Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 45 of about 540 results (0.021 seconds)Cit Vs. Umesh Chandra Gupta
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:06. 02.2014 + ITA20552010 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Sh. Balbir Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Rupender Sinhmar and Sh. Abhishek Singh Baghel, Advocates. versus UMESH CHANDRA GUPTA Through: Nemo. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by an order of the ITAT (hereafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 20.11.2009. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected the Revenues appeal.2. A search was carried-out in the premises of Manoj Aggarwal on 03.08.2000; he was issued with notice under Section 158BC pursuant to which he filed revised return for the block period 1991-92 to 2001- ITA20552010 Page 1 02. The assessment in his case (hereafter referred to as the main assessee) was completed on 29.08.2002. On 14.07.2003, apparently the Assessing Officer (AO) in the present case dealing with the...
Tag this Judgment!Master Gautam Yadav and ors Vs. Jagdish Yadav and anr
Court: Delhi
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.S. (OS) No.1321/2010 Decided on :06. 02.2014 MASTER GAUTAM YADAV & ORS Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr.Mohit Chaudhary Ms.Damini Chawla, Advs. and versus JAGDISH YADAV & ANR Through: ..... Defendant Mr.Ashok Chhabra, Adv. for Defendant Nos.1 & 2. Mr.Kapil Sankhla and Mrs.Meghna Sankhla, Advs. for Defendant Nos.3 & 4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. The question which arises in the instant case is as to whether the suit as framed is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC as being without any cause of action. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the suit as framed is maintainable while as this aspect has been contested by the learned counsel for the defendants. Before dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, it may be pertinent here to give a brief background of the case.2. The plaintiffs/Master Gautam Yadav and his mother Smt.Mamta Yadav have filed a suit ag...
Tag this Judgment!The State/Railway Protection Force Vs. Raju
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.L.P. 182 of 2013 THE STATE/RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Kumar Singh, Advocate. versus RAJU ..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER0602.2014 1. This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 9th October 2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) in CC1003/2012 acquitting the Respondent accused of the offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (RPUP Act). Background facts 2. The case of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), which is the complainant, is that, on 7th April 2012, while the RPF officials were on patrolling duty, they apprehended the accused near Masjid at around 10:30 pm. The accused is stated to have been found in possession of one SAB worth Rs. 8,000. When he failed to give any proper explanation as regards the possession of the said railway property, he was arrested and the property was seized. After completion of the inq...
Tag this Judgment!Anit Kumar Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
#12 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1022/2010 & CM APPL. 2106/2010 ANIT KUMAR Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Mobin Akhtar, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through Ms. Maneesha Dhir with Ms. Mithu Jain, Advocates for R-1 and 2. Mr. Anil K. Batra with Mr. Prins Kumar, Advocates for R-3 and 4. Date of Decision :6. h February, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:a) Direct the respondent to conduct the interview for Retail Outlet in Delhi for petitioner under SC category as soon as possible. b) Direct the respondents to produce all the records like file noting, cancellation order of the scheme if it has been done by the respondents. c) Direct the respondent No.4 to produce the file No.LIII/8/5(308) by which the land has been allotted to the respondents No.1 to 3.2. d) Cost of this writ petition and the harassment caused by unnecessary delay i...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:6. h February, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 455/2013 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate. Versus PUSHPA DEVI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 21.01.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.40,49,895/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the present appeal is filed mainly on the ground that while awarding the compensation, the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.24,380/- inclusive of the allowances applicable. However, erred in adding the transport allowance of Rs.2,320/for computing the salary of the deceas...
Tag this Judgment!Harsh Arora Vs. Union Bank of India and ors
Court: Delhi
$~ 6 to 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1405/2011 & I.A. 9329, 20370/2011 & I.A. 19375/2013 % Judgment dated 06.02.2014 POONAM MALHOTRA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate versus UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate for the defendant no.1 along with Mr.K.K. Dhawan, Chief Manager, Union Bank of India Mr.Prag Chawla and Mr.A.Khan, Advocate for defendant no.3 + CS(OS) 1406/2011 & I.A. 20461/2011 RAM PARKASH MEHRA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate versus UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate for the defendant no.1 along with Mr.K.K. Dhawan Chief Manager, Union Bank of India Mr.Prag Chawla and Mr.A.Khan, Advocate for defendant no.3 + CS(OS) 1407/2011 & I.A. 8416/2012 HARSH ARORA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate versus UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate for the defendant no.1 along with Mr.K.K. Dhawan, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas Meena Vs. Gnct of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 792/2014 Date of decision:06. h February, 2014 % RAM NIWAS MEENA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate versus GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Megha Bharara for Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA DEEPA SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Vide separate order passed today we have dismissed the writ petition. We now record our reasons for the same.2. The petitioner joined Delhi Police as a Constable in the year 2001 and after serving for about seven years, he appeared in the examination for recruitment to the rank of Sub-Inspector (SI) in Delhi Police and was selected for appointment. He joined Police Training College on 22 nd July, 2008. While undergoing the basic training at the institution in batch no.33, the petitioner proceeded on one day Casual Leave on 22nd October, 2008 but instead of returning back on duty on 23rd October, 2008,...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Kant Shukla Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.658/2005 % Judgement Reserved on:12. h November, 2013 Judgement pronounced on: RAMA KANT SHUKLA Through: February, 2014. ..... Petitioner Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.B.V.Niren, CGSC for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA DEEPA SHARMA, J.1. The petitioner in this case was enrolled as a constable no.860020697 in Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as BSF) on 10.07.1968 and after completion of his training course he was attached with 09 Battalion of BSF Artillery Battalion of 1011 BSF Artillery Regiment. In the year 1990, he had been attached with 09 Battalion, BSF at Bhuj, District Kutch in Gujarat and with effect from 1993 he was doing the duties at Gun area Kanzalwan in Kashtir under 18 Battalion, BSF, Artillery Battalion (Headquarter 1011 BSF Artillery Regiment).2. On 21.06.1995 in the barrack an incident had taken place at...
Tag this Judgment!Poonam Malhotra Vs. Union Bank of India and ors
Court: Delhi
$~ 6 to 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1405/2011 & I.A. 9329, 20370/2011 & I.A. 19375/2013 % Judgment dated 06.02.2014 POONAM MALHOTRA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate versus UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate for the defendant no.1 along with Mr.K.K. Dhawan, Chief Manager, Union Bank of India Mr.Prag Chawla and Mr.A.Khan, Advocate for defendant no.3 + CS(OS) 1406/2011 & I.A. 20461/2011 RAM PARKASH MEHRA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate versus UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate for the defendant no.1 along with Mr.K.K. Dhawan Chief Manager, Union Bank of India Mr.Prag Chawla and Mr.A.Khan, Advocate for defendant no.3 + CS(OS) 1407/2011 & I.A. 8416/2012 HARSH ARORA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate versus UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate for the defendant no.1 along with Mr.K.K. Dhawan, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Parkash Mehra Vs. Union Bank of India and ors
Court: Delhi
$~ 6 to 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1405/2011 & I.A. 9329, 20370/2011 & I.A. 19375/2013 % Judgment dated 06.02.2014 POONAM MALHOTRA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate versus UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate for the defendant no.1 along with Mr.K.K. Dhawan, Chief Manager, Union Bank of India Mr.Prag Chawla and Mr.A.Khan, Advocate for defendant no.3 + CS(OS) 1406/2011 & I.A. 20461/2011 RAM PARKASH MEHRA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate versus UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate for the defendant no.1 along with Mr.K.K. Dhawan Chief Manager, Union Bank of India Mr.Prag Chawla and Mr.A.Khan, Advocate for defendant no.3 + CS(OS) 1407/2011 & I.A. 8416/2012 HARSH ARORA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate versus UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate for the defendant no.1 along with Mr.K.K. Dhawan, ...
Tag this Judgment!