Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 46 of about 540 results (0.021 seconds)Subhash Chandra Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 763/2014 Date of Decision:06. h February, 2014 % SUBHASH CHANDRA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Anil Shankar Prasad and Mr.Sanjay Kumar Bharti, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Hashmat Nabi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. The writ petition has assailed the order dated 30 th April, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi dismissing the O.A.No.1659/2012 filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The petitioner had sought the following prayers by way of the O.A.No.1659/2012 before the Tribunal:(i) Quash/Set aside the impugned order dated 17.7.2006 passed by the Respondent no.1, whereby the appeal was disposed against the appellants. (ii) Quash/Set aside the order dated 25.8.2003 passed by the Respondent no.3, whereby the penalty of censure was imposed again...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise and St, Bhopal Vs. M/S. the Telecom Dis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shi B.B. Sharma, learned DR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Kamal Khemka, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, I find that the respondents were engaged in providing telecommunication services as also inter-connecting usage charges (IUC) services. They were availing the credit of Cenvat credit of various inputs and capital goods etc. During the period of demand i.e. February 2006 to May, 2006 they availed the credit to the extent of 100%. 3. Revenues objection is that inasmuch as respondents was providing taxable services with the telecommunication services as also exempted services i.e. inter connection usage services, they were entitled to avail Cenvat credit to the extent of 20% only in terms of Rule 6(3) and in view of decision in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Roh...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Kailash Steels, Asmoli Vs. C.C.E., Meerut-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of mould steel ingots and runners and risers under an agreement entered into by them with M/s. DSM Sugar Asmoli. Under the said lease agreement dated 26.09.2002, the facility of land and machinery stands provided by M/s. DSM Sugar, Asmoli and the capital goods were received by them are required to be installed by the appellant and the duty on the final product required to be paid by the appellant. 2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the availability of CENVAT credit of Rs.10,26,070/- on the ground that the invoices issued by the supplier of the inputs are in the name of M/s. DSM Sugars, Asmoli, though there is no dispute that the said capital goods were received by the appellant and were duly erected and installed in their premises and were used for the manufacture of dutiable and excisable goods. M/s. DSM Sugars, Asmoli has endorsed the said invoices indicating as certified that the goods covered under these...
Tag this Judgment!Court on Its Own Motion and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and O ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson): 1. The State of Himachal Pradesh is mostly mountainous nestling in western Himalayas, neighbouring Tibet and China in the east, Jammu and Kashmir in the north and north-west, Punjab, Haryana and Uttarakhand in the south. It has a geographical area of 55,673 square kilometres with a population of 6.1 million and is located at altitudes ranging from 350 to 7000 meters (1050 feet to 21,000 ft.). The forests of Himachal Pradesh constitute about 2/3rd of the States geographical area; are storehouse of rich biodiversity, vital in preserving the fragile and sensitive Himalayan ecosystem and are the primary source of livelihood of the residents. The recorded forest area is 36,986 sq.km. as per the Forest Survey of India report for the year 2011, which is 66.43% of the total geographical area and the forest cover spreads over 14,679 sq.km. 2. One of the most significant gifts of nature to mankind in the wide Himalayan range is Rohtang Pass at a height of 13,500 fe...
Tag this Judgment!M/S S. Oliver Bernd Freier Gmbh and Co. Kg. Vs. M/S Rasul Exports and ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: February 05, 2014 + I.A. No.9775/2008 in CS(OS) No.2035/2006 M/S S. OLIVER BERND FREIER GMBH & CO. KG. ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.S.K.Bansal, Adv. with Mr.Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr.Vikas Khera & Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus M/S RASUL EXPORTS & ANR ..... Defendants Through Mr.S.Nanda Kumar, Adv. with Mr.P.Dhayanand, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction, restraining infringement, passing off, rendition of accounts etc. against the defendants.2. The plaintiff, a company incorporated in Germany, is engaged in the business of manufacture and trade of a wide range of fashion and lifestyle products which principally include clothing and ready-made garments of all kinds and fashion accessory products like belts, shoes, bags, watches, eyewear products and fragrances and skincare products(hereinafter referred to as the said g...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Bhawani Dass Rameshwar Dutt Vs. Bali Karan
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on February 05, 2014 + W.P.(C) 4354/2013 M/S. BHAWANI DASS RAMESHWAR DUTT Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Sunil Verma, Advocate. versus BALI KARAN ..... Respondent Represented by: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) 1. The challenge in this writ petition is by petitioner M/s Bhawani Dass Rameshwar Dutt to the Award dated August 07, 2012 passed by the Labour Court-XVI, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi, whereby the Labour Court has awarded a lumpusum compensation of `2,50,000/- to the respondent workman in lieu of reinstatement and back wages etc.2. It was the case of the respondent before the Labour Court that he was employed with the petitioner herein in the year 1967 as a general worker. His last drawn salary was `4,000/- per month. On demand of legal benefits by him the petitioner stopped the earned wages and also started harassing him. On repeated demands of workman for earned wages and legal bene...
Tag this Judgment!K Mani Dhaundiyal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on February 05, 2014 + W.P.(C) 12109/2005 K MANI DHAUNDIYAL ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Vineet Kumar , Advocate Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate for R3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) W.P.(C) 12109/2005 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the Recovery Notice dated February 21, 2005 and the award dated March 13, 2001 passed by the Labour court in I.D. No.341/92, whereby the Labour Court has directed the reinstatement of the respondent No.3 (respondent, in short) with back wages and continuity in service.2. The writ petition has been filed primarily on the ground that the engagement of the respondent as a Driver was for a short period on trial basis. Since his services were not found satisfactory, his engagement was terminated with full and final settlement.3. It is noted from the award dated March 13, 2001 that the evidence ...
Tag this Judgment!Shail Sahni Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
37 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 845/2014 SHAIL SAHNI ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. versus SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Hashmat Nabi, Advocate for respondent No.2/UOI. Date of Decision :05. h February, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of petitioners appeal under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short RTI Act) as well as a direction to respondents to pay amount of Rs. 3,01,000/as compensation. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to take disciplinary action against respondent No.1.2. In support of the aforesaid prayers, the petitioner who appears in person only relies upon the time frame prescribed under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, which reads as under:-19. Appeal. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Surinder Singh (Now Deceased) Through Lrs Vs. Surbir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:5. h February, 2014 % + RFA1152013 & CM No.3539/2013 (for stay) SURINDER SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ....Appellant Through: Mr. Pramod Ahuja, Adv. Versus SURBIR SINGH & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Deepak Khadaria, Adv. AND + RFA1182013 & CM No.3562/2013 (for stay) SURINDER SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ....Appellant Through: Mr. Pramod Ahuja, Adv. Versus SURBIR SINGH & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Deepak Khadaria, Adv. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. RFA No.115/2013 impugns the judgment and decree (dated 31st January, 2013 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge (North)-01, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No.54/2009 filed by the respondent no.1 therein Shri Surbir Singh against the deceased appellant Shri Surinder Singh and the respondent no.2 therein Shri Rama Murthy) of recovery of possession from the appellants and the respondent no.2 of Plot No.D-121, Mayapuri, Pha...
Tag this Judgment!Roche Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Drugs Controller General ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: February 05, 2014 + CS(OS) No.355/2014 ROCHE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT LTD & ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. and Mr.Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, Ms.Juhi Singh, Ms.Niti Dixit, Ms.Shivani Singhal, Mr.Dhruv Agarwal, Ms.Samiksha & Ms.Roshni Namboodiry, Advs. versus DRUGS CONTROLLER GENERAL OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Defendants Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) I.A. No.2373/2014 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. I.A. No.2372/2014 (u/s 80(2) CPC) The abovementioned application has been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 80(2) read with Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from serving the notice to defendant No.1 as required under the law. Issue notice to the defendants, returnable on 28th February, 2014. In the meanwhile, the exemption is granted to the plaintiffs to file the present suit ...
Tag this Judgment!