Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 30 of about 540 results (0.021 seconds)Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saroj Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.51/2014 14th February, 2014 % ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate. Versus SAROJ SINGH AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed u/S30of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 impugning the order of the Commissioner dated 15.01.2014 whereby the Commissioner allowed the application u/S4 of the Act by awarding interest and penalty.2. Counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant was not served the notice in the application filed under Section 4A of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by which penalty and interest was claimed.3. However, I note that as per para 3 of the impugned order appellant who was one of the respondents is said to have been served but did not appear in spite of service. Therefore, if the contention of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mk Mahajan and anr. Vs. Indo Rollhard Indust. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:13. 02.2014 CO. APPL. 898/2013 in CO. PET. 136/2005 MK MAHAJAN & ANR. ..... Petitioners versus INDO ROLLHARD INDUST. LTD. ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Ms Vibha Mahajan Seth For the Respondent : Mr Sarat Chandra, Mr Manoj Kumar Garg & Mr Rahul Kumar. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The present application has been filed by the petitioners under Rule 9 read with Rule 29 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, inter alia, seeking the following prayers:(i) re-call the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by this Honble Court in Co Appls. No.84 of 2013 & 90 of 2013; (ii) direct the Provisional Liquidator attached to this Court to take over the possession of all the assets of the Respondent Company, including the registered office of the Company, that is, 1-E/2, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055; (iii) direct the Respondent Company to advertise / publish th...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak @ Rohit Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : February 12, 2014 DECIDED ON : February 13, 2014 + CRL.A. 1444/2011 DEEPAK @ ROHIT Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Bhupesh Narula, Advocate. versus STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. SI Manu Kumar, PS Pandav Nagar. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Deepak @ Rohit is aggrieved by his conviction under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC by a judgment dated 23.11.2010 in Sessions Case No.112/10 arising out of FIR No.185/10 registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar. By an order dated 25.11.2010, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine `500/-.2. The prosecution case, in brief, as projected in the charge- sheet was that on 30.05.2010 when complainant-Rakesh Kumar was travelling in a private bus, at about 1.45 p.m. at bus stand, Block 13, Trilok Puri, the appellant and his associate (not arrested) in furtherance of common intention robbed him of `4,000/- and a mobile phone make Nokia by using a knife and inf...
Tag this Judgment!Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Suneel Kumar Rajput and anr
Court: Delhi
$~ 29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 381/2012 % Date of Decision: February 13, 2014 DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms.Vaishali Mittal and Ms.N. Kumar, Adv versus SUNEEL KUMAR RAJPUT & ANR ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Farrukh Khan, Mr.Dalip and Ms.Sheeba Khan, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunciton, restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts, dilution, delivery up, damages against the defendants.2. While issuing summons in the suit on 15.2.2012, the following order was passed:In the meanwhile, the defendants are restrained from using the domain names www.newrajneegandhagreens.com and www.rajneegandhagreensnoida.com. As far as the name of RAJNEEGANDHA GREENS is concerned, the said prayer would be considered at the time of hearing of the interim application. It is further directed that the defendants s...
Tag this Judgment!Bijender @ Naushad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:07. 02.2014 Date of Decision:13. 02.2014 % + CRL.A. 414/2013 BIJENDER @ NAUSHAD Through: ..... Appellant Ms Nandita Rao, Adv. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K.JAIN, J.On 18.04.2008, an intimation was received by Police Control Room that two boys had come near Babu Ram School to commit dacoity, one of them had managed to escape firing a shot, whereas the other had been apprehended. On receipt of the said information, SI Rajpal Sharma of Police Station Farsh Bazar reached the House No.449/1, Gali No.3, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara and found crowd gathered there. The complainant Shweta who was present on the spot, met him there and her statement Ex. PW-5/A was recorded by the police officer. In her statement Shweta stated that she was living in House No.449/1, Gali No.3, Bhola Nath Nagar Shweta along with her younger sister Alka and her brother Lalit, her m...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :10. h FEBRUARY, 2014 DECIDED ON :13. h FEBRUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 1510/2011 RAJESH ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Ravi Chaturvedi, Advocate. VERSUS THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Rajesh is aggrieved by a judgment dated 28.09.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.05/11 arising out of FIR No.281/07 PS Timar Pur by which he was convicted under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC. By an order dated 28.09.2011, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine ` 5,000/- under Section 397 IPC and RI for four years with fine ` 5,000/- under Section 392 IPC. The substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on the night intervening 19/20.05.2007 at outer ring road, Majnu Ka Tilla, he committed robbery and deprived complainant Ms. Bhanu of her two mobile phones, laptop, purse, cash ` ...
Tag this Judgment!Onassis Axles Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:13. 02.2014 + ITA312013 ONASSIS AXLES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Sh. Salil Aggarwal and Sh. Prakash Kumar, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Balbir Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Abhishek Singh Baghel, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % C.M. APPL. 933/2013 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA312013 1. This is an assessees appeal, directed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), of 18.05.2012 in I.T.A. No.1637/Del/2011. The assessment year concerned is 2007-08. The following question of law arises for consideration: ITA312013 Page 1 Did the Tribunal fall into error of law in setting aside the order of the CIT (A) accepting the assessees contention that share application amount, to the extent of `80 lakhs, received by it, had been pro...
Tag this Judgment!Sunita Devi Vs. the Management of M/S Iit Haus Khas New Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on February 13, 2014 + W.P.(C) 2697/2012 SUNITA DEVI Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.N.S.Dalal, Advocate with Mr.Amit Rana, Advocate versus THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S IIT HAUS KHAS NEW DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Subhash Chand, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) 1. The writ petition has been filed by the wife of the claimant before the Labour Court namely Sunita Devi against the award dated September 09, 2004 passed in Industrial Dispute No.1292/95 (old I.D. No.472/94) whereby the Labour Court held that the claimant is not entitled to any relief.2. I may state here that during the course of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the husband of the petitioner i.e.the workman had expired. The petitioner being a legal representative of the workman, had got herself impleaded in the said proceedings.3. The case of the claimant before the Labour Court was that he was in employment of th...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Satya Rani and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.23/2008 13th February, 2014 % M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate. Versus SMT. SATYA RANI & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. R. K. Nain, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugning the order of the Commissioner dated 7.9.2007 which has assessed the disability as 100% loss of the earning capacity and has granted compensation as per the formula under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act of a sum of Rs.3,67,416/-.2. Counsel for the appellant argues that as per the disability certificate filed by the respondent no.1, and the applicant before the Commissioner, disability is only shown at 38% with the observation that there is a possibility of improvement and therefore 100% disablement should not...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldeep Singh Vs. M/S Lucky Gold Star International Corporation
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on February 13, 2014 + W.P.(C) 1549/2013 KULDEEP SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Murari Kumar, Advocate versus M/S LUCKY GOLD STAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate with Ms.Dezy Gaur, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated July 12, 2012 passed by the Labour Court in LCA No.28/2010. The short issue which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the enhancement of interest from 6% to 18% on the amount of `2,07,0 86/- from the date of resignation.2. The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he was employed with the respondent and he resigned from service on November 21, 1986.3. He filed the claim petitioner under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a prayer for c...
Tag this Judgment!