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.
State Nct of Delhi Vs. Surender Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:05. 03.2014 Judgment delivered on:10.03.2014. CRL.A. 163/2006 STATE NCT OF DELHI Through ..... Appellant Mr.Navin K. Jha, APP. versus SURENDER KUMAR JAIN Through ..... Respondent Mr.Manish Makhija, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 16.02.2005 wherein the trial Court had acquitted the respondent of the offence under Section 16 of the Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the PFA). 2 The case of the complainant is that on 14.07.1995 at about 12:30 pm, the Food Inspector Bal Mukund (PW-1) had taken sample of sodium benzoate (a food article) from Surrender Kumar Jain from his shop i.e. M/s Puran Chand & Sons at 3540, Qutab Road, Delhi. The said article was being stored for sale. The respondent was conducting business at the time when this food sample was purchased; the sample consisted of thirty originally sealed packets...
Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs. Kallo and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO No.74/2008 10th March,2014 PATEL ROADWAYS LTD. Through: ......Appellant Mr. M.Y.Khan, Adv. VERSUS KALLO & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Sanjeev Mehta, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Amit Gaur, Adv. for Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 by the employer impugning the judgment of the Commissioner dated 19.11.2007 which has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants, the dependents of the deceased Satya Pal.2. The facts as pleaded before the Commissioner were that the deceased Sh. Satya Pal was working with the appellant i.e M/s Patel Roadways Limited at Chkamberpur at UP Border as a loading and unloading labourer at a salary of Rs.1500/- per month. In the last week of March, 1993 there was a fire due to the explosion of some inflammab...
M/S. Guptasons Jewellers and Gems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Com ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) This complaint has been filed by Sh. Sachin Vijay Gupta on behalf of the complainant company which is a private limited company registered under the companys act 1956 and Sh. Sachin Vijay Gupta is one of the Directors of the company. The complainant company engaged in the business of selling gold and diamond jewelry. The complainant company obtained one jewelers block insurance policy from the OP Company and the OP company issued policy No. 231/2005 for the period 29.09.2004 to 23.09.2005 on receipt of insurance premium amount of Rs. 31,906/-. The insurance company contracted to indemnify for loss or damage to any property or part thereof relating stock and stock in trade, consisting of jewelry of gold, diamond and silver ornaments, articles, piece and precious stones of any short of kind whatsoever as well as cash and currency notes and/or other mercantile and material usual to conduct of the insureds business belonging to and/or held in trust or on commission fo...
M/S. Sld Enterprises Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Having been aggrieved by the repudiation of the Insurance claim by Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (in short ECGC), M/s SLD Enterprises-Complainant has filed this complaint for award of compensation, restoration of the policy and payment of litigation expenses etc. 2) The complainant in December 2007 submitted a proposal on prescribed format for issue of Shipments Comprehensive Risk Policy (SCR) with the OP. A policy bearing No. SCR0110011552 for a maximum liability of Rs. 3 Crores for the period 12.12.2007 to 31.12.2009 was issued on 08.01.2008 by OP in favour of Complainant (copy filed as annexure-D) before issuance of the said policy a premium of Rs. 1,10,833/- was charged by the OP. Complainant submitted applications for approval of credit limits in respect of foreign buyers within an overall limit of Rs. 3 Crore. The complainant sought credit limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- in respect of foreign buyers namely M/s Sai Creations NV Bel...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Pradeep Gambhir and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi dt. 07.08.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 226/2010, whereby District Forum has directed the appellant to restore the lease of property bearing Plot No. 26, Motia Khan Dump Scheme New Delhi, in the name of the complainant/respondent-1 and quashed the cancellation order dt. 14.10.1982 and District Forum, further directed the appellant to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering inclusive of litigation charges. 2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant have filed a complaint before the District Forum submitting therein that Sh. Yog Raj and Sh. Anant Ram were allotted plot No. 26, Motia Khan Dump Scheme New Delhi by the DDA and the lease deed was executed on 17.03.1973 in their favour by DDA. The said plot was subsequently sold by the allottees...
Dr. Lalit Kapur Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) This appeal has been filed against the order dt. 16.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area, Udyog Sadan, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 519/2007, Lalit Kapoor V/s DDA and Ors. 2) Brief facts relating to this appeal are that the appellant/complainant constructed a House on Plot No. 53, Block-B, Pocket-10, Sector 13, Dwarka, New Delhi. He received occupancy certificate from DDA on 09.08.2004 and conveyance deed was registered on 09.02.2005. The area was developed by the DDA. DDA had deposited processing fee, but electrification was not done by OP-2 i.e. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. New Delhi. Complainant has temporary connection in his house. He tried his level best to get permanent electric connection but could not succeed and therefore he was forced to keep the premises vacant/unoccupied. He therefore filed a consumer complaint claiming a compensation of Rs. 10 Lac from the respondents/OPs. 3) The comp...
Singh and Co. Vs. C.C.C.E. and S.Tax, Allahabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
G. Raghuram, J. 1. Aggrieved by the adjudication order dated 16.9.2011 passed by the ld. Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad confirming service tax of Rs.10,42,626/-; late fee of Rs.2000/-; penalty of Rs.5000/- under Section 77; and penalty of an amount equivalent to service tax, under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellant has preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Allahabad on 9.4.2012. 2. The appellant received the primary adjudication order on 10.10.2011. An appeal was filed along with an application for condonation of delay, pleading that the appellant was incapacitated from filing the appeal due to urgent work which required going out of station. Thereafter, he fell ill and could not contact its Counsel for seeking advice, and when he became well he contacted Counsel and filed the appeal. 3. The Appellate authority rejected the appeal, declining to exercise discretion to condone the delay, since the appeal...
Atr Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E, Ghaziabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
G. Raghuram, J. 1. Heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant and the ld. Authorized Representative for the respondent/ Revenue. At the interlocutory stage since the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in M/s Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. vs. C.S.T., Delhi reported in 2013 (32) STR 49 (Tri-LB) we dispose of the substantive appeal itself. 2. The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Ghaziabad, confirming service tax demand of Rs.1,20,84,695/-, apart from interest and penalty as stipulated. The demand arises consequent on denial by the adjudicating authority of the benefits claimed by the assessee under abatement Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006, on the ground that the assessee had failed to declare the gross consideration received from the service recipients, including the value of goods freely supplied to the assessee/service pr...
State Vs. Sushil Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 203/2014 STATE Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State. versus SUSHIL KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA ORDER % 10.03.2014 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A. No.4038/2014 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. Crl.L.P.No.203/2014 1. By this petition filed under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C., the petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the order dated 5.8.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (North-West), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, thereby acquitting the respondent from the charges framed against him under Sections 363/366/376 IPC.2. The prosecution case can be summarised as under:The case of the prosecution is that on 19.06.2010 on receiving information about DD No.31A dated 19.06.2010, i.e., Ex. PW-1/A, PW13 SI Ina Kumari reached PS Mahendra Park where she met the prosecutrix, her fa...
M/S Ge Capital Services India Vs. Prasanta Ghosh and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
$~33. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2840/2011 % Judgment dated 10.03.2014 M/S GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA ..... Plaintiff Through : Mr.Gaurav Gaur, Adv. versus PRASANTA GHOSH & ANR B+ ..... Defendants Through : Mr.Aniruddha Deshmukh and Mr.Aniruddha Rajput, Advs. for defendants. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) I.A. 13599/2013.1. This is an application filed by defendants seeking condonation of 430 days delay in re-filing I.A. 13598/2013.2. For the reasons stated in the application and in view of the stand taken by counsel for the plaintiff/non-applicant before the Joint Registrar of this Court on 23.1.2014 that he does not wish to oppose the present application, this application is allowed. Delay in re-filing I.A. 13598/2013 stands condoned. Let I.A. 13598/2013 be taken on record.3. Application stands disposed of. I.A. 13598/2013 4. Present application has been filed by the defendants under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of CPC seeking leave to d...
- ‹ Prev
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- Next ›
- Last »