Delhi Court July 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 12 of about 371 results (0.020 seconds)Yash Pal Vs. Shri Gopal Singh Nim
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 280/2011 25th July, 2014 % YASH PAL Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Gyan Prakash, Mr. Neeraj, Advocates VERSUS SHRI GOPAL SINGH NIM Through: ...... Respondents Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 14.2.2011 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the application for leave to defend and passed on order of eviction. It needs to be noted that only a period of six months time is granted to vacate the suit premises after eviction order is passed, however, after more than three and half years of passing of the impugned judgment, petitioner continues to stay in the suit premises in view of the interim order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 1.8.201...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Tej Properties Pvt. Ltd. and anr Vs. Samarjit Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:25. h July, 2014 % + CS(OS) 1474/2008 SAMARJIT CHAKRAVARTY & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Advocate. Versus M/S TEJ PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Manoj Goel, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Ms. Sabika Ahmed and Mr. Aviral Dhirendra, Advocates for D-1&2. Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Sumit K. Sharam, Advocates for D-3&4. AND + CS(OS) 1523/2009 M/S TEJ PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Manoj Goel, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Mr. Sabika Ahmed and Mr. Aviral Dhirendra, Advocates. Versus SAMARJIT CHAKRAVARTY & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Adv. for D-1&2 Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Sumit K. Sharam, Advocates for D-3&4. CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 On 15th April, 2014, the following order was passed in these suits:1. The files are taken up today as 14th April, 2014 was declared a holiday.2. The two suits, vide order dated 5th March, 2014, were ordered to b...
Tag this Judgment!Rhydburg Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Esi Corporation
Court: Delhi
$~SS-3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:25. 07.2014 + REV. PET.217/2014, C.M. No.5895/2014 & 5896/2014 in W.P.(C) 4557/2013 RHYDBURG PHARMACEUTICALS LTD...... Petitioner Through : Sh. Rajat Aneja and Sh. Ishaan Chhaya, Advocates. versus ESI CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Punam Singh and Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % C.M. No.5895/2014 (for condonation of delay) For the reasons mentioned in the application, C.M. No.5895/2014 is allowed. C.M. No.5896/2014 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. REV. PET.217/2014 REV.PET.217/2014 IN W.P.(C)4557/2013 Page 1 1. The review petitioner seeks recall of the judgment and order of this Court dated 22.07.2013. The petitioner had challenged an order of blacklisting issued by the respondent on 17.06.2013. The petitioner had entered into a contract with the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Jing Cheng India Vs. Rattan Chand (Decesed) Thr Lrs Sudarshan Anand an ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 702/2014 & C.M.No.11816/2014 % JULY25 2014 JING CHENG INDIA Through: ......Petitioner Mr.V.K.Sharma, Advocate. VERSUS RATTAN CHAND (DECESED) THR LRS SUDARSHAN ANAND & ORS ...... Respondents Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the trial court dated 24.2.2011 by which the defence of the defendant was struck off.2. There are various reasons why this Court cannot interfere in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and which are:(i) Petitioner is guilty of concealment of facts because the petitioner/defendant is making out a case by filing only one impugned order dated 24.2.2011, but orders prior thereto which led to striking off the defence have deliberately not been filed. From the list of dates it is however shown that the petitioner/defendant was s...
Tag this Judgment!Remari India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Sales Tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ST.REF. 1/2013 Date of decision:24. h July, 2014 REMARI INDIA (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. A.K. Babbar and Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER SALES TAX, DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr. H.C. Bhatia, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax (Tribunal, for short) vide order dated 25th April, 2008 in Appeal No.49/STT/04-05 relating to assessment year 2000-01 (Local), has referred the following question of law to this Court under Section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short, Act):"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant Appellate Tribunal VAT was correct in holding that the transfer of property in the goods from the appellant company to M/s Hyaat, Katmandu (Nepal) took place after and not before the goods were cleared for export out of India?." 2. The Appeal No.49/STT/04-0...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Mitra Chenoy and anr Vs. M/S Dunlop India Ltd and anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:14. h July, 2014 Pronounced on:24. h July, 2014 + CS (OS) 3391/2012 KAMAL MITRA CHENOY & ANR ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi, Advocate with Mr. A.S. Rohtagi, Advocate versus M/S DUNLOP INDIA LTD & ANR ..... Defendant Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Tara Vitasta Ganju, Advocate Ms. Preeti Gupta, Advocate & Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL IA No.1072/2013 (under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC) IA No.4904/2013 (under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and IA No.891/2014 (under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in CS (OS) 3391/2012 1. Plaintiff No.1 (Dr. Kamal Mitra Chenoy) is husband and Plaintiff No.2 (Dr. Anuradha Mitra Chenoy) is the wife. A suit for eviction/possession and permanent injunction was filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants with the allegations that Property No.19, Block No.171, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, as described in Para 1 of the plaint was let out by Plaintiffs to Defendant No.1 (M/...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Kumar Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi and a
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:24. 07.2014 W.P.(C) 416/2014 & CM No.827/2014 PURUSHOTTAM JAJODIA ..Petitioner versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, NEW DELHI & ANR ..Respondents W.P.(C) 417/2014 ..Petitioner AMIT KUMAR versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, NEW DELHI & ANR ..Respondents W.P.(C) 3379/2014 & CM69752014 K.M. UDYOG ..... Petitioner versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ANTI EVASION) CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Abhas Mishra, Advocate with Ms Divya Bansal and Mr Abhimanue Shrestha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr Kamal Nijhawan, Advocate with Mr Dinesh Patel, Advocate for R-1 in W.P.(C) 3379/2014 and for R-2 in W.P.(C) Nos.416/2014 and 417/2014 Mr Satish Aggarwala, Advocate with Mr Sushil Kaushik, Advocate for R-2 in W.P.(C) 3379/2014 and for R-1 in W.P.(C) Nos.416/2014 and 417/2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGME...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Udyog Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Anti Evasion) Central Excise
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:24. 07.2014 W.P.(C) 416/2014 & CM No.827/2014 PURUSHOTTAM JAJODIA ..Petitioner versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, NEW DELHI & ANR ..Respondents W.P.(C) 417/2014 ..Petitioner AMIT KUMAR versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, NEW DELHI & ANR ..Respondents W.P.(C) 3379/2014 & CM69752014 K.M. UDYOG ..... Petitioner versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ANTI EVASION) CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Abhas Mishra, Advocate with Ms Divya Bansal and Mr Abhimanue Shrestha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr Kamal Nijhawan, Advocate with Mr Dinesh Patel, Advocate for R-1 in W.P.(C) 3379/2014 and for R-2 in W.P.(C) Nos.416/2014 and 417/2014 Mr Satish Aggarwala, Advocate with Mr Sushil Kaushik, Advocate for R-2 in W.P.(C) 3379/2014 and for R-1 in W.P.(C) Nos.416/2014 and 417/2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGME...
Tag this Judgment!Purushottam Jajodia Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:24. 07.2014 W.P.(C) 416/2014 & CM No.827/2014 PURUSHOTTAM JAJODIA ..Petitioner versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, NEW DELHI & ANR ..Respondents W.P.(C) 417/2014 ..Petitioner AMIT KUMAR versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, NEW DELHI & ANR ..Respondents W.P.(C) 3379/2014 & CM69752014 K.M. UDYOG ..... Petitioner versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ANTI EVASION) CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Abhas Mishra, Advocate with Ms Divya Bansal and Mr Abhimanue Shrestha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr Kamal Nijhawan, Advocate with Mr Dinesh Patel, Advocate for R-1 in W.P.(C) 3379/2014 and for R-2 in W.P.(C) Nos.416/2014 and 417/2014 Mr Satish Aggarwala, Advocate with Mr Sushil Kaushik, Advocate for R-2 in W.P.(C) 3379/2014 and for R-1 in W.P.(C) Nos.416/2014 and 417/2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGME...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: July 21, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: July 24, 2014 % + CRL.A. 791/2000 SITA RAM Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Saurabh Kansal, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Three accused named Dhanvir, Chander Pal and Sita Ram (appellant) were jointly tried for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC as also for the offence punishable under Section 392/397/34 IPC and for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act.2. Vide decision dated February 27, 1998, the three accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. Pal and Sita Ram were found guilty Chander of the offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC as also for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Dhanvir was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 392/397/34 IPC as a...
Tag this Judgment!