Delhi Court April 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 25 of about 432 results (0.020 seconds)Govt. of Nct of Delhi Vs. M/S A.G. Krishna Menon and anr.
Court: Delhi
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: April 16, 2014 + O.M.P. 298/2012 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Through ..... Petitioner Ms.Nandita Rao, Adv. versus M/S A.G KRISHNA MENON & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr.S.K.Chandwani, Adv. with Mr.Sameer Chandwani, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the petitioner has assailed award dated 9th December, 2011 rendered by respondent No.2.2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the petition, as set out by the petitioner are as follows: (i) The respondent No.1 was engaged as an architect for construction work of modern ISBT at Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi, pursuant to a limited competition held between some short listed architects, on 31st December 2001. (ii) The respondent had specified that the fees payable on the nonrepetitive works would be 3% and fo...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. M/S. JaIn Steel Industries and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.367/2013 16th April, 2014 % UNION OF INDIA Through: ....Appellant Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate. VERSUS M/S. JAIN STEEL INDUSTRIES & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Shiv Khorana, 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 & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugning the judgment of the court below dated 30.4.2013 by which the objections filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 34 of the Act against the Award dated 28.9.2010 have been dismissed. By the Award dated 28.9.2010, the claims of the appellant/purchaser/Railways were dismissed on account of the claim of enhanced quantities of + 30% was raised in violation of the circular of the appellant dated 13.4.2006.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant placed a purchase order dated 19.2.2003 upon the respond...
Tag this Judgment!D.T.C. Vs. Rajpal and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on January 21, 2014 Judgment Delivered on April 16, 2014 + W.P.(C) 6218/2001 D.T.C. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Arati Mahajan Shedha, Advocate versus RAJPAL AND ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the orders dated September 23, 1995, October 04, 1997, May 26, 2000 and award dated April 25, 2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal from time to time in Complaint No.121/89 (Industrial Tribunal-III), later on numbered as 339/89 (in Industrial Tribunal-II).2. The brief summary of the impugned orders is as under: Order dated September 23, 1995 Vide this order the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to place on record certain documents like inquiry proceedings, inquiry report, previous service record of the respondent No.1, show cause notice dated August 18, 1988 and its remi...
Tag this Judgment!Amrik Singh Saluja Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: March 26/27, 2014 Decision on: April 16, 2014 CRL.A.No.120 of 2008 AMRIK SINGH SALUJA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pawan Narang with Mr.Anish Dhingra, Ms. Vasundhara Chauhan andMr. Shivam Takiar, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Subhash Bansal, Advocate for R-2. AND CRL.A.No.250 of 2008 RAJIV GOPALANI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Harish Gulati with Mr. Anindiya Malhotra, Advocates. versus THE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Subhash Bansal with Mr. Shashwat Bansal, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT1604.2014 1. These appeals are directed against the common order dated 4 th January 2008 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (AT) dismissing the Appeal Nos. 474 and 478 of 2001 thereby affirming the adjudication order dated 9th October 2001 passed by the Special Director (SD), Enforcement Directorate (ED).2. Criminal Appeal N...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : January 21, 2014 DECIDED ON : April 16, 2014 + CRL.A. 1047/2012 NARESH KUMAR Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Harish Khanna, Advocate. versus STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 18.08.12 in Sessions Case No.159/11 arising out of FIR No.516/07 registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar by which the appellant-Naresh Kumar was held guilty under Section 304(1)/34 IPC. By an order dated 30.08.2012, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine `5,000/-.2. The prosecution case, as projected in the charge-sheet, was that on 24.07.2007, Daily Diary (DD) No.23B (Ex.PW-14/A) was recorded at 9.37 a.m. at police station, Prashant Vihar on getting information from mobile number 9958386072 about an individual being mercilessly beaten near Metro Station, Sector-9, Rohini. The investigation was assigned to HC Bharat Lal who with ...
Tag this Judgment!Ravinder Dabas and ors Vs. the Registrar, High Court of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1626/2014 & CM33892014 RAVINDER DABAS AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate with Ms. P.R. Mala, Mr. Pranav Diesh and Mr. Karan Kalia, Advocates with petitioners in person. versus THE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Yogesh Saini and Mr. Kartik Jindal, Advocates for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for respondents No.1, 2 and 4 Reserved on :13. h March, 2014 Date of Decision :16. h April, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J:1. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:"(a) Quash the Speaking Orders dated 19.02.2014 and Final List dated 28/11/2013. (b) direct an enquiry to be held by the Registrar or any other authority deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court to ascertain the basis on which the allotments have been made. (c) order the entire record of allotments to be seized forthwith and kept in safe custody so that no f...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. R.C. Kohli Vs. the Sports Goods Export Promotion Council and ors.
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:16. 04.2014 CO. A(SB) 16/2014 & CA Nos. 812-813/2014 MR. R.C. KOHLI ..... Appellant versus THE SPORTS GOODS EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Rakesh Kumar and Mr Shashank Agarwal. For the Respondent: CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 impugning an order 17.02.2014 passed by the Company Law Board under Section 621A of the Companies Act, 1956. The said order hereinafter referred to as the impugned order.2. By the impugned order, the Company Law Board has allowed the application being CA No.16/440/13 filed by the respondent company and its officers (respondents nos. 2 to 6 herein) for compounding of default under Section 25(8) and Section 192 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said applicants had stated that a Spe...
Tag this Judgment!Le Passage to India Tours and Travels Pvt Ltd Vs. Additional Commissio ...
Court: Delhi
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:16. 04.2014 + W.P.(C) 7550/2012 LE PASSAGE TO INDIA TOURS & TRAVELS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita Jha, Advs. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel with Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.: (OPEN COURT) CM191912012 Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 7550/2012 & CM191902012 1. The petitioner, an income tax assessee challenges a notice dated 4.7.2011 issued by the respondent/revenue (hereinafter referred to as revenue) in exercise of its powers under section 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2006-07.2. The assessee is in the tourism and travel business. By the impugned reassessment notice, the AO was of the opinion that based upon the materia...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax-ii Vs. Ashok Wadia
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON:01. 04.2014 PRONOUNCED ON:16. 04.2014 + ITA1802013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..APPELLANT Through : Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate. Versus ASHOK WADIA .RESPONDENT Through : Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT1 The Revenue today impugns concurrent findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). They had reversed the findings of the Assessing Officer (AO), who treated the assessees income from sale of shares as business income, as opposed to Sort Term Capital Gain (STCG), as was original claimed in assessment proceedings. The assessee appealed the order of the AO on various grounds to the CIT(A), of which only ITA1802013 Page 1 the issue of income from sale of shares arises in this appeal. The following question of law arises for d...
Tag this Judgment!Subrato Chaudhary Vs. Dinesh Kumar (Since Decd. Represented by His Wif ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO No.108/2014 16th April, 2014 SUBRATO CHAUDHARY Through: ......Appellant Mr. Soumitra Chatterjee and Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Advocates. VERSUS DINESH KUMAR (SINCE DECD. REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE HIRAMATI) AND ANR. ...... Respondents Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.6546/2014(delay in filing) For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing is condoned subject to just exceptions. FAO1082014& CM Nos. 6544/2014 (stay) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 impugning the judgment of the Commissioner dated 31.10.2013, by which the Commissioner has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein. Respondent no.1 is the widow of late Sh. Dinesh Kumar, and who died in an accident at the time of doing repairs/construction in the building which was owned by the appellant (respondent no.2 ...
Tag this Judgment!