Delhi Court December 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 95 of about 1,089 results (0.023 seconds)Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA5852014 Date of decision:3. d December, 2014 AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mayank Nagi, Advocate. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent Through Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) Having heard counsel for the parties, we frame the following substantial question of law in this appeal which relates to the assessment year 2008-09:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer had accorded implicit satisfaction under Section 14A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which got converted into explicit satisfaction by the reason on discussion in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)?.2. Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reads as under:14A. (1) For the purposes of computing the...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Satendar Kumar Garg and ors. Vs. M/S Perfect Structures (India) Pv ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: December 03, 2014 + RSA1622014 & C.M. Nos.11217-11218/2014 MR. SATENDAR KUMAR GARG & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Garg, Advocate versus M/S PERFECT STRUCTURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Ankit Jain & Mr. Sarvesh Rai, Advocates, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Appellants suit for rendition of accounts and mandatory injunction is dismissed by the trial court by holding that there is no privity of contract between the parties. The First Appellate Court has affirmed the trial court judgment. The factual narration finds mention in the impugned judgment and needs no reproduction. The finding returned in the impugned judgment is as under:The question is that whether there is any fiduciary relationship between the parties. The defendant no.1 is a builder who had sold the flat to the plaintiff no.1 vide registered sale deed. As per the terms of the sale deed, the mainte...
Tag this Judgment!Bimla Sharma Vs. Bhagwan Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on 3rd December, 2014 + W.P.(C) No.2126/2014 BIMLA SHARMA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. R.K. Pandit, Adv. Versus BHAGWAN DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Vipin Kumar for Union / R1. and Mr. Rajeshwar, proprietor of respondent No.2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) + W.P.(C) 2126/2014 1. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and respondents noted above jointly state that the issues raised in the instant petition have been settled between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Rohini on 24.09.2014.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has produced the statement of Smt. Bhagwan Devi, respondent No.1 recorded on 24.09.2014 in CS No.98/2014, whereby, she stated that the matter has been settled between the plaintiff and with other defendants in Mediation Centre, as per which the plaintiff, defendant No.3 and 4 before the Mediation have paid a total...
Tag this Judgment!Attar Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:3. d December, 2014 + W.P.(C) 2816/2013 ATTAR SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate AND + W.P.(C) 3240/2013 JASWANT SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr. S.S. Rai & Ms. Ruchika Mahajan, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI JUDGMENT % KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. By these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioners to the rank of Sub-Inspector alongwith seniority and financial benefits from the date their juniors had been promoted; and (ii) a writ of mandamus to the respondents to grant the same relief as granted v...
Tag this Judgment!RiyazuddIn Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 20, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 03, 2014 % + CRL.A. 577/2013 RIYAZUDDIN Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Mohit Mathur, Advocate with Mr.Amish Dabas, Mr.Devendra Dedha, Mr.Praman Mathur, Mr.Manoj Pant, Mr.Badar Mehmood, Mr.Pankaj Verma, Ms.Utkarsha Kohli and Ms.Vasudha Datta, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Represented by: + ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Inspector Lokender Singh, PS Malviya Nagar Ms.Karuna Chhatwal, Advocate with Mr.Shailendra Babbar, Advocate for Board of Homeopathy. CRL.A. 1155/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Inspector Lokender Singh, PS Malviya Nagar. versus RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. Represented by: Crl.A.No.577 of 2013 & 1155 of 2014 ..... Respondents Mr.Mohit Mathur, Advocate with Mr.Amish Dabas, Mr.Devinder Dedha, Mr.Praman Mathur and Ms.Vasudha Data, Advocates for R-1 Page 1 of 11 Mr.Chander M.Maini, Advocate with Mr.Satyam Chaturved...
Tag this Judgment!Amarjeet Singh Sachdeva Vs. Ashok Monga
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:25. 02.2014 Date of Decision:03. 12.2014 + CM (M) No.1360 of 2012 & CM No.20876 of 2012 AMARJEET SINGH SACHDEVA ...... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja & Mr. Ishaan Chhaya, Advs. versus ASHOK MONGA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.K. Gupta, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns an order dated 5.11.2012 passed in an appeal, which resultantly set aside the order dated 1.8.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge.2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a civil suit seeking reliefs of mandatory and permanent injunction as well as compensation/damages of Rs.1.85 lacs from the petitioner/defendant. The respondent/plaintiff is the exclusive and absolute owner of the third floor of property bearing No.C-10/8B, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 on the basis of a Sale Deed dated 29.6.2011, executed ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Indu Anand Vs. Rattan Furniture Stores and ors
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:30. 10.2014 Judgment pronounced on:03. 12.2014 FAO (OS) 68/2014 SMT INDU ANAND ..... Appellant versus RATTAN FURNITURE STORES & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Advocate with Mr Varun Rajpal, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms Supriya Juneja, Advocate for R-1 & R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. The present is an appeal filed under order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as CPC) assailing the order dated 09.12.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court whereby two applications, one (IA No.8605/2013) under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC, for possession/ejectment and the other (IA No.8604/2013 ) under Order 39 Rule 10, CPC, to deposit Rs.1,50,000 per month in court respectively were dismissed in CS(OS) 3569/2012 being a suit for recovery, possess...
Tag this Judgment!Virender Singh Vs. M/S Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School
Court: Delhi
$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on 3rd December, 2014 + W.P.(C) No.8497/2014 VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Arun K. Yadav, Advocate. Versus M/S LANCER CONVENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ..... Respondent Represented by: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) CM No.19649/2014 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed. W.P.(C) 8497/2014 1. The present petition is directed against the award dated 09.05.2014, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.75,000/- in favour of the petitioner/workman in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and other benefits.2. The case of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that he was appointed on the post of 'Driver' in July, 2002, on a monthly salary of Rs.8281/-. The respondent / Management was not providing legal facilities according to labour laws, therefore, he was demanding the...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Sachinder Mohan Mehta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on November 25, 2014 Judgment delivered on December 03, 2014 + ITA6552014 SHRI SACHINDER MOHAN MEHTA Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Manu K.Giri, Adv. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Through: .....Respondent Ms.Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr.Standing Counsel CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, in short) has been filed by the appellant-assessee against the order dated April 04, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (Tribunal, in short) dismissing the appeal ITA No.839/Del./2013 filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 200910.2. The brief facts are, the assessee, an Architect by profession, purchased a floor of property being E-215, East of Kailash, New Delhi in the month of July 1997, in terms of an unregistered agreement of sale for Rs. 18 lakhs. According to the appellant-ass...
Tag this Judgment!Anju @ Sonia @ Baby Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : November 18, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on : December 03, 2014 + CRL.A.456/2014 ANIL KUMAR Represented by: .....Appellant Ms.Nandita Rao, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: .....Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP Insp.Satish Kumar Sharma and Insp.N.S.Chauhan CRL.A.199/2014 PREM PAL Represented by: .....Appellant Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: .....Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP Insp.Satish Kumar Sharma and Insp.N.S.Chauhan CRL.A.393/2014 ANJU @ SONIA @ BABY Represented by: .....Appellant Mr.Joginder Tuli, Advocate with Mr.Tarun Nanda, Mr.Ashu Kumar Sharma and Ms.Pooja Arora, Advocates versus STATE Represented by: .....Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP Insp.Satish Kumar Sharma and Insp.N.S.Chauhan CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Process of criminal law was set into motion when at around 7:45 PM on February 08, 2007, DD No.52B, ...
Tag this Judgment!