Delhi Court April 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 30 of about 432 results (0.010 seconds)Sh. Ramesh Chand Pasi and ors. Vs. Sh.Sukan Mehto and ors
Court: Delhi
$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:15. h April, 2014 % + MAC.APP.No.1131/2011 SH. RAMESH CHAND PASI & ORS. .....Appellants Represented by: Mr. S.S. Sisodia, Advocate. Versus SH.SUKAN MEHTO & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Advocate for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 03.08.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for an amount of Rs.5,39,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.2. Vide the present appeal, the appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation amount, as noted above.3. Mr.S.S.Sisodia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the deceased Smt.Meena Pasi died at the age of 45 years, her earnings were considered by the learned Tribunal as Rs.3,000/- per mon...
Tag this Judgment!Mahender Singh@munna Vs. State Govt Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:15. 04.2014 + CRL.A. 845/2013 MAHENDER SINGH@MUNNA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikram Singh and Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advs. Versus STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State CRL.A. 1022/2013 VINOD @ LADDU @ KALU Through: versus ..... Appellant Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Adv. STATE + Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Adv. CRL.A. 1024/2013 RAJESH Versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State CRL.A. 447/2014 RAJ KUMAR Through: Crl. A. No845, 1022, 1024 of 2013 and 447 of 2014 ..... Appellant Ms. Jyotsana Gupta, Adv. Page 1 of 25 Versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K. JAIN, J.Crl.M.A. No.5788/2014 (Exemption) in Crl.A. No.447/2014 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The appl...
Tag this Judgment!Mukhram Tewatia Vs. Daaj Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: April 15, 2014 + ARB.P. 154/2014 MUKHRAM TEWATIA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Jitender Chaudhary, Adv. versus DAAJ HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT LTD Through None ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for appointment of an Arbitrator.2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the petition are that pursuant to work order dated 24th November, 2010, a concluded contract dated 24th November, 2010 was entered into by the parties via exchange of emails for refurbishing of the interiors of the hotel of the respondent situated at Hyderabad.3. In the similar manner, after due discussions and deliberations another work order dated 21st January, 2011 was issued in favor of the petitioner and a contract dated 21st January, 2011 was ex...
Tag this Judgment!Yachiyo India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.T. Holidays Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on: April 15, 2014 O.M.P No.10/2011 YACHIYO INDIA PVT LTD Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Jagat Rana, Advocate versus K.T HOLIDAYS PVT LTD & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Nikhil Rohtagi, Advocate + O.M.P No.11/2011 YACHIYO INDIA PVT LTD Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Jagat Rana, Advocate versus K.T HOLIDAYS PVT LTD & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Nikhil Rohtagi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By this judgment I propose to decide the above mentioned two petitions filed by the petitioner who has assailed the award dated 30th September, 2010 passed by the sole Arbitrator N.N. Goswami, J., retired Judge of this Court. Since the facts and law in both the matters are common, therefore both the petitions are being decided by one judgment.2. Brief facts of the case are as under :- (i) Petitioner, a Pvt. Ltd. company, is incorporated in India but controlled by the parent company in Japan...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Delh-ii Vs. Kalindi Rail Nirman Engg. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:1. t April, 2014 Date of Decision:15. h April, 2014 % + ITA2442013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELH-II ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Ruchir Bhatia, Jr. Standing Counsel versus KALINDI RAIL NIRMAN ENGG. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Sh. R.K. Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.1. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) on 29.03.2012 in ITA No.322/Del/2008 confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 26.10.2007 by which he cancelled the penalty of Rs.24,00,977/- imposed on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income.2. The assessee, a contractor undertaking projects of Indian Railways on turn key basis, filed ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Urmila Rani and ors
Court: Delhi
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:15. h April, 2014 % + MAC.APP.No.578 /2012 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate. Versus URMILA RANI & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.V.K.Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) MAC.APP.No.578 /2012 1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 24.03.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for an amount of Rs.5,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.2. Mr.L.K.Tyagi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence on the date of the accident and the vehicle was being driven even without valid permit. eventuality, the learned MAC.APP.578/2012 In such an Tribunal ought...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Palwinder Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.50/2012 & CM No.1773/2012 (Stay) 15th April, 2014 % ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant Through: Mr. R.C.Mahajan, Adv. VERSUS SMT. PALWINDER KAUR & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Ms. Pratima N. Chauhan, Adv. for R1 to 3. 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 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 by the insurance company impugning the judgment of the Commissioner dated 25.11.2011 by which the claim petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Tarsem Singh, respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein, has been allowed and compensation awarded of a sum of Rs.3,84,280/-alongwith funeral charges of Rs.2500/- and also interest at 12% p.a from the date of the accident.2. The case as set up by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 before the Commissioner was that the deceased Tarsem Singh, late husband of respondent no.1 and f...
Tag this Judgment!Unit Trust of India Now Uti Amc Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vinayak Arora
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dt. 15.03.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, (District New Delhi) in Complaint Case No. 357/2007. 2) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent had applied for the U.T.I. EQUTIY FUND i.e. MASTER GAIN-1992 for 1800 units through application No. 7239066 alongwith cheque No. 039207 dt. 30.04.1992 for Rs. 18,000/-, which was from the account of Mrs. Hansa Arora the Mother of the complainant/respondent. The cheque was drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Paschim Enclave, New Delhi-110041 and was in favour of the appellant/OP-1. The cheque was cleared from the account on 18.05.1992, which was clearly reflected in the statement of account filed, the complainant/respondent also filed a certificate issued by State Bank of Mysore dt. 16.12.1993 mentioning therein the clearance of aforesaid cheque from the account of Mrs. Hansa Arora. 3) The complainant/respondent stat...
Tag this Judgment!Tdi Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Bahri
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
N.P. Kaushik, Member(Judicial): Present appeal is directed against the order dated 4.4.2013 vide which the District Consumer Redressal Forum (V), North West District, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi passed the following directions: œPay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 6,58,500/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit by the complainant till payment. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation. The above order shall be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.? Facts of the case are not in dispute. The Respondent, Shri Rakesh Bahri got booked a residential flat with the appellant on 23.8.2005. He paid Rs. 3 lacs as earnest money by way of a cheque on 3...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Omaxe Ltd. and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided On:15. 04.2014 + W.P.(C) 1451/2013 M/S OMAXE LTD. AND ANR. ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha & Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Jr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. In these writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges a notice issued by the respondents (hereafter called the Revenue) under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act (the Act).2. The petitioner company is engaged in real estate business. Its premises were searched on 22.9.2005, and other dates. It filed its return on WP( C) 1451/2013 30.11.2006 declaring a net taxable income of Page 1 Rs.89,20,76,630/-. The petitioner had earlier been issued separate notice under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!