Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sardar Udham Singh Sethi
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal by the OP of the case No.809/2007 is directed against the order dated 4.7.2011 of the CDRF (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi vide which OP was directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) being the assured sum under policy with interest @ 10% from the date of lodging of complaint till its realization. The complainant was also awarded Rs.10,000/- being costs of litigation. 2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 598 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Sh. Ms. Jyoti Divya, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Suraj Jaiswal, Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. The grounds for the condonation of delay are reproduced below:- i) œThe order passed by District Forum on 4.7.2011 and the case was being defended by Advocate Ms. Neeru Garg on behalf of the appellant. It is submitted that the said counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Kumar and Others Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway and Other ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
P.K. Basu, Member (A) By this common order, we propose to dispose of OA 382/2014 and OA 824/2014 together as facts and issues involved in both the OAs are identical. Facts have, however, been extracted from OA 382/2014. 2. The respondents had issued an advertisement vide notification dated 30.08.2012 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to 7368 posts in various Divisions/ Workshops/ Units under the respondents organization. The applicants appeared in the recruitment test held during November-December, 2013 but have been issued rejection letters on the ground of being 100% blind. It is the contention of the applicants that they are eligible and entitled to be considered both on their general merit as also against the reservation for visually handicapped persons against 1% quota for them. The applicants have also filed MA 1091/2014 in which it has been stated that OA 467/2014 was also filed involving the same controversy with regard to exclusion of 100% blind fr...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Mukesh Ranjan
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
N.P. Kaushik, Member: 1. This appeal by Opposite Party (in short the OP) of the case No.1409/2009 is directed against the order dated 6.7.2011 passed by the District Forum (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi by which the complaint was allowed OP was directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 14.7.2008 till its payment. The OP was also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment agony along with Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. Facts in brief are that the deceased took a Life Insurance Policy known as œJanta Personal Accidental Insurance Policy? from the appellant Insurance Company on 12.2.1998 which commenced w.e.f. 14.2.198 and valid upto13.2.2010. The deceased was 61 years old at that time. He died on 18.6.2008. The cause of death was 10% TBSA (thermal burn along with facial and respiratory burn? leading to cardio respiratory arrest). The death certificate was issued by LNJP Hospital. Prior to this the deceased...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India Through General Manager, Northern Railw ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
Oral: G. George Paracken, Member (J) The Applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Declare the termination of the Applicant null and void and also illegal as taken by the Respondents. (ii) To direct the Respondents to take him in service with all consequential benefits. (iii) To direct the Respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order in to illegal termination. (iv) To direct the Respondents to decide the representations of the Applicant with reasons and speaking order, within stipulated period. (v) To pass any such order/orders which this Tribunal may deem fit and proper. 2. According to the Applicant, he worked for 235 days during the period from December, 1983 to August, 1984. Further according to him, in the year 1983 the Respondents have issued a Scheme for granting Temporary Status to the casual labourers. According to the said Scheme, the casual labourers except those who were ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat Ram Chicham, Madhya Pradesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Thro ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
1. Initially this petition was filed as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at kavita Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 3219/2013 with a prayer to issue Writ of Mandamus to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and restrain the functioning of Respondent No. 4 Madhya Pradesh Forest Development Corporation (in short MPFDC/Corporation) and from cutting the trees in the forest. The relief prayed by the petitioner is reproduced below. i. A writ of Mandamus to Respondent No. 1 and 2 to stop the functioning of Respondent No.4 and conducting the inquiry against the Respondent No.4 for causing damage to the forest area. ii. A command to Respondent No. 1 and 2 to abolish Respondent No. 4 and permit the Forest Department to look after the forest area in accordance with Indian Forest Act. iii. A command to Respondents 1 and 2 to cease (seize) all the machinery (used) for felling the trees. iv. Any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances 1. The case...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Kumar Verma Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-xii
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
$~2, 3 & 36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + DECIDED ON:08. 05.2014 ITA442014, CM APPL.1949/2014 NARESH KUMAR VERMA versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XII ..... Appellant ..... Respondent W.P. (C) 4590/2013, CM APPL.10531/2013 NARESH KUMAR VERMA ..... Petitioner versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE351) ..... Respondent CM APPL.8098/2014 IN ITA12192009 NARESH KUMAR VERMA ..... Appellant versus DCIT CIRCLE351) ..... Respondent Appearance: Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate for appellant in all cases. Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Jr. Standing Counsel on behalf of Revenue. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel on behalf of Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) For detailed judgment, please refer to judgment of even date passed in ITA10042011. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY08 2014/vks/ ITA-44/14, W.P.(C)4590/13 & CM809814 in ITA121909 Page 1...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Jyoti Pershad Jagan Nath Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON:08. 05.2014 + CM APPL.4649 & 4650/2014 IN ITA362002 M/S JYOTI PERSHAD JAGAN NATH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anoop Sharma, Advocate. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-X ..... 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 VIBHU BAKHRU MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) CM APPL.4650/2014 (for condonation of delay) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL.4649/2014 (for restoration) For the reasons mentioned in the applications, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice requires that appeal should be restored on the file of this Court. Ordered accordingly. CM APPL.4649/2014 is allowed. ITA362002 Issue notice. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent. ITA362002 Page 1 The following question of law arises for consideration:Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gian Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:08. 05.2014 ITA9552011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Appellant versus GIAN GUPTA ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr Balbir Singh, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Abhishek Singh Baghel and Mr Arjun Harkauli : Mr Ashish Rana CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA2775Del/2010 pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07.2. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs 1 crore on account of alleged unexplained investment in land at village Samalkha. The Assessing Officer had also made an addition of Rs 57 lacs on account of alleged unexplained investment in land at Udyog Vihar. Both these additions were deleted, in appeal by the assessee, b...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Kumar Verma Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
$~1-3 & 36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:08. 05.2014 + ITA10042011 NARESH KUMAR VERMA versus CIT ITA442014, CM APPL.1949/2014 NARESH KUMAR VERMA versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XII ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ..... Appellant ..... Respondent W.P. (C) 4590/2013, CM APPL.10531/2013 NARESH KUMAR VERMA ..... Petitioner versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE351) ..... Respondent CM APPL.8098/2014 IN ITA12192009 NARESH KUMAR VERMA versus DCIT CIRCLE351) ..... Appellant ..... Respondent Appearance: Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate for appellant in all cases. Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Jr. Standing Counsel on behalf of Revenue. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel on behalf of Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. ITA10042011 pertains to assessment year 2006-07, ITA ITA-1004/11, 44/14, W.P.(C)4590/13 & CM809814 in ITA121909 Page 1...
Tag this Judgment!P.R Sivanandan Nair Vs. Saipem India Projects Ltd and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
$~ 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 262/2013 P.R SIVANANDAN NAIR ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Manoj V. George and Mr.Aakarsh Kamra, Advocates versus SAIPEM INDIA PROJECTS LTD & ORS ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Anuj Berry and Mr.Nikhil Parkshith, Advocates for defendant no.1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI ORDER % 08.05.2014 IA.No.8772/2014 1. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that on 23.2.2013 Joint Registrar issued summons to defendant no.1; and since he considered defendants no.2 and 3 as part and parcel of defendant no.1 summons were not issued against said defendants no.2 and 3.2. By the present application under Order V Rule 11 CPC, plaintiff prays that summons be issued to defendant nos.2 and 3, who are the part and parcel of defendant no.1 and are situated in Italy. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that necessity of filing of this application has arisen as the defendant no.1 in its written statement has stated that defendant no.1 is a separate legal en...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »