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.
Smt Sunita Kumari and anr. Vs. Sardar Dalbir Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:10. h February, 2014 MAC.APP. 70/2012 SMT SUNITA KUMARI & ANR. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr. P.D. Gupta, Ms. Kusum Dhalla and Mr. Atul Gupta, Advs. versus SARDAR DALBIR SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Ravi Shankar Garg, Adv. for R2 and R4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 20.07.2011, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.12,17,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.2. Vide the present appeal, appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation amount as noted above.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued the instant appeal on the ground that deceased died at the age of 30 years. He left behind his young widow wife, a minor child and a widow mother.4. Ld. Counsel submitted that...
Union of India Vs. R.S. Makkar (Deceased) Thr Lrs and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO1912013 & CM65032013 (stay) 10th February, 2014 % UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant Through Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao, Mr. Charanjeet Singh, Mr. Vikrant Kaushik, Advocate versus R.S. MAKKAR (DECEASED) THR LRS & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Rajesh Tyagi, 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 under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugns the judgment of the court below dated 19.1.2013 by which objections under Section 34 of the Act were dismissed.2. Even assuming that the objections are within time, and which has been held as otherwise by the court below, however, on merits also the appellant has no case to claim adjustment and which becomes clear from FAO1912013 Page 1 para 13 of the impugned judgment and which para 13 reads as under:13. On merits, during the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner confined...
Tilak Raj Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :04. 02.2014 Judgment delivered on :10.02.2014 CRL.REV.P. 65/2014 TILAK RAJ ..... Petitioner Through Ms.Charu Verma, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Navin K. Jha, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 17 th October, 2000 wherein the order passed by the Magistrate convicting the appellant Tilak Raj under Section 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 468 and 471 read with Section 511 of the said Act had been endorsed and the appeal had been dismissed.2. Vide the aforenoted impugned judgment, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 511 of the IPC; for the offence under Section 468 read with Section 511 of the IPC he had been sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- ; for the o...
State Vs. Lakhan @ Raju @f Gajinder
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
$~4 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.L.P. 361/2012 STATE ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State versus LAKHAN @ RAJU @F GAJINDER ..... Respondent Through: Mr.G.S. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent with Respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL ORDER1002.2014 % KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A. No.12904/2012 (condonation of delay) By this application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is seeking condonation of delay of 91 days in filing the accompanying criminal leave to appeal. For the reason stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 91 days in filing the accompanying petition seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Crl.L.P.No.361/2012 1. By this petition filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against ...
Mahender Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 343/1999 & Crl. M.A. No.18412/2013 MAHENDER SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. B.D. Goel and Mr. Ankur Goel, Advocates versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL ORDER % 10.02.2014 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A. No.18412/2013 [under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000]. By this order we propose to dispose of the application filed by the applicant under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It has been stated in the application that it came to the knowledge of the counsel for the applicant that he had disclosed his age as 21 years in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 24.7.1998, through which counsel learnt that the applicant was a juvenile at the date of the alleged occurrence of the incident,...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. B.L. Passi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
$~8 to 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:10. h February, 2014 % + + + ITA801999 ITA182000 ITA952000 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ......Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Akash Vajpai and Ms. Pavitra Roy Choudhry, Advocates. versus B.L. PASSI Through: ..... Respondent Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar and Mr. Sheel Vardhan, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. These are three appeals filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short). On 16.10.2001 this Court admitted the appeals and the following substantial questions of law were framed for adjudication: - 2. (i) Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the trucks in question were given on hire?. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in accepting assessees claim of depreciation on the trucks?. The appeals relate to...
Sh. Rajesh Alias Khanna and anr. Vs. Sh. Tej Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.73/2013 & CM No.5740/2013 (Stay) 10th February, 2014 % SH. RAJESH ALIAS KHANNA & ANR. ......Appellants Through: Mr. Yogindra Nath, Adv. VERSUS SH. TEJ PAL SINGH & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This regular second appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 2.6.2010 and the appellate court dated 28.2.2013; by which the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs for injunction was decreed with respect to the suit property bearing No.26/1, Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi. The subject suit was filed seeking injunction to restrain the appellants/defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the respondentsplaintiffs.2. The facts of the case are that the property bearing no.26 was jointly owned by two brothers n...
Rekha Devi and ors Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO122012 10th February, 2014 REKHA DEVI & ORS Through: ..... Appellant Mr.S.S.Sisodia, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Respondent Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This First Appeal u/S23of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is filed by the appellants against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 14.10.2011 which has dismissed the claim petition.2. The case of the appellants, and who were the applicants before the Railway Claims Tribunal, was that the deceased Mukesh Kumar, husband of applicant no.1 and the father of the applicants no.2 to 4 and son of applicants no.5 and 6, died on account of untoward incident of falling from the train on 23.10.2009. It was pleaded that the deceased was a resident of Khekra in District Baghpat (UP) and was aged about 32 years at the time of the incident. The deceased Mukesh Ku...
Jaimala and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % JAIMALA & ORS. FAO No.46/2014 Through:10. h February, 2014 ......Appellants Mr. Raj Kumar Rajput, Advocate. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.2608/2014 (delay in refiling) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. CM stands disposed of. FAO No.46/2014 2. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the impugned judgment dated 10.7.2013 which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants who are the parents of the deceased person Sh. Love Kumar.3. The facts as pleaded by the appellants was that their son Sh. Love Kumar died on 9.8.2011 in an untoward incident as per Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. It is stated that on 9.8.2011, at about 4 PM in the evening, the deceased had left home for going to Tugl...
Cce, Ludhiana Vs. Gupta Cargo
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as they arose out of the same set of facts and circumstances, though the orders impugned are different. 2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of zinc ingot, zinc Ash falling under Chapter 79 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also manufacturing zinc sulphate which was being cleared by them as classified under Chapter Heading 31.05 and after availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/02-CE dated 01.03.2002. 3. The dispute arose between the respondent and the Department as regards the correct classification of the product. The Original adjudicating authority held that zinc sulphate is properly classified under heading 28. However, he restricted the demand of duty, which was originally raised vide show cause notice dated 09.07.2006 for the period 2002-03 to 2005-2006, within the normal period of limitation and...
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »