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.
Mokul International Ltd. and anr. Vs. Veena Paintal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % RSA No.92/2012 March 4, 2014, MOKUL INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ANR. ...... Appellant Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Varma, Mr. Vikrant Vasisth and Mr. Joydeep Bhattacharya, Advs. VERSUS VEENA PAINTAL Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Mr. Shiv B.Chotry and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 22.2.2010 and the first appellate court dated 31.01.2012; by which the suit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction and mesne profits was decreed by granting the following reliefs:13. Relief In view of the findings given in the above issues, the plaintiff is entitled to the following reliefs:1. Plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injuction against the defendant in respect of unbuilt area of...
M/S Jaconde Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hallax Applied Power Pvt.Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.S. (OS) No.1488/2007 Decided on :04. 03.2014 Plaintiff M/S JACONDE OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. Through: Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Versus Defendant HALLAX APPLIED POWER PVT.LTD Through: Ms.Vinny Shangloo, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) OA No.69/2013 1. This is a chamber appeal against the order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the learned Joint Registrar under Rule 4 Chapter II of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that this is a suit for recovery of damages of Rs.49,93,887/- on account of forcible eviction of the appellant/plaintiff from the suit property by the defendants.2. It is stated in the appeal that after framing of issues on 25.11.2008, the plaintiff was given time of six weeks for the purpose of filing evidence by way of affidavit. However, the said evidence was not filed and a cost of Rs.3,000/- was imposed on the plaintiff on 22.05.2009 which was to be deposited wi...
M/S. Asd Traders Vs. C.C.E.Ands.T., Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Ashok Jindal, J. 1. The appellant is in appeal along with application for stay. After hearing both the sides, I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of. Therefore, I waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeal for disposal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant received the adjudication order on 03.12.2012 and thereafter appeal was filed on 01.03.2013 before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) with the delay of 27 days. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time barred on the premise that he has not satisfied with the reasons stated for filing the delay. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the delay was caused because of two reasons (a) the file was mis-placed and (b) the concerned person was having acute pain in stomach later it was detected as kidney stone, which was operated upon. In these circumstances, he prayed for the delay be condoned and the matter be remanded ...
Harinder Singh and Another Vs. Cc, New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
D.N. Panda, J. 1. None present for both appellants nor is there any adjournment application. Notices have been returned back un-served. 2. When there was smuggling of goods as per panchnama dated on 19.7.2006 and resulted in discovery of offending goods, proceedings were initiated against both appellants. While appellant Sri Harinder Singh was found to be master mind and was principal smuggler, he had engaged Azizur Rehman Hamid Hamidani, a conduit to be carrier of smuggled goods. Both were implicated in the proceedings. Rehman Hamid Hamidani faced penalty of Rs.10 lakh and Sri Harinder Singh was faced penalty of Rs.25 lakh. 3. Customs has brought out allegation in para 23 of adjudication order as appearing in pages 44 to 47 of the appeal folder. Ld. Adjudcating authority has also categorically brought out how goods covered by panchnama were valued at Rs.1,29,55,750/- and assessable value thereof was determined at Rs.88,88,877/- were liable to confiscation being prohibited goods. Appel...
M/S. Ajay Hardware Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Jain, Director
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Ashok Jindal, J. 1. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding duty, interest and penalty under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The brief facts of the case are that the adjudication is made against the appellant that they are receiving the invoices, but physically, goods were not received by them. Therefore, they are taking the CENVAT credit on the strength of fake invoices. In these circumstances, appellants are not entitled to take the CENVAT credit. Accordingly, impugned proceedings were initiated and impugned order was passed. Aggrieved by the same, appellants are before me. 2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants drew my attention to both the orders passed by the lower authorities. With regard to adjudication order, it is submitted that the appellants were given opportunity to appear on 16.07.2010 and 19.07.2010. It is submitted that they have received the notice on 16.07.2010 itself for the hearing on 16.07.2010. Therefore, they could not appear...
Ris Maj/Clk Bikram Singh Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
The petitioner seeks grant of Honorary rank after his retirement from service. His contention is that the respondents have not adhered to the policy issued on 06.04.2004 whereby the service rendered by the petitioner in Lebanon was declared as active field service for which weightage was required to be given. It is further contended that ground of non consideration of this service rendered by the petitioner in Lebanon has affected his right for conferring Honorary rank on him. The stand of the respondents is that the order dated 06.04.2004 is a detailment letter and not a policy letter. The letter does provide that the service rendered by the petitioner in Lebanon would be considered as active field service. However, by virtue of a policy issued in 2009, the service rendered in UN will not be given weightage for the purpose of considering Honorary rank. Even if the weightage is given to the petitioner for the said service, he does not make the grade. We have heard the learned counsel f...
Director of Income Tax Vs. the Guru Harkishan Medical Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:04. 03.2014 + ITA13592009 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Madan with Mr. P. Roychoudhry and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates. versus THE GURU HARKISHAN MEDICAL TRUST ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate for Committee. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), is preferred by the revenue, against an order dated 20.11.2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) whereby the DIT (Exemption) was directed to grant registration to the assessee under Section 12A of the Act. The ITAT held that Section 24 (iv) of the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971 empowered the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (the Committee) to constitute a trust for effecting one of its aims and objectives, i.e. provision of medical treatment. ITA13592009 Page 1 2. The bri...
Singhasan Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:25. 02.2014 Date of Decision:03. 03.2014 CRL.A. 592/2013 SINGHASAN ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Prem Kumar with Mr.Rakesh, Mr.Bhaskar and Ms.Priya Mahajan, Advocates versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through:Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP + CRL.A. 593/2013 MUNNA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Prem Kumar with Mr.Rakesh, Mr.Bhaskar and Ms.Priya Mahajan, Advocates versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP + CRL.A. 630/2013 KALLU ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Prem Kumar with Mr.Rakesh, Mr.Bhaskar and Ms.Priya Mahajan, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.On 26th February, 2008, an information was received in the Police Control Room with respect to quarrel over teasing of a girl, in Gali No.3, Swaroop Nagar, Mukundkam Extension. The information when conveyed to Police Station Swaroo...
Kashi Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. 02.2014 Date of Decision:03. 03.2014 % + CRL.A. 373 of 2010 KASHI RAM Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CRL.A. 727 of 2010 ABDUL KADIR @ ADIL Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Adv. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP. CRL.A. 778 of 2010 DHARMENDER @ AJAY Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Adv. Versus STATE Through: Crl. A. Nos.373, 727, 778, 825 of 2010 ..... Respondent + CRL.A. 825 of 2010 RAJNU Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.On 3.4.2008, the police control room was informed that 4-5 armed persons had entered the house of the informant in AE Block of Shalimar Bagh. The information, when transmitted to Police Station Shalimar Bagh, was recorded vide DD No.6A, copy of which w...
S. K. Mathur Vs. the President Secretariat Represented by the Secre
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:21. t January, 2014 Date of Decision:3. d March, 2014 % + W.P. (C) 8417/2011 S. K. MATHUR Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate. versus THE PRESIDENT SECRETARIAT REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.1. The petitioner in these proceedings taken under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi on 02.02.2010 in O.A. No.2788/2008.2. The petition has been filed this way. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Director (Horticulture), CPWD. He was thereafter sent on deputation to DDA in the same capacity, i.e. Assistant Director (Horticulture). He was then sent to the Presidents Secretariat at the Presidents Garden, Rashtrapati Bhawan on 19.12.1970, in the capacit...
- ‹ Prev
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 63
- 64
- 65
- Next ›
- Last »