Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 54 of about 540 results (0.039 seconds)K.L. BhasIn Vs. Punjab National Bank and anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:03. 02.2014 + W.P.(C) 7487/2000 K.L. BHASIN ..... Petitioner versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR . Respondents ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Bhalla, Advocate Mr. Jagat Arora and Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocates CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.01.1994, passed by the disciplinary authority whereby a major penalty had been imposed qua the petitioner. The petitioner has been dismissed from service with an attendant disqualification, which is that, the order of dismissal would impede his future employment. 1.1 The petitioner, being aggrieved, had carried the order of the disciplinary authority in appeal, before the appellate authority, constituted for this purpose. 1.2 The appellate authority vide order dated 07.12.1994, sustained the order of the disciplinary authority. It is though, the s...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Rahul Nagar
Court: Delhi
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.5582/2013 Date of Decision:3. d February, 2014 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Through ..... Petitioner Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. versus RAHUL NAGAR Through ..... Respondent Mr.Amit Tewari, Adv. & Mr.A. Khalid, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) 1. The writ petitioner assails the order dated 1st April, 2013 passed in OA No.3488 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are not disputed and to the extent necessary, are noted hereafter. The respondent is the son of Late Shri Mahipal Singh who died in harness on 10 th June, 2001 while working as conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC).3. It appears that Late Shri Mahipal Singh met with an accident on 9th October, 1998 while returning from duty in which his right leg had to be amputated. Thereafter, he was assessed as having 60% di...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Mukesh Aggarwal Vs. Ram Chander and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: January 15, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on: February 03, 2014 + CRL.M.C.4645/2013 DR.MUKESH AGGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. C.L. Gupta and Mr. Akashdeep Verma, Advocates versus RAM CHANDER & ORS. Through: ....Respondents Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.5State with SI Deepak Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. H.L.Dahiya, Advocate for respondent No.2 Respondent No.3 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % 1. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the complainant, whose application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. was allowed by learned trial court, at whose instance FIR under Sections 384/385/387/506/120-B of IPC was registered at P.S. Narela, Delhi. Charge-sheet was filed against accused-Neerja Sharma in the above-said FIR case and in the supplementary charge-sheet filed, the first four respondents herein were shown in column No.12 due to lack of evidence against them. The tria...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax-vii Vs. Jayshree Gems and Jewellery
Court: Delhi
$~R-6A, 6B & 6C * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + DECIDED ON:03. 02.2014 ITA7752009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX versus M/S JAYSHREE GEMS & JEWELLERY ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ITA10252010 CIT versus JAY SHREE GEMS & JEWELLERY ITA532013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VII versus JAYSHREE GEMS & JEWELLERY ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ..... Appellant ..... Respondent Appearance: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel for appellant with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Advocate. Mr. Salil Kapoor with Mr. Vikas Jain and Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advocates for respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The lead case in the present set of appeals is ITA7752009 whereby the following questions of law were framed:1. Whether the ITAT was correct in law and on facts in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 10A of the Act?. ITAs 775/09, 1025/10 & 53/13 Page 1 2. Whether the ITAT while deletin...
Tag this Judgment!Renu Agrawal and anr Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 2404/2012 Decided on :03. 02.2014 IN THE MATTER OF RENU AGRAWAL AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta, Advocate versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DDA with Mr. Amit Das, Director (Building). Mr. Ankur Arora, Advocate for R-3 & 4 with respondent No.3 in person. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondents No.1 & 2/DDA to sanction addition/alteration plans in respect of the first floor of the premises bearing No.A-225, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, as submitted on 27.10.2011.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that late Smt. Shakuntala Devi (mother of the petitioner No.2 and respondent No.3) was the owner of the subject property by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 20.11.1990. Durin...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Jay Shree Gems and Jewellery
Court: Delhi
$~R-6A, 6B & 6C * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + DECIDED ON:03. 02.2014 ITA7752009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX versus M/S JAYSHREE GEMS & JEWELLERY ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ITA10252010 CIT versus JAY SHREE GEMS & JEWELLERY ITA532013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VII versus JAYSHREE GEMS & JEWELLERY ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ..... Appellant ..... Respondent Appearance: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel for appellant with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Advocate. Mr. Salil Kapoor with Mr. Vikas Jain and Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advocates for respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The lead case in the present set of appeals is ITA7752009 whereby the following questions of law were framed:1. Whether the ITAT was correct in law and on facts in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 10A of the Act?. ITAs 775/09, 1025/10 & 53/13 Page 1 2. Whether the ITAT while deletin...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S Jayshree Gems and Jewellery
Court: Delhi
$~R-6A, 6B & 6C * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + DECIDED ON:03. 02.2014 ITA7752009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX versus M/S JAYSHREE GEMS & JEWELLERY ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ITA10252010 CIT versus JAY SHREE GEMS & JEWELLERY ITA532013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VII versus JAYSHREE GEMS & JEWELLERY ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ..... Appellant ..... Respondent Appearance: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel for appellant with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Advocate. Mr. Salil Kapoor with Mr. Vikas Jain and Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advocates for respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The lead case in the present set of appeals is ITA7752009 whereby the following questions of law were framed:1. Whether the ITAT was correct in law and on facts in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 10A of the Act?. ITAs 775/09, 1025/10 & 53/13 Page 1 2. Whether the ITAT while deletin...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Delhi-iv, Faridabad Vs. M/S. Sethi Industrial Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhawa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. After hearing both sides, I find that modvat credit was sought to be denied to the respondent on various grounds. The same was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority alongwith imposition of penalty. However, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed denial of credit in respect of certain items but dropped the confirmation in respect of credit of Rs.2,26,269/- and Rs.7,75,427/-. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue. 3. As regard credit of Rs.2,26,269/-, the same was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that the said material was not reflected in the material receipt voucher and the material register or purchase register of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that these records are private records and it is not mandatory to maintain private records. Accordingly, he held that when the goods have be...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Raipur Vs. M/S. Sidhi Vinayak Sponge Iron (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhawa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. After hearing both sides, I find that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 12.5.2006 and various checks and verifications were conducted by the officers. The statement of respondents authorised signatory was recorded who admitted such shortage. 3. On the above basis, the proceedings initiated against the respondent for confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalty. The said proceedings were culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority, confirming the demand of Rs.5,02,556/- alongwith imposition of penalty of identical amount under section 11AC read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. The respondent challenged the above confirmation on the ground that the entire stock was considered only on eye estimation basis. There was ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Jaipur Ceramics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhawa, J. 1. Both appeals are being disposed of by common order as they arise out of same set of facts and circumstances. 2. Appeal No.E/51/2006 relates to the appellants claim of remission of duty in respect of final product which were destroyed in the fire. As the said remission application stands rejected by the Commissioner, consequent demand of duty stands confirmed in respect of second appeal No.E/2171/2006. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of ceramic items. A fire broke in their factory on 1.4.2003 between 22.00 to 23.00 hours. The fire brigade was intimated about the fire at 23.45 hours and on the second day itself i.e. on 2.4.2003. Intimation was given to the appellants jurisdictional central Excise authority. As a result, appellants range officer visited their factory premises on the same day i.e. on 2.4.2003 and found that fire had taken place and goods converted into ashes. Appellant tried to control the fire by pouring water and also called fire b...
Tag this Judgment!