Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Bhupender Singh @ Bhupi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Judgment:19.05.2014. CRL.A. 139/2006 BHUPENDER SINGH @ BHUPI Through ..... Appellant Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv. Versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Mr. Varun Goswami, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 27.01.2006 & 31.01.2006 respectively wherein the appellant along with his accomplice has been convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 3 months. 2 Nominal roll of the appellant has been requisitioned which reflects that as on date when he had been granted bail i.e. on 18.07.2006, he had undergone incarceration of about 2 months and 7 days. 3 Investigating machinery has been set into motion by Vidhya Devi (PW-1). Her allegation was that on 17.11.2004 at about...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil JaIn Vs. Ritu JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.S. (OS) No.1977/2010 & I.A. No.4145/2011 Decided on :19. h May, 2014 Plaintiff SUSHIL JAIN Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Mr. Rohit Gandhi & Mr. Varun Garg, Advocates. Versus Defendants RITU JAIN & ORS. Through: Mr. T.P.S. Kang, Advocate for D-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This is suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration, cancellation, permanent and mandatory injunction.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the plaintiff got married to defendant No.1 on 12th December, 1990, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies after which they were blessed with a child, namely, Siddharth S.Jain on 15th April, 1992. The plaintiff has averred that he, from his hard earned money, purchased a flat bearing No.P-72, South City, Gurgaon in August, 1994 in the name of defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-, although the defendant was not having any independent source of income. This flat was purchased to secure the future of ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S National Highways Authority of India Vs. Progressive Construction ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: May 19, 2014 + O.M.P. No.735/2012 M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Rajiv Kapoor, Adv. with Mr.Anil Kumar, Adv. versus PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr.Amit George, Adv. with Ms.Rajshree Ajay, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the arbitral award dated 21st March, 2012.2. Brief facts are that:(i) The petitioner (NHAI) entered into a contract agreement with the respondent, Progressive Constructions Ltd., for the work of four laning of Km. 410.000 to Km. 419.000, and Km. 470.000 to Km. 476.150 of Purnea-Gayakota Section of the National Highway (Package EW-4), in the State of Bihar on 12th August, 1999. (ii) During the course of execution of the work, due to certain site con...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) Vs. V.K. Bhatnagar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:19. 05.2014 ITA6062010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) versus ..... Appellant V.K. BHATNAGAR ..... Respondent AND + ITA18932010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI - III ..... Appellant versus V.K.BHATNAGAR ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Revenue : Mr Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr P. Roy Chaudhry and Mr Akash Vajpai in both cases. For the Assessee : Ms Kavita Jha with Ms Bhoomika Chaudhary in both cases. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. The present appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugning the common order dated 08.04.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate ITA Nos. 606/2010 & 1893/2010 Tribunal (the Tribunal) in 141/Del/2005 and IT(SS) No.175/Del/2005. Whereas IT(SS)No.141/Del/2005 was preferred by ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Ajanta Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
43 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3170/2014 M/S AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gurpreet Singh and Mr. Shakhir Husein, Advocates. versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Udit Gupta and Mr. Prasouk Jain, Advocates for Mr. B.V. Niren, Advocate for respondent No.1/UOI. Date of Decision :19. h May, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) CM Appl. 6601/2014 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 3170/2014 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Accordingly, present application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 3170/2014 & CM Appl. 6600/2014 1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to release the property bearing No.11, Prithvi Raj Road and hand over possession of the same to respondent No.2-tenant.2. Mr. Amit Sibal, learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that taking over of possession by respondent No.1 was contrary to Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Lal and Sons Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO No.1/2013 19th May, 2014 BRIJ LAL & SONS Through: ......Appellant Mr. Tilak Raj, partner of the appellant In person. VERSUS UOI Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, Adv. 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 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 impugning the judgment of the court below dated 25.7.2012 by which the objections filed by the appellant under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act against the Award of the arbitrator dated 30.6.95 have been dismissed.2. Shorn of the details I find that what the appellant objects so far as the Award deals with his claims No.1, 3, 4 (partly), 5 and 7. The financial implication so far as the claim No.1 {read with counter number 1(a) and 1(b) } is concerned the same is of Rs.4072. The financial implication is of Rs.828.04 for claim No.3. So far as claim No.4 is concerned, the financial i...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Raj Dulari and ors Vs. Smt. Surinder Kaur and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1775/2009 Decided on:19. h May, 2014 SMT RAJ DULARI & ORS Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr.Biswajeet Das, Adv. SMT. SURINDER KAUR & ORS Through: ..... Defendants Mr.Sanjay Goswami, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) IA No.4641/2011 (by D-12 under Section 114 CPC) 1. This order shall dispose of an application filed by the defendant No.12 seeking review of the order dated 07.05.2010 passed in IA Nos.13253/2009 & 12187/2009.2. Briefly stated the facts as given in the order dated 07.05.2010 are that the suit relates to the property owned by late Sh.Gurbaksh Singh. It was the case of the plaintiffs that when Sh.Gurbaksh Singh died on 10.11.1961, he had left behind a registered Will dated 26.04.1960. This Will was got probated {Probate Case No.1/1962} and the suit property bearing No.D-16, Niazmuddin (East), New Delhi was got mutated in favour of the grand sons who were the beneficiaries under the Will. The children of the da...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chand Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO3992012 % 19th May, 2014 SUBHASH CHAND Through: ......Appellant Mr. Yogesh Swroop, Adv. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Vijay Tyagi, Adv. 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 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 6.6.21012 by which the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants, and who are the parents of the deceased Sandeep Kumar who died in an untoward incident of a fall from train on 1.01.2011.2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Sandeep Kumar was travelling on train No.1-PGM (MEMU) from Badli Railway Station to Narela Railway Station on 1.01.2011. Sh. Sandeep Kumar accidently fell down from train when the train was passing through Samaipur Badli Raja Vihar and as a result of which Sh. Sandeep Kumar succumbed to the inj...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi - Iii Vs. V.K.Bhatnagar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:19. 05.2014 ITA6062010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) versus ..... Appellant V.K. BHATNAGAR ..... Respondent AND + ITA18932010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI - III ..... Appellant versus V.K.BHATNAGAR ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Revenue : Mr Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr P. Roy Chaudhry and Mr Akash Vajpai in both cases. For the Assessee : Ms Kavita Jha with Ms Bhoomika Chaudhary in both cases. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. The present appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugning the common order dated 08.04.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate ITA Nos. 606/2010 & 1893/2010 Tribunal (the Tribunal) in 141/Del/2005 and IT(SS) No.175/Del/2005. Whereas IT(SS)No.141/Del/2005 was preferred by ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Jal Board Vs. Uma Rani
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressalforum-VII, ShekhSarai, New Delhi in complaint case No.254/2010 titled Smt. UmaRaniVs. Executive Engineer (South-West-II), Delhi JalBoard. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is a registered consumer of the appellant having water connection No.2058 installed at her house bearing No.157, Village Post Office Dhansa, NewDelhi. The respondent/complainant alleged in her complaint filed before the Distt. Forum that the Lineman of the appellant/OP removed the cap and joined the two lines from the bore well No.8 located near her house which is situated at a greater height than the road passing near her house. It has been further stated by the respondent/complainant that the supplied water was blocked by putting the cap from flowing downward with the help of the said cap and when the line man started removing that cap she objected for t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »