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.
Avco Traders Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Sandeep Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.51/2013 and CM18352013 (for stay) 10th March, 2014 % AVCO TRADERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Ruchit Batra, Mr. Abhishek Varma, Advocates Versus SANDEEP ENTERPRISES ..... Respondent Through: Mr. T.L. Aggarwal, 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 is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning the judgment dated 12.10.2012 of the court below dismissing the objections filed by the appellants herein under Section 34 of the Act. Objections were filed against the Award dated 13.5.2008 by which the claim petition filed by the respondent herein with respect to supply of cloth was decreed for an amount of Rs. 1,69,080/- along with interest @ 15% per annum from 1.3.2007 till the actual date of recovery of the amount.2. The arbitrator, as also the impugned judgment, records that appellan...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Rajput and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
$~36 & 37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:10. h March, 2014 % + MAC.APP. No.699/2010 & CM No.18866/2010 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Represented by: Versus .....Appellants Ms. Savita Singh, Advocate. CHINTAMANI & ORS. ..... Respondents Mr. R.S.Gulia, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Represented by: AND + MAC.APP. No.743/2010 & CM No.19852/2010 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Represented by: Versus .....Appellants Ms. Savita Singh, Advocate. SANJAY RAJPUT & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr. R.S.Gulia, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Both these appeals are preferred by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the common judgment and order dated 07.07.2010 passed in Petition No.843/2004, titled as hintamani Arya Vs. Davinder Pal Singh and Petition No.842/2004, titled as Sanjay Rajput Vs. Davinder Pal Singh, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.1,51,712/- and Rs.85,000...
Pushpa and ors. Vs. S Gurbaksh Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:10th March, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 521/2012 PUSHPA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr.Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Versus S GURBAKSH SINGH & ORS. Represented by: .... Respondents Mr.A.K.Soni, Advocate for Respondent No.5/Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The instant appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 25.07.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for an amount of Rs.6,04,850/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount (except for the period not specifically allowed).2. While deciding the issue of negligence, the learned Tribunal has opined that the deceased was also negligent in driving the Maruti Van No.DL2C AC0641and accordingly apportioned 50% negligence upon the deceased and 50% on the driver of the offending Bus No.DL1PB0652 Accordingly, directed th...
Dl Nagpal, Partner, M/S Paragon Cable Company Vs. Commissioner of Cent ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
$~42-50&56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELH % + DECIDED ON:10. 03.2014 CEAC112014, CM APPL.4418, 4419 & 4420/2014 DL NAGPAL, PARTNER, M/S PARAGON CABLE COMPANY ..... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI ..... Respondent CEAC122014, CM APPL.4426, 4427 & 4428/2014 PARAGON CABLE CORPORATION ..... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI ..... Respondent CEAC132014, CM APPL.4429, 4430 & 4431/2014 PARAGON CABLE COMPANY ..... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI ..... Respondent CEAC142014, CM APPL.4432, 4434 & 4435/2014 PARAGON CABLE COMPANY ..... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE NEW DELHI ..... Respondent CEAC1119/2014 Page 1 CEAC152014, CM APPL.4439, 4440 & 4441/2014 VIPUL NAGPAL, PARTNER, PARAGON CABLE CORPORATION ..... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI ..... Respondent CEAC162014, CM APPL.4442, 4443 & 4444/2014 SUDHIR NAGPAL, DIRECTOR, M/S PARAGON POWER CABLE LTD ..... Petition...
Prem Sarup Vs. Savitri Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.151/2013 and CM No.12264/2013 (Stay) 10th March, 2014 % PREM SARUP Through: ......Appellant Mr. Yash Pal Ahuja, Advocate VERSUS SAVITRI DEVI & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria, Mr. P.C. Sharma, Advocates CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 27.7.2010 and the first appellate court dated 20.7.2013; by which the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for possession has been decreed with respect to the area shown in red in site plan Ex. PW-1/3 forming part of the property bearing No.XVI/3516, Gali No.6, Ragarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Both the courts below have decreed the suit on the basis of two conclusions. The first conclusion is that as per the final decree of partition dated 22.3.1971 in the partition suit between al...
Commissioner of Custom, Icd, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Chandra Prabhu Interna ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:10. 03.2014 + CUSTOM. A. 3/2013, condonation of delay) C.M. APPL.7238/2013 (for COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM, ICD, NEW DELHI ..... Petitioner Through: Sh. Priyadarshi Manish and Ms. Anjali Manish, Advocates. versus M/S. CHANDRA PRABHU INTERNATIONAL LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Rahul Kaushik, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. This is an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, against the Final Order No.C/240/2011 CU [DB]. dated 3.6.2011 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appellant/Revenue feels aggrieved by the CESTATs order directing refund of duty paid by the respondent/assessee.2. The facts leading to this dispute are that the respondent (hereafter the assessee) paid anti-dumping duty under protest CUSTOM. A. 3/2013 Page 1 in respect of 27 bills of entry under Customs Tariff Heading No.390390 (un...
Commissioner of Service Tax, (Delhi) Vs. Ashu Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:10. 03.2014 + CEAC212013, CM APPL.5462, 5463/2013 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, (DELHI) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus ASHU EXPORTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sujit Ghosh with Mr. Arjun Harkuli, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The question of law sought to be urged by the Revenue in this appeal under Section 35 (G) of the Central Excise Act is whether the term vocational training institute in Notification No.24/2004 - ST covers the respondent and whether the courses offered by it are exempt for the period 01.07.2003 to September, 2008.2. The assessee in this case at the relevant time in 2003 was running courses which is to impart procedural and practical skill based training in areas such as export import management, retail management and merchandising. Concededly, these cours...
Abhishek Yadav Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:10. 03.2014 + W.P.(C) 2656/2013 and CM No.5029/2013 (stay) ABHISHEK YADAV ..... PETITIONER VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND ANR ..... RESPONDENTS ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj and Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Ranjan Verma and Mr. Sandip Chaudhary, Advocates CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 In the present writ petition, following substantive prayers have been sought for :..(i). to declare the action of respondents in not treating the petitioner as eligible for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer (Scale-1), Generalist, Group I in OBC category as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified; (ii). To issue writ of mandamus to the respondents for giving appointment to the petitioner to the post of Administrative Officer (Scale-1), Generalist, Group I with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.. 2. The w...
Anil Vishwash Vs. State of the Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
$-2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. A. 1334/2011 Date of decision:10. h March, 2014 % ANIL VISHWASH Through: ..... Appellant Ms.Rakhi Dubey, DHCLSC. Appellant in J/c. versus STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr.O.P.Saxena APP for the State with SI Chhail Bihari Sharma, PS Hazrat Nizamuddin. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA DEEPA SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. In the present case, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 23rd July, 2011 in case FIR No.388/2009, Sessions Case No.52A/2009, Police Station Hazarat Nizamuddin and vide order on sentence dated 26th July, 2011, the accused/appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 years and a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand) and in case of non payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellant was also extended the be...
State Vs. Mahinder Prakash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:10. 03.2014. CRL.A. 199/2006 STATE Through versus MAHINDER PRAKASH ..... Appellant Mr. Varun Goswami, APP ..... Respondent Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1 This appeal has been filed by the State impugning the judgment of the Sessions Judge which had ordered the acquittal of the respondent. 2 The facts noted are herein as under:- (i) A sample of 375 grams of mustard oil had been purchased on 06.08.1998 from the shop of the respondent at Karol Bagh. The oil was taken from an open tin. The sample was taken after proper homogenization by mixing the oil; the Food Inspector divided the sample in three equal parts and put them in three separate clean and dry bottles; they were thereafter sealed. The panchnama was prepared at the spot. (ii) One counterpart of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst on 07.08.1998 and the report of the Public Analyst is dated 13.08.1998. It reads h...
- ‹ Prev
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- Next ›
- Last »