Delhi Court December 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.
Indbank Merchant Banking Service Ltd. Vs. Sh. Sanjay Vashisth
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.671/2014 & CM No.11274-75/2014 9th December , 2014 % INDBANK MERCHANT BANKING SERVICE LTD. ......Petitioner Through: Ms. Seema Gupta, Adv. VERSUS SH. SANJAY VASHISTH Through: ...... Respondent Mr. N.K.Jha, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, impugns the order of the trial court dated 23.4.2014 by which the trial court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner/defendant for return of the plaint. The petitioner pleaded that the courts at Delhi have no territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as respondent/plaintiff had been posted to Chennai and the dues which are being claimed are only for the period of posting at Chennai.2. Learned counsel for the respondent has however shown to me the order passed by the defendant/petitioner/employer dated 28.2.2012 which specifically notes that the transfer to Chennai stands ca...
Dr. Tilak Raj Jaggi Vs. Smt. Priya Rani Jaggi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CM(M) No.392/2014 9th December, 2014 DR. TILAK RAJ JAGGI Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, Adv. VERSUS SMT. PRIYA RANI JAGGI & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Ms. Nandita Abrol, Adv. 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 trial court dated 05.10.2012 by which the trial court has allowed the application of respondents/plaintiffs and summoned two witnesses of the petitioner/defendant for cross examination with respect to documents. The two witnesses are DW-4 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sakri and DW-6 Sh. Pratap Singh. A consequential order dated 13.02.2014 is also challenged.2. No doubt, the cross examination of DW-4 and DW-6 was closed after sufficient opportunities were given to the respondents/plaintiffs, however, it is conceded before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner t...
Indian Medical Association Vs. Ministry of Labour and Employment& Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:09. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 7080/2013 INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner versus MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT& ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Atul Sharma and Mr Nitesh Jain. For the Respondents : Mr Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC and Mr T.P. Singh for R-1. Mr Amit Kumar and Mr Ashish Kumar for R-2. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner impugns a notification No.U-16012/02/2012-SS-I dated 13.06.2013, issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment inasmuch as it includes the name of respondent No.2 as a constituent member of the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereafter ESIC). The petitioner assails the appointment of respondent No.2 as a member of ESIC as being contrary to the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereafter the ESI Act).2. According to the petitioner, the appointment of Dr. Purshottam Lal (re...
Satya Prakash Mittal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:9. h December, 2014 + W.P.(C) No.2866/2014 & CMs No.5937/2014 (for stay) & 5939/2014 (for filing additional documents). SATYA PRAKASH MITTAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vinay J.Hegde & Mr. P.K. Bansal, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Digvijay Rai, Mr. Jaiveer, Ms. Ruby Singh, Mr. K.D. Chopra & Ms. Nehga Gupta, Advs. for AAI. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Sr. Adv. with Mr. K. Raghavacharuvulyu, Mr. Kailash Pandey, Ms. Arunima Pal & Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Advs. for R-3,6&8. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), (i) impugns the Request for Qualification (RFQ) issued in August, 2012, the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued in September, 2013 and the Award of Concession granted in October, 2013 by the respondent no.2 Air...
Commissioner of Income Tax-Xii Vs. Subodh Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
$~1 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: December 09, 2014 + ITA802014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XII Through ..... Appellant Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus SUBODH GUPTA Through ..... Respondent Mr.Ved Jain, Advocate 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 in short) relates to assessment year 2009-10.2. The assessee had filed return for the said year on 28.09.2009 declaring income of Rs.35,21,970/-.3. In the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer relying upon Section 40A(3) disallowed expenditure of Rs.10,61,49,773/-. He rejected reliance on Clause g to Rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules for short) to the effect that payments were made to villagers who were operating tractors, trolleys, bullock carts and had supplied materials like bitumen, grit etc. It was the contentio...
Manoj Garg Vs. Union of India & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of decision: December 09, 2014 W.P. (CRL) 2055/2014, Crl.M.B. 11097/2014 & Crl.M.A.15826/2014 MANOJ GARG Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Vikram Chaudhri, Sr.Adv. instructed by Mr.Raktim Gogoi, Mr.Harshit Shiti, Mr.Shartaj Gill, Mr.Wattan Sharma, Mr.Akshay Chandra, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC for UOI/R-1. Mr.Pavan Narang, Mr.Shivam Takiar, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. Pursuant to a detention order dated June 02, 2010 based on the grounds of detention of the even date the petitioner has been detained on August 31, 2014. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by quashing and setting aside the detention order dated June 02, 2010 bearing No.673/07/2010/CUS-VIII passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smugglin...
M/S Indian Institute of Aeronautics Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on 9th December, 2014 + W.P.(C) 5619/2014 M/S INDIAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. Versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Pankaj Batra, Adv. for R1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(ORAL1 Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that all the disputes raised in the instant petition have been settled with Sh. Nand Lal, respondent / workman and amount of Rs.83,000 (Rs.75,000/- as compensation plus Rs.8,000 as litigation cost) has been paid to him by way of DD being No.914258 dated 15.10.2014.2. The Petitioner Management also paid Rs.3,000/- in cash as interest as awarded by the Labour Court, which has been disbursed to the workman in the presence of Sh. Tarsem Raj, AR of the petitioner Management.3. In view of above, present petition stands disposed of as settled. SURESH KAIT, J DECEMBER09 2014/jg...
Prahlad Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
$~20 to 22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: December 09, 2014 + (i) LA.APP. 314/2013 SHRI RAKESH KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: .....Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. Kushal Raj, Advocates for Respondent No.1/UOI Mr. Abhishek Kr. Singh, Advocate for Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2-DDA + (ii) LA.APP. 316/2013 SHRI RAKESH Through: ..... Appellant Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: .....Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. Kushal Raj, Advocates for Respondent No.1/UOI + (iii) LA.APP. 157/2014 PRAHLAD SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus LA.APP. 314 & 316/13 & 157/14 Page 1 UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. Kushal Raj, Advocates for Respondent No.1/UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) CM No....
Rajpal S/O Jage Ram and Ors. Vs. Gnct of Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on 9th December, 2014 + W.P.(C) 7657/2009 RAJPAL S/O JAGE RAM & ORS. Represented by: ..... Petitioners Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate. Versus GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Yogesh Saini for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2. Ms.Geetika Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.7. Mr.D.V. Khatri, Advocate for Respondent No.8. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(ORAL) 1. Vide the present petition, petitioners seek directions for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2007 passed by the Financial Commissioner in Revision Petition No.67/02-CA, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), titled as Ram Chander & Anr. Vs. Dharam Singh & Ors., whereby Gaon Sabha (village Khera Khurd) lands meant for common purpose Chargah Maveshian (Pasture) bearing Khasra Nos. 51/22 min. Sou...
Anmol Kumar Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4290/2014 ANMOL KUMAR Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash with Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through ..... Respondents Mr. Yudhishter Sharma, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate for R-2 & 3. Date of Decision:9. h December, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. The issue that arises for consideration in the present proceeding is whether the lowest of the cut-off marks amongst General (GE), Other Backward Classes (Non Creamy Layer) [OBC (NCL)]., Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) candidates is applicable to Persons with Disability (PwD) candidates at the time of allocation of seats.2. The relevant facts of the present case are that on 15th May, 2013, the petitioner passed his intermediate examination from Bihar Intermediate Education Council with 63.20% having 316 marks out of 500 marks. He cleared JEE (Main) 2013, but did not cle...
- ‹ Prev
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- Next ›
- Last »