Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 28 of about 540 results (0.021 seconds)Indiabulls Securities Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar Hargunani and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO5262011& CM220362011(stay) % 17.02.2014 INDIABULLS SECURITIES LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. Naveen Chawla, Ms. Solani Jaitley, Ms. Meha Jain, Mr. Bhaskar Subramanan, Advocates versus SUNIL KUMAR HARGUNANI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Proxy counsel for respondent No.1 (name not given). CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This matter was passed over once on the request of respondent No.1. Again when the matter is called out after a pass over only a proxy counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.1 and says that one of the counsels representing the respondent no.1 is not well. In my opinion, if one of the counsels for respondent no.1 is not available, the other counsel should have come.2. This appeal impugns the judgment dated 25.8.2011 by which the court below dismissed the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 awarding ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Shubhra Chit Fund (P) Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Anand and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO Nos.184/1993 & 185/1993 17th February, 2014 % 1. FAO No.184/1993 M/S. SHUBHRA CHIT FUND (P) LTD. Through: None. ..... Appellant Versus VINOD KUMAR ANAND AND ORS. Through: None.2. ..... Respondents FAO No.185/1993 M/S. SHUBHRA CHIT FUND (P) LTD. Through: None. ..... Appellant Versus VINOD KUMAR ANAND AND 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. Both these appeals are being decided by the present judgment inasmuch as there are common issues of fact and law. The appeals have been filed by the M/s. Shubhra Chit Fund (P) Ltd against the impugned judgments of the court below dated 31.3.1993 by which objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 have been accepted and the Awards passed against the principal borrowers and guarantors, dated 30.11.1987 have been set aside.2. I am taking the grounds on which Awards have been...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Pradyot K. Misra Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle ...
Court: Delhi
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. h February, 2014 % + W.P. (C) 7977/2011 SHRI PRADYOT K. MISRA Through: Ms. Kavita Bhoomika Advocates. versus ......Petitioner Jha with Ms. Choudhury, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE401) ..... Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta with Ms. Rani Kiyala, Mr. Rishabh Kapoor and Ms. Khushbu Upadhyay, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. This petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ quashing the notice dated 31.03.2011 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 40(1), New Delhi (first respondent) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) and the letter dated 02.11.2011 issued by him fixing the proceedings for further hearing on 16.11.2011.2. The facts are not much involved. The petitioner is a retired officer of the Indian Revenue Service and served in various capacities including...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Ram Vs. State of the Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:17. h February, 2014 + CRL.A. 1287/2011 KRISHAN RAM Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate. versus STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code for murdering his wife. He was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 23rd May, 2011, and order on sentence dated 31st May, 2011 in Sessions Case No.92/10/08 arising out of FIR No.369/2008 u/s 302 IPC registered with PS Mehrauli whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.2. The first information of the offence was lodged by the appellant himself on 19th July, 2008 at 8.15 a.m. at...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Sunny Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Service Tax Commi ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:17. 02.2014 + + CEAC12014, C.M. APPL.639/2014 CEAC22014 MAHESH SUNNY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ..Appellant Through: Sh. J.K. Mittal and Sh. Varun Gaba, Advocates. Versus COMMISSIONER, SERVICE TAX COMMISSIONERATE, NEW DELHI. ..Respondents Through: Sh. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The following question of law arises for consideration in these two appeals; they were formulated on 15th January, 2014: CEAC No.1/2014: (1) Is the appellant liable to pay service tax for the car parking business and its management?. (2) If so, with effect from what period?. CEAC No.2/2014: Did the Tribunal fall into error in directing the appellant to pay penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case?. CEAC12014 & CEAC22014 Page 1 2. The appellant is aggrieved by an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Ruben and anr
Court: Delhi
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. hFebruary, 2014 + CRL.L.P. 567/2012 STATE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State. versus RUBEN & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jatin Rajput Amicus Curiae with Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA J.(ORAL) CRL.M.A.19607/2012 (delay of 300 days) in CRL.L.P. 567/2012 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 300 days in filing of the leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal. It is stated that the delay had occasioned due to administrative reasons as the file had been circulated and opinion of different officers had to be obtained.2. The delay is substantial. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts but subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the Respondents by way of two cheques of Rs. 2,500/- each, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. Payment will be made with...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Kumari Vs. the State and ors
Court: Delhi
$~14 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TEST.CAS. 11/2002 Decided on 17th February, 2014 PREM KUMARI ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Ankita Mahajan and Ms. Ashwarya Chander, Advs. versus THE STATE AND ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. M.P. Parithapan, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K. PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. Petitioner has filed this petition for grant of probate of the Will dated 7th June, 1998 of Late Shri R. Sundara Rajan (hereinafter referred to as Testator). Petitioner is sister of Testator. She has alleged that Testator was a Hindu, having his fixed place of residence within the jurisdiction of this Court. Testator died on 7th August, 1998.2. On 7th June, 1998 Testator made and published his last Will and Testament whereby he left behind his estate in the manner as stated in the Will and also appointed the petitioner as sole executrix of his Will. Testator made his Will in full disposing mind and in the presence of two witnesses, Affidavit of Shri V. Vasudevan o...
Tag this Judgment!Mohinder Pal Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:17. 02.2014 + W.P.(C) 2385/1997 MOHINDER PAL ..... PETITIONER VERSUS LT. GOVERNOR AND ORS ..... RESPONDENTS ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria and Mr. Prakash Chandra Sharma, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate for R-2 Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and Mr. Nitish Singh, Advocates for R-3 CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 On 10.02.2014, when the captioned petition was taken up for hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. On that date, a detailed order had been passed by me. In order to avoid the repetition, the relevant part of the said order is extracted hereinbelow :..1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.2. The petitioner, who claims to be a scheduled caste and therefore falling in the reserved category, was working with the National Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC), which is a Central Public Secto...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-viii, New Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:17. 02.2014 + ITA2842013 ANAND KUMAR Through: None. ..Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII, NEW DELHI AND ANR. ..Respondents Through: Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. Even after second call, no one has appeared for the appellant. Learned counsel for the Revenue is present. The matter has been taken up for hearing.2. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 22.10.2012 for the Assessment Year 1998-99.3. Anand Kumar, the assessee in this case, filed a return of income for the AY199899 declaring an income of `7,66,512/- claiming interest on Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) which were pledged with banks to avail credit export facilities as business income, thus claiming a deduction for the entire inte...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar Rohilla Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Mr. S.A. Siddiqui, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 4.5.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V) CSC Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 in Complaint Case No. 480/2010, Sh. R.K. Rohilla v. North Delhi Power Ltd., Delhi. 2. The appellant/complainant Sh. R.K. Rohilla, owner, of the office area 36 sq. mts. and number 208, IInd Floor, Bhanot Bhawan, Flat B-1/2, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi, is the consumer having NDPLs permanent electricity meter connection (non-domestic light) K.No. 36204270979T in electricity district of Model Town, Delhi. The OP/respondent, NDPL is service provider. Sh. R.K. Rohilla filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. During the course of the proceedings an application was moved by the respondent/OP raising a preliminary objection to the effect that complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986...
Tag this Judgment!