Delhi Court March 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.
Akram @ Babu Musahid @ Ali Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
$~R-10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:11. 03.2014 + CRL. A.202of 2013 AKRAM @ BABU MUSAHID @ ALI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Ms. Suman Chauhan, Advs. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP with S.I. Shiv Kumar, P.S. Krishna Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K. JAIN, J.(Oral) On 7.2.2011, S.I. Praveen, on receipt of a copy of DD No.67B went to Shamarth Medicos near Khandelwal Hospital where he came to know that two persons in injured condition had been taken to Hedgewar Hospital. When he reached the aforesaid hospital, he found Deepak and Rajiv admitted there. He recorded the statement of Deepak in the Hospital. Deepak inter alia told him that on the aforesaid date, at about 10:40 p.m., he was present at his medical store at B-17, East Krishna Nagar and was engaged in calculating his sale when a boy aged about 20-25 years came to his shop and gave a blow on his head, ...
Digamber Builders and Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Inder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: March 11, 2014 + RFA(OS) 155/2013 DIGAMBER BUILDERS & LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.N.N.Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr.Varun Garg, Advocate versus SHRI INDER SINGH Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.K.G.Chhokar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) CM No.19549/2013 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. RFA(OS) 155/2013 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The facts which we would be noting hereinafter reveal the utter chaos created by property dealers in Delhi and a double whammy to the client is when their lawyers do not apply themselves meaningfully while drafting plaints or written statements.3. Vide impugned decision dated November 06, 2013, suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated February 11, 2010 has been rejected at the threshold observing that the Court is satisfied that the plaint ...
Ashraf Khan Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:11. 03.2014 + CRL. A.264/2013 ASHRAF KHAN Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Adv. versus STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP with CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K. JAIN, J.(Oral) On 05.05.2011, at about 8.45 am, SI Satyavan of Narcotics Cell received a secret information that a person, namely Ashraf Khan, a resident of Bareilly, who was engaged in a business of supplying heroin in Delhi, would come near Sulabh Sauchalay, Metro Station Rohini between 10.30 am to 11.30 am to supply heroin. The secret informer was produced before Inspector Vivek Pathak of the Narcotic Cell and the concerned ACP Shri Bir Singh was informed on telephone at his resident. The ACP directed a raiding party to be organized, whereupon the information was recorded by way of a DD entry and the raiding party headed by Sub-Inspector Satyavan reached near East Metro Station Rohini in a private car. O...
Shiv Narayan Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Police (Licensing)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
29 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1605/2014 SHIV NARAYAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Vishesh Wadhwa, Advocate with Ms. Vasundhara Nagrath, Advocate. versus ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LICENSING) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate. Date of Decision :11. h March, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) CM Appl. 3350/2014 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 1605/2014 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Accordingly, present application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 1605/2014 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 18th June, 2013 as well as the order dated 24th October, 2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Police whereby the petitioners arms Licence was cancelled and order dated 28th January, 2014 passed by the Lieutenant Governor whereby petitioners appeal was dismissed.2. The facts of the present case are that on 05th May, 1997, petitioner was issued arms Licence for two weapon...
Commissioner of Customs, (import and General) Vs. M/S Care Foundation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:11. h March, 2014 % + CUSAA92013 & CM APPL. 17056/2013 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (IMPORT & GENERAL) ..... Appellant Through Mr Satish Kumar, sr. standing counsel versus M/S CARE FOUNDATION ..... Respondent Through Mr Rupesh Kumar, Mr Aditya Kumar and Mr Pravesh Bahuguna, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT: (OPEN COURT) 1. The revenue impugns by this appeal an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter CESTAT) dated 3.7.2012 made in Custom Appeal No.677/2007.2. The assessee- Care Foundation had imported a medical equipment and declared it as "Da Vinci Surgical System (Endoscope Systern)" claiming classification of goods under' Customs, Tariff Item 90189011 and claiming benefit of concessional rate of duty under S. No.363(A) in Notification 21/2002-Cus dated 01-03-2002. The exemption covered fibre optic endoscopes of differ...
Ram Lal Mehta Vs. Director of Enforcement
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 241 of 2008 RAM LAL MEHTA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Vikram, Advocate for Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Advocate. versus DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent Through:Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC and Mr.Vikram Aditya Narayan, Advocate. And CRL.A. 264 of 2008 PARVEEN KUMAR MEHTA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Gyananat Kumar Singh for Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Advocate. versus DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC and Mr. Vikram Aditya Narayan, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER1103.2014 1. These two appeals are directed against the common order dated 15th June 2007 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (AT) dismissing Appeal Nos. 785 and 792 of 1990. By the impugned order, the AT affirmed the order dated 30th August 1990 passed by the Special Director (SD), Enforcement Directorate (ED), holding the Appellants to be guilty of contravention of Sections 8(1) and 8(2) read with Section 64 of Fo...
New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Saroj Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:11. h March, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 1088/2012 & CM No.17347/2012 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Sameer Nandwani, Advocate. Versus SAROJ DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Narender Mukhi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) MAC.APP. 1088/2012 1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 21.07.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation as under:Pecuniary damages (Special damages): a) Medical expenses---------------------b) Loss of income------------------------c) Special diet expenses-----------------d) Conveyance charges--------------------- Rs.1,34,641/Rs. 44,800/Rs. 25,000/Rs. 25,000/- Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) e) Pain, suffering, mental shock and trauma----- MAC.APP. 1088 /2012 Rs.1,50,000/____________ Total Rs. 3,79,441/____________ Page 1 of 4 Interest at the ...
Raghnunath Roy Vs. Ishwari Devi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:11. h March, 2014 % + CS(OS) 1265/2011 & CC No.91/2012 RAGHUNATH ROY Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Sanjay Goswami, Adv. Versus ISHWARI DEVI & ORS Through: ..... Defendants Mr. Neelam Rathore with Mr. Syed Amber Azad, Advs. for D-1 to 3. Mr. S.N. Choudhri, Mr. Anjan Sinha & Ms. Shruti Choudhri, Advs. for D4&5. Ms. Rita Jha, Adv. for D-10 to 12. AND + CS(OS) 1300/2011 RAGHNUNATH ROY Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Sanjay Goswami, Adv. versus ISHWARI DEVI & ORS Through: ..... Defendants Mr. Neelam Rathore with Mr. Syed Amber Azad, Advs. for D-1 to 3. Mr. S.N. Choudhri, Mr. Anjan Sinha & Ms. Shruti Choudhri, Advs. for D4&5. Ms. Rita Jha, Adv. for D-10 to 12 CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 Both these suits together with Counter Claim No.91/2012 in CS(OS) No.1265/2011 are listed for framing of issues.2. The counsel for the plaintiff in both the suit, the counsel for the defendant no.1 to 3, the counsel ...
Rajinder Prasad Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:06. 03.2014. Judgment delivered on:11.03.2014. CRL.A. 85/2006 RAJINDER PRASAD SHARMA ..... Appellant Through Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Advocate with Mr.M.L.Yadav, Adv. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence 01.02.2006 & 02.02.2006 respectively wherein the appellant Rajinder Prasad Sharma has been convicted under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act) and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 4 months. 2 On 27.09.1999 ACP Arjun Singh (PW-1) had made a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Branch which was to the effect that the appellant/accused Rajinder Prasad who was working as Inspector in the State Transport Depar...
Vodafone South Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:11. 03.2014 + W.P.(C) 1841/2013, C.M. APPL.3519/2013 VODAFONE SOUTH LTD. AND ANR. ..Petitioners Through: Sh. Kavin Gulati, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar and Sh. Tarun Jain, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..Respondents Through: Ms. Karuna Chhatwal, proxy for Sh. Joginder Sukhija, Advocate, for Resp. No.1. Sh. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. P. Roy Chaudhury, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The petitioner (hereafter Vodafone) questions the legality of a reassessment notice (the impugned notice) issued by the respondents (the Revenue) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 14-03-2012, for Assessment Year (AY) 2005-2006. It is undisputed that the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment recorded by the revenue were disclosed to the assessee, for the f...
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »