Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 1 of about 540 results (0.012 seconds)Sasken Communication Technology Ltd. Vs. Cellcast Interactive India Pv ...
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:28. 02.2014 CO. PET. 378/2013 SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY LTD. versus ..... Petitioner CELLCAST INTERACTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Tinu Moriyn. For the Respondent : Mr Dinesh Rastogi with Mr Bidit Deka & Mr Shruti Khound. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner has filed the present winding up petition under section 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), inter alia, praying for winding up of the respondent company on the ground that the respondent company has been unable to pay a sum of `19,41,280/-, which is alleged to be due and payable to the petitioner against the invoice dated 14.05.2010 raised on the respondent. The petitioner claims that this invoice remains unpaid despite a notice being served on the respondent under Section 434(1)(a) of the Act. The responden...
Tag this Judgment!Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. Natco Pharma Limited
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 31, 2014 Decision on: February 28, 2014 CS (OS) 3193 of 2012 & CC No.49 of 2013, IA Nos. 10389-90 of 2013, 10638 of 2013, 20025 of 2013, 18788 of 2013 TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Praveen Anand, Ms. Archana Shankar, Mr. Nischal Anand and Mr. Aman Taneja, Advocates Versus NATCO PHARMA LIMITED ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rajeshwari, Mr. Tahir Abdul, Ms. Sudipa, Mr. Amit Gupta & Ms. Urvashi Singh, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2802.2014 1. IA No.10390 of 2013 is an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC filed by Natco Pharma Limited (Natco) for return of the plaint for want of jurisdiction. IA No.10389 of 2013 is an application filed by Natco under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. Natco has also filed IA No.10638 of 2013 under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Mayar Health Resorts Ltd. Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: February 28, 2014 + O.M.P. No.260/2014 MAYAR HEALTH RESORTS LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Sanjay Jain, Sr.Adv. with Mr.A.K.Tandon, Ms.Manjula Gandhi, Ms.Noor Anand, Ms.Aastha Jain & Mr.Shivanshu Kumar, Advs. versus INDIAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) I.A. No.3866/2014 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exemptions. The application is disposed of. OMP No.260/2014 1. The petitioner has filed an affidavit of Mr.Om Shanker Pandey, informing the Court that on 27th February, 2014 at around 3.00 p.m., the termination notice dated 27th February, 2014 was delivered to the petitioner. Copy of the said notice is annexed as Annexure-M.2. In the original petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the following prayers have been sought:a) restraining the Respondent from initiating any process of e...
Tag this Judgment!Birender Singh Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
#7 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2029/2013 BIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr. M.K. Gautam, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. M.P. Singh, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Vikas Chopra, Advocate for R-3. Date of Decision :28. h February, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent No.3 to restore the admission of the petitioner and allow him to appear in the practical examination for eighth semester. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of respondent No.3-Universitys letter dated 4th March, 2013 whereby result of fifth, sixth and eighth semesters of the petitioner have been declared null and void. Petitioner has further prayed for award of a degree of B.Tech. (Mechanical and Automation Engineering) in the academic year 2013.2. The relevant facts of the present case are that petitioner obtained provisional admission in B.Tech. (...
Tag this Judgment!Sushma JaIn Vs. M/S. Naveen Board Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.182/2012 28th February, 2014 % SUSHMA JAIN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, AR of the appellant. Versus M/S. NAVEEN BOARD CO. & ORS. Through: None. ..... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Respondents have been served but do not appear. Reports of ordinary service and courier show that respondents have refused service. Since the respondents have chosen not to appear, I am proceeding to decide the appeal.2. This appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the impugned order of the court below dated 26.11.2011 which has accepted the objections of the respondents under Section 34 of the Act and set aside the Award dated 28.3.2003. Award has been set aside by giving a finding that the clauses in the bills dated 31.8.1999 and 20.9.1999 did not amount to an arbitr...
Tag this Judgment!Acorus Unitech Wireless Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:10. 02.2014 Pronounced on:28. 02.2014 + W.P.(C) 1954/2013, C.M. APPL.3721/2013 ACORUS UNITECH WIRELESS PRIVATE LIMITED ..Petitioner Through: Sh. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Prakash Kumar and Sh. Sheel Vardhan, Advocates. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX..Respondents Through: Sh. Rohit Madan and Sh. Akash Vajpai, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. This writ petition impugns reassessment notices issued and proceedings conducted under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-2010. W.P.(C) 1954/2013 Page 1 2. The writ petitioner, (hereafter Acorus), is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It filed its return of income on 6.10.2010, declaring nil income for AY20092010. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, without any notice under Section 143(2...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd Aslam Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:17.02.2014 Date of Decision:28. 02.2014 CRL.A. 891/2010 ABDUL MALIK Through: ..... Appellant Mr. M.A. Hasan, Adv. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State with SI Pankaj Kumar, Special Cell, INR, Rohini, Delhi CRL.A. 943/2010 & Crl. M(B) 1151/2012 & Crl. MA44062013 MOHD ASLAM ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Hemendra Jailiya, Adv. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State with SI Pankaj Kumar, Special Cell, INR, Rohini, Delhi CRL.A. 946/2010 & Crl.M(B) 1120/2010 MOHD SAHID @ ANTONY BABA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. M.A. Hasan, Adv. Versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State with SI Pankaj Kumar, Special Cell, INR, Rohini, Delhi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.On 26.02.2004, the Special Cell of Delhi Police received an information that one Mohd. Sahid @ Antony Baba would receive some parcels contain...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Malik Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:17.02.2014 Date of Decision:28. 02.2014 CRL.A. 891/2010 ABDUL MALIK Through: ..... Appellant Mr. M.A. Hasan, Adv. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State with SI Pankaj Kumar, Special Cell, INR, Rohini, Delhi CRL.A. 943/2010 & Crl. M(B) 1151/2012 & Crl. MA44062013 MOHD ASLAM ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Hemendra Jailiya, Adv. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State with SI Pankaj Kumar, Special Cell, INR, Rohini, Delhi CRL.A. 946/2010 & Crl.M(B) 1120/2010 MOHD SAHID @ ANTONY BABA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. M.A. Hasan, Adv. Versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State with SI Pankaj Kumar, Special Cell, INR, Rohini, Delhi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.On 26.02.2004, the Special Cell of Delhi Police received an information that one Mohd. Sahid @ Antony Baba would receive some parcels contain...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd Sahid @ Antony Baba Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:17.02.2014 Date of Decision:28. 02.2014 CRL.A. 891/2010 ABDUL MALIK Through: ..... Appellant Mr. M.A. Hasan, Adv. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State with SI Pankaj Kumar, Special Cell, INR, Rohini, Delhi CRL.A. 943/2010 & Crl. M(B) 1151/2012 & Crl. MA44062013 MOHD ASLAM ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Hemendra Jailiya, Adv. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State with SI Pankaj Kumar, Special Cell, INR, Rohini, Delhi CRL.A. 946/2010 & Crl.M(B) 1120/2010 MOHD SAHID @ ANTONY BABA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. M.A. Hasan, Adv. Versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State with SI Pankaj Kumar, Special Cell, INR, Rohini, Delhi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.On 26.02.2004, the Special Cell of Delhi Police received an information that one Mohd. Sahid @ Antony Baba would receive some parcels contain...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yashwanti and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:28. h February, 2014 % + CM(M) 1066/2012 & CM No.16839/2012 (for stay) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Advocate. Versus YASHWANTI & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.CM(M) 1066/2012 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner/Insurance Company has challenged the impugned order dated 21.07.2012, passed by the learned Tribunal. The same reads as under: Perused the report of bifurcation of yearly interest furnished by Insurance Co. itself. Not only the yearwise interest is less than Rs.50,000/- p.a. Both interest awarded upto date by the Tribunal and the payment made to the DH per annum is less than Rs.50,000/-. As per the judgment cited above, the Insuance Co. was not entitled to deduct the TDS. This is mechanically deducting the TDS and harassing the poor victim ...
Tag this Judgment!