Delhi Court February 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.
Union of India Vs. Shri Sohan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.509/2012 12th February, 2014 % UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Amitabh Yadav, Advocate. Versus SHRI SOHAN LAL Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Navneet Goyal, 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 has been filed by the Railways under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 5.6.2012 by which the claim petition filed by the respondent (applicant before the Tribunal) has been allowed and statutory compensation of Rs.4 lacs granted.2. The facts as pleaded in the claim petition were that the deceased Sh. Gopichand, son of the applicant before the Tribunal (respondent herein), while travelling from Palwal to Tughlakabad railway station on 24.3.2011 accidentally fell down from the train near the Tughlakabad railway station on account of the fact that there was a heavy rush in the...
Cce, Indore Vs. M/S. Gatiman Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri B.B. Sharma, learned advocate appearing for the revenue and Shri A.G. Kulkarni learned CA for the respondent. 2. As per facts on record the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of various parts of Motor Vehicles. They purchased Land and Building and Plant and Machinery from M/s. Ganga Sagar and Company from Madhya Pradesh financial Corporation (here-in-after referred to as MPFC), who had earlier acquired the said Land and Building and Plant and Machinery from M/s. Ganga Sagar and Company in 1997, due to default in repayment of loan. The said purchase from M/s. MPFC was on 12.09.01, under an agreement entered into between the respondent and MPFC. 3. Inasmuch as, Central Excise Department was to recover certain dues from the earlier concern M/s. Ganga Sagar and Company, the original adjudicating authority passed an order dated 23.02.05...
Mayflower Sakthi Garden Owners' Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu an ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member: 1. This applicant herein œMay Flower Sakthi Garden Owners Association, (for short Applicant/Association) Coimbatore, State of Tamil Nadu, filed a Writ Petition No. 3561 of 2011 before the Honble High Court of Madras (for short High Court) and on transfer, the same was taken on file by this Bench of the National Green Tribunal as Application No. 34 of 2013 (SZ) (THC). The short necessary facts of the case in the writ petition filed by the applicant and the petitioner in the above writ petition are as follows: 2. The writ petition has been directed against the proceedings of the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, (for short TNPCB) bearing No. MA1/TNPCB/2.13302/2009 dated 13.11.2010 , which has been passed pursuant to the order dated 8.2.2010 passed by the High Court in W. P. No. 6800 of 2009 and issued to the fourth respondent namely the Commissioner/4th Respondent herein, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore, The impugned proceeding, afte...
Sanjeev Kumar Dubey Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:06. 02.2014 Date of Decision:11. 02.2014 % + CRL.A. 101 of 2010 & CRL. A. 102 of 2010 SANJEEV KUMAR DUBEY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Adv. with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Adv. versus STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K.JAIN, J.On 8.2.2000, the complainant Mr. Rishi Prakash came to the office of Anti Corruption Branch and made a complaint, alleging therein that he had submitted an application to the Transport Department, for obtaining clearance of road tax in respect of bus number DBP2042and was given a receipt, requiring him to collect the said report on 30.1.2000. He further alleged that when he went to the aforesaid office for taking delivery of the clearance report from the appellant S.K. Dubey, who was the clerk concerned with delivery of the clearance receipt, he asked for bribe of Rs.1,000/-. He also told the complainant that if his demand...
Fuji Bank Ltd. Vs. the Special Director of Enforcement
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
$~* 10. + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 611 of 2006 FUJI BANK LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sumit Bansal with Mr. Ateev Mathur, Mr. Devmani Bansal and Mr. Amol Sharma, Advocates. versus THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta, Advocate. With 16. + CRL.A. 666 of 2006 M/S SAMSUNG CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo with Mr. Manish Shukla and Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Advocates. versus THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta, Advocate. With 41. + CRL.A. No.820 of 2006 UFJ BANK LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. C.M. Oberoi with Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocates. versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta, Advocate. With 42. + CRL.A. No.890 of 2006 BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. C...
Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Vs. Jitender Mathuria
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on January 15, 2014 Judgment Delivered on February 11, 2014 + W.P.(C) 2923/2007 JITENDER MATHURIA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.S. Chakraborty, Advocate versus M/S. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate with + W.P.(C) 3747/2007 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP. LTD. Represented by: ..... Petitioner Ms.Raavi Birbal, Advocate versus JITENDER MATHURIA Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.S.Chakraborty, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of the above captioned writ petitions which have been filed against an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, New Delhi (Tribunal in short) dated September 07, 2006 in I.D. No.61/2003 with a further challenge to the order dated June 27, 2005 passed by the Tribunal, vitiating the inquiry conducted by the petitioner against the respondent Jitender Mathuria in W...
Samarendra Das Vs. M/S WIn Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on February 11, 2014 + W.P.(C) 5159/2013 SAMARENDRA DAS Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Kumar Chitranjan, Advocate versus M/S WIN MEDICARE PVT. LTD. Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Jitesh Pandey, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated February 20, 2013 passed by the Labour Court on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) in I.D. No.184/09 whereby the said application was dismissed.2. The application is dated August 09, 2012 filed against the appearance of the Authorized representative of the respondent on the ground that he being an Advocate, the petitioner has not given his consent for his appearance on behalf of the respondent which is mandatory in terms of that Section. The position of law has been crystallized by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court....
Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:11. h February, 2014 + WP(C) No.5909/2013 & CM.No.13039/2013 & 14134/2013 (both of the petitioner for interim relief) DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY ..... Appellant Through: Petitoner-in-person along with Mr. Ishkaran Singh Bhandari, Ms. Supriya Manan and Mr. Yatinder Chaudhary, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mohan Parasaran, SG alongwith Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG, Ms. Anjana Gosain, Mr. Pradeep Desodya, Mr. B.V. Niren and Mr. Kartikey Mahajan,Advs. For R- 1 to 4. Dr. Abhishek M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. along with Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Mr. Rustam Mulla, Mr. Jainveer Shergil, Ms. Naomi Chandra and Ms. Anisha Mitra, Advs. for R-5. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM.No.13039/2013 & 14134/2013 (both of the petitioner for interim relief) 1. This petition filed in public interest impugns the decision dated 3rd April, 2013 of the Government of India and the Foreign Investment Pro...
Kanti Devi Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % KANTI DEVI FAO No.174/2012 Through:11. h February, 2014 ......Appellant Mr. S.K.Vashistha, Advocate VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar and Mr. Debojyoti Bhattacharya, Advocates. 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 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 31.10.2011 by which the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. The facts of the case are that appellant is a widow of deceased Sh. Ram Sewak who is said to have died in an untoward incident of falling from the train on 30.10.2008 when deceased Ram Sewak was travelling from Sahibabad to Aligarh Jn. by a train No.GNP-3 on the basis of a journey ticket No.80144904. The case as pleaded by the appellant is that since there was a heavy rush in the compartment, the deceased fell down fr...
M/S. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO1562009 11th February, 2014 % M/S. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through ..... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this first appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 challenge is laid to the judgment of the Tribunal dated 27.2.2009 which has dismissed the claim petition as the requisite notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 was not given, and which notice is a pre-requisite for filing of the claim petition.2. The Railway Claims Tribunal in this regard has held as under:ISSUE NO.5 Since according to Railways Act, 1989, serving notice under FAO1562009 Page 1 Section 106 of the Railways Act is a pre-requisite for filing Claim Application before the RCT, we will discuss this issue first. Regarding notice u/s 106 (78B of old ...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »