Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rajender Kumar Sharma Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd. and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :20. h March, 2014 Date of decision :6. h May, 2014 % + LPA3112013 + RAJENDER KUMAR SHARMA ..... Appellant Through Mr. Vimal Wadhawan, Advocate versus NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. & ANR..... Respondents Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Abhay Kumar, Advocate for NDPL/R-1. Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao, Mr.Charanjeet Singh & Mr.Vikran Kaushik, Advocates for R-2. LPA3142013 SURESH KUMAR KAMRA Through + ..... Appellant Mr. Vimal Wadhawan, Advocate versus NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. & ANR..... Respondents Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Abhay Kumar, Advocate for NDPL/R-1. Ms. Sonia Sharma with Mr.Neeraj Nischal, Advocates for R-2. LPA3222013 MAHENDER GUPTA Through LPA No.311/2013 with connect cases ..... Appellant Advocate versus NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. & ANR..... Respondents Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Abhay Kumar, Advocate for NDPL/R-1. Ms. Sonia Sharma with Mr.Neeraj Nischal, Advocates for R-2. +...
Rail Vihar Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Vs. Yash Pal Kochar
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal by the OP of the case No.372/2007 is directed against the order dated 24.4.2012 of the CDRF II, Udyog Sadan, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi vide which the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP to handover the possession of the plot to the complainant without any encumbrance and chages over it. Parties shall bear their own cost. 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 95 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Sh. Manish Kumar Chaudhary, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri R.R. Gupta, Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. It is admitted by the applicant in its applications that there is a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal. The only reason given by the appellant/OP is the case file was misplaced in shifting of the office and the same was recovered on 10.9.2012. This reason does not...
Rahul JaIn Vs. Country Club (India) Limited
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
S.A. Saddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of C.P.Act, 1986 against order dated 1.8.2012 passed by District Forum-VII (South-West) in complaint case No.638/2009. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that appellant filed a consumer complaint before the aforesaid District Forum alleging that he paid Rs.2,25,000/- towards membership fees to the respondent and was promised a plot of 2000 sq.ft. willbe allotted to him at the earliest. 3. It was alleged that the appellant/complainant received a letter from respondent demanding Rs.30,000/- towards documents charges, stamp paper fee etc. for purposes of allotment of the said plot to the appellant was dis-satisfied with the demand and filed a consumer complaint alleging commitment of the fraud by respondents. The appellant requested refund of the membership fees alongwithinterest and compensation and cost etc. In reply to notice respondents appeared before the Ld. District Forum and pleaded that as per terms a...
Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Air Customs Officer, Igi Airport, New Delhi Vs. th ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A): This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:- œA. Pass and order directing the respondents to remove the name of the applicant from the doubtful integrity list. B. Pass and order declaring the suspension order C.No.VIII (IandV) 26/13/CUS/09/3448 Dated 6/2/2009 void ab initio and retrospectively quashing the same.? 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant who is a Group B Non Gazetted Officer of Central Excise and Customs is presently working as Air Customs Officer at IGI Airport, New Delhi. On 6.9.2009, he was served with a suspension order under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The said order stated that he was being suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter on their own accord the respondents revoked the said suspension order on 17.9.2009. No reasons were, however, communicated to the applicant. Nor was any chargesheet was served on him. The applicant remained posted in his...
Neel Choudhary, Madhya Pradesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Pr ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
(NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH BHOPAL) Dalip Singh, J. Original Application No. 18 of 2013 1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 highlighting the problems arising out of running of marriage gardens, function halls and similar activities of holding parties etc. in such premises in and around the city of Bhopal resulting in pollution of the environment with particular reference to non-observance of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (in short referred to as MSW Rules) as well as violation of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (in short referred to as EP Act) and the Rules made thereunder as also the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in short referred to as Water Act) and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981(in short referred to as Air Act). The prayer made is for seeking a direction against the Respondents for strict impl...
P. Sasi Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
V.N. Gaur, Member (A): The applicant, an Ex-Assistant of Ministry of Defence had originally filed this OA against the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority (DA) on 10.10.2007, with the following prayer: (i) Quash and set aside the orders No.A/27639/CAO/DD/01 dated 10.10.2007 of the Disciplinary Authority. (ii) Quash and set aside the order No.A/27639/CAO/DD/01 dated 7.4.2008 of the Appellate Authority. (iii) Direct the respondents to grant all consequential relief and other relief to which the applicant is entitled to.? 2. The case was heard and this Tribunal came to the following conclusion in its order dated 21.10.2010: œxxx xxx xxx The question is whether the power to hold further inquiry is available when some important witnesses were not available at the time of inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the DA may ask the IO to record further evidence. This was not a situation. The witness after all the procedure adopted had not turned up, it cann...
Sub Maj Dan Singh Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
Short grievance of the petitioner is that he was convicted by the GCM and punishment of dismissal was awarded with one years R.I. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before this Tribunal, being T.A. No. 726 of 2009, which was allowed, vide order dated 23.09.2009 and conviction of the petitioner was set aside. A direction was issued that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been discharged from service from the date of dismissal. The order stands complied with by the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only impediment in the way of the petitioner for grant of Honorary Commission was the conviction recorded by the GCM. The order of conviction having been set aside, therefore, he has a right to be considered for grant of honorary commission after his retirement. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner has not completed the tenure of his service as he was deemed to have been discharged w.e.f. 28.05.1999 whereas t...
Pawan Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:06. 05.2014 + ITA1992014 PAWAN KUMAR AGGARWAL Through: Mr. Ved Jain with Mr. Pranjal, Advocates. ..... Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) ADMIT.1. Issue notice. Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.2. The question of law which arises for consideration is, whether the ITAT fell into error in rejecting the assessees claim for credit of Securities Transaction Tax (STT), proof of which was concededly attached to the return. 3. The relevant facts are that the assessee reported a total income of `34.56 lakhs for AY200809. The income tax payable including ITA1992014 Page 1 surcharge and education cess was `1,16,950/-. In the computation of income, the assessee failed to d...
M/S Shristi Udaipur Hotels and Resrots (P) Ltd Vs. Housing and Urban D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1517/2014 Reserved on:02. 04.2014 Date of decision:06. 05.2014 IN THE MATTER OF: M/S SHRISTI UDAIPUR HOTELS AND RESROTS (P) LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Arjun Singh Bawa, Advocate with Ms. Sushmita Das, Advocate versus HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Agarwal and Mr. Arun Baali, Advocates CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.CM APPL. 4084/2014 (by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 21.03.2014) 1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia that the order dated 21.03.2014 granting it leave to withdraw the writ petition be recalled and the same be restored for being heard on merits.2. On 21.03.2014, learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to make submissions on the maintainability of the writ petition as the court was of the opinion that it would not be vested with th...
Cheil India Private Limited (Formerly Known as Che Vs. Deputy Commissi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:06. 05.2014 + ITA292014 CM APPL.1598-1600/2014 CHEIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHEIL COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor with Mr. Vikas Jain, Mr. Sanat Kapoor and Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The following question of law arises for consideration:Whether the Tribunal fell into error in holding that the sum of `1,66,99,360/- had to be treated as income and, therefore, brought to tax. 2. With consent of the counsel for the parties, matter was heard finally.3. The appellant showed that, during the period relevant to AY200809, it had received `1,66,99,360/- from two parties, i.e., Samsung ITA-29/2014 India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and a Samsung Page 1 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »