr.Varij Sharma, Ms. Shaista Arora and Mr. Sumit Chopra, Advocates for D-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This order shall dispose of IA No.6207/2014 (u/Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC) by virtue of which the plaintiffs have prayed for an ad interim injunction against the arbitration proceedings initiated by defendant No.1 before the London Court of International Arbitration.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the plaintiff No.1 is an Indian citizen and resides & carries on business within the jurisdiction of this court. The plaintiff No.2 is a company incorporated by th...
Tag this Judgment!Abhinav Kumar Vs. Ministry of Finance and Anr.
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. d December, 2014 % + WP(C) No.3634/2014 ABHINAV KUMAR Through: .. Appellant Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. Versus MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ANR. .. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Ms. Sonia Sharma & Ms. Pallavi Shali, Advs. for UOI. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), flags the issue of non availability of an Appraisal Counter for issuance of Export Certificate at the Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport, New Delhi, forcing the passengers to travel to the Custom House, Jhandewalan which is about 30 kms. away from the airport and thereby causing undue hardship to the commuters. The petition accordingly seeks a mandamus to the respondents Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and the Central Board of Customs and Excise to have such an Appraisal Counter ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Vakul Vardhan Gautam
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:30. 10.2014 Pronounced on :22. 12.2014 + W.P.(C) 7449/2011, C.M. NO.16888/2014 (for stay) UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Petitioner Sh. H.K. Gangwani, Advocate. versus VAKUL VARDHAN GAUTAM Through: .... Respondent Ms. Shikha Sapra and Sh. Tushar Joshi, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. In this writ proceeding under Article 226 of Indian Constitution, the petitioner, Union of India (here after the UOI) challenges an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 03.03.2011. By that order, the CAT set aside the charge sheet issued against the respondent (hereafter the applicant).2. In 1982, the applicant joined the Central Revenues Control Laboratory and thereafter, he was serving in the Small Scale Service Institution and Patent, Design and Trademark Department. On 31.10.1993 he joined the services of the petitioner as a direct recruit...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S Harig India Limited
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.141/2002 Reserved on:19. h September, 2014 Date of Decision:22. d December, 2014 % Commissioner of Income Tax ...Appellant Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus M/s Harig India Limited Respondent Through Nemo. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.The present appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) was admitted for hearing on 20th July, 2006, on the following substantial question of law:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that manufacture of gold jewellery on job work basis amounts to manufacturing activity by the assessee entitling it to deductions under Section 80HHC(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act?.2. The appeal relates to the assessment year 1998-99 and impugns the findings recorded against the Revenue by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) in their order dated 5 th Nove...
Tag this Judgment!the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi ???Iv Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No.41/2002 Reserved on:21. t August, 2014 Date of Decision:22. d December, 2014 % The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi IV ... Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate with Mr. Akash Vajpai and Mr. P. Roychaudhury, Advocates. Versus Shiv Raj Gupta Through ... Respondent Mr. Anoop Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.The Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short), pertaining to assessment year 1995-96, impugns the majority decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) in ITA No.4898/Del/98. The present appeal was admitted for hearing on 25th April, 2005, on the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 6.6 crores received by the assessee from SWC is on account of handing over management and control of CDBI* (which were earlier ...
Tag this Judgment!De Nora India Limited (Earlier Known as M/S Titano Vs. Cit and Another
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on August 28, 2014 Judgment delivered on December 22, 2014 + INCOME TAX APPEAL No.190/2002 DE NORA INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S TITANOR COMPONENTS LTD.) ..... Appellant Through Mr. C.S. Jain and Mr. G. Tushar Rao, Advocates. versus CIT AND ANOTHER Through ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Swati Thapa, Advocates. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.191/2002 DE NORA INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S TITANOR COMPONENTS LTD.) ..... Appellant Through Mr. C.S. Jain and Mr. G. Tushar Rao, Advocates. versus CIT AND ANOTHER Through ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Swati Thapa, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. These two appeals filed by the assessee DENORA India Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Titanor Components Ltd.) under Section 260A of the Income Tax ITA No.190 & 191/2002 Pa ge 1 of 15 Act, 1961 (Act i...
Tag this Judgment!Parveen Kumar Beniwal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Anr
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:22. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 8111/2014 PARVEEN KUMAR BENIWAL ..... Petitioner versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Sunil K. Mittal, Mr Kshitij Mittal and Mr Anshul Mittal. For the Respondents : Ms Zubeda Begum, St. Counsel (GNCTD) and Ms Sana Ansari for respondent. Mr Anjum Javed and Mr Devendra Kumar for respondent no.2. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner impugns an order dated 06.08.2014 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi whereby the petitioners appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereafter the Act) was rejected. The said appeal was preferred against an order dated 01.04.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) revoking the petitioners arms license.2. The petitioners arms license was revoked by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) as ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax-Viii Vs. Naresh Kumar Jaggi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on November 21, 2014 Judgment delivered on December 22, 2014 + ITA No.654/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Balbir Singh, Senior Standing Counsel versus NARESH KUMAR JAGGI Through: ..... Respondent None CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The challenge in this appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act in short) is to the order dated March 31, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (Tribunal, in short), whereby the Tribunal, in cross appeals filed by the appellant-revenue and the respondent-assessee, upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), restricting the penalty imposed under Section 140A (3) to 25%.2. The relevant facts of the case are, the respondent-assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 on 03.11.2010 declaring an income of Rs. 6,23,3...
Tag this Judgment!