Delhi Court April 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 13 of about 432 results (0.023 seconds)Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi I Vs. Agile Properties Pvt.Ltd.
Court: Delhi
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:25. 04.2014 + ITA1762014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI I ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. P. Roy Choudhuri, Advocate. versus AGILE PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. In this case, the Revenue is aggrieved by an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 27.08.2013. It urges that the view expressed by the Tribunal is contrary to Section 69B.2. The assessee had reported - during the relevant assessment year, i.e., 2007-08 - purchase of agricultural property in Najafgarh, New Delhi; the value of the investment was disclosed to be Rs.5,22,78,280/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed some discrepancies with respect to the investment inasmuch as there was difference of Rs.1,34,130/- which led to his referring the matter with regard to valuation...
Tag this Judgment!NasiruddIn @ Guddu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : April 01, 2014 DECIDED ON : April 25, 2014 + CRL.A. 372/2011 & Crl.M.B.No.599/2014 NASIRUDDIN @ GUDDU ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate with appellant produced in judicial custody. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for the State. SI Kanhaiya Lal, PS Maurya Enclave. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The appellant-Nasiruddin @ Guddu impugns a judgment dated 28.09.2010 of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II (North-West) in Sessions Case No.1076/2009 arising out of FIR No.100/2008 registered at Police Station Maurya Enclave by which he was convicted under Section 307/34 IPC. By an order dated 08.10.2010, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine `5,000/-.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case, as emerged in the charge- sheet, was that on 18.11.2008 at about 10.00 p.m. near Prembadi Pul, Singhalpur Nehar, Delhi, he and his associate Akhilesh (since proclaimed offend...
Tag this Judgment!Sarla Devi Vs. M/S Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order decided on: April 25, 2014 + O.M.P. 902/2012 SARLA DEVI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Kailash Vasulev, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Adv. versus M/S GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 10th April, 2012 passed by the Sole Arbitrator.2. When the matter called on one application on behalf of respondent. It was passed over. Even on second call there was no representation on behalf of respondent. The learned counsel for petitioner has advanced the submissions and the matter was kept for orders. However, in post lunch, the matter was mentioned by Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate who made submissions for some time.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Nimbus Harbor Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Mind and Sou ...
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:25. 04.2014 CO. PET. 513/2013 M/S NIMBUS HARBOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner versus M/S MIND & SOUL FITNESS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Pankaj Bhagat. For the Respondents : Mr Rajesh Banati, Mr Ravi Kumar Aggarwal, & Ms Snigdha Pandey. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner company under Sections 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) inter alia praying for winding up of the respondent company on the ground that the respondent company had failed and neglected to pay a sum of `4,43,857/- alongwith interest, which was claimed as due and payable by the respondent company on account of housekeeping services provided by the petitioner to the respondent for their facilities. The respondent disputes the amount claimed by the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Radials International Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:17. 04.2014 Pronounced on:25. 04.2014 + ITA No.485/2012 RADIALS INTERNATIONAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kaanan Kapur, Advocate. Versus ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. 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 filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which upheld the action of the Revenue in treating the profit made by the appellant on sale of equity shares under the Portfolio-Management Schemes (PMS) as business income and not as capital gains, as claimed by the appellant. The question of law that arises for determination before the Court is:whether, the shares invested through a portfolio management ITA No.485/2012 Page 1 scheme, in the circumstances of this case resulted in gains taxable as capital gains or as business income?.2. The facts are that the...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Singh, Gurgaon (Haryana) Vs. Balaji Grit Udyog (Unit- I and Unit ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
DR. P. Jyothimani (Judicial Member): 1. The Appellant in the present appeal was the original complainant before the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) and the Respondent No. 3 before the Appellate Authority. He has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.12.2013 under Section 31-B of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and Section 35-B of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974. 2. The Impugned order of the Appellate Authority was passed in the appeal filed by respondent no. 1, the project proponent, under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. By such appeal he challenged the order of the HSPCB dated 31.03.2013, in and by which the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) has refused to grant consent to operate the unit of the respondent no. 1 for the year 2013 and 2014 under bot...
Tag this Judgment!Om Parkash Deceased Through Lrs. Vs. Maha Singh Deceased Through Lrs.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.194/2001 25th April, 2014 % OM PARKASH DECEASED THROUGH LRS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. P.S. Vats, Mr. Manish Vats, Advocates. Versus MAHA SINGH DECEASED THROUGH LRS. Through: ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM181062012 (for restoration of appeal) For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.194/2001 1. This first appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 9.2.2001 and the first appellate court dated 10.8.2001; by which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord for possession and mesne profit has been decreed with respect to shop bearing No.3, Ground Floor in the property bearing No.530/5 Nai Basti, Najafgarh Road, near Punjab National Bank, Village Nangloi Jat, Delhi shown in red colour i...
Tag this Judgment!National Council of Education Research and TrainIn Vs. Ved Prakash
Court: Delhi
$~13 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 527/2014 Date of Decision:25. h April, 2014 % NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATION RESEARCH AND TRAINING ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Anand Nandan, Adv. versus VED PRAKASH Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Shanker Raju and Mr.Nilansh Gaur, advts. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) Caveat No.79/2014 Caveator has been represented. Caveat is therefore discharged. C.M.No.1063/2014 (for exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 527/2014 1. The writ petitioner assails the order dated 6th November, 2013 passed in O.A.No.1006/2013 by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the prayer of the respondent herein challenging the extension of period for which he was suspended when disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him. The respondent in the present case was placed under suspension in terms of Rule 10 (1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules...
Tag this Judgment!State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) Vs. Kuldeep
Court: Delhi
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 284/2014 Date of Decision:25. 04.2014 STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pranay Kishore Mishra, APP for the State versus KULDEEP ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. The present Criminal Leave to Appeal has been preferred by the petitioner/State under Section 378 Cr.P.C. to challenge the judgment dated 13.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent from the charge framed against him under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 (hereinafter referred to as IPC).2. The facts and the circumstances which gave rise to the registration of the case against the accused person, as per the prosecution, is that :On 06.08.2011, Police machinery was set into motion on receipt of DD No.8A , SI Nar Singh ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Credo Brands Marketing Pvt Ltd Vs. Store One Retail India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:24. 04.2014 CO. PET. 293/2012 M/S CREDO BRANDS MARKETING PVT LTD ..... Petitioner versus STORE ONE RETAIL INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent : Mr Vijay M. Chauhan. : Mr Abhinav Vashisth, Sr. Advocate with Mr Arnav Kumar. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. This is a petition filed under Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act, 1956, whereby the petitioner has alleged that the respondent is unable to pay its debts.2. The petitioner has contended that the petitioner had supplied goods to the respondent between period June, 2007 to October, 2008 (both months inclusive) and had raised invoices for the same. It is contended that there is no dispute that the said goods were received by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed copies of the invoices on record. The first invoice is dated 23.06.2007 and ...
Tag this Judgment!