Delhi Court July 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 2 of about 371 results (0.038 seconds)Umesh K. Modi Vs. Deputy Director of Enforcement
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL A No.568 of 2008 UMESH K. MODI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal with Mr. Aditya, Advocates. Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER3107.2014 1. The Appellant, Umesh K. Modi, challenges in this appeal the impugned order dated 26th March 2008 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (AT) dismissing his Appeal No.668 of 2004 thereby upholding the adjudication order (AO) dated 31 st March 2004 passed by the Deputy Director (DD) of Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) finding him guilty of the contravention of Section 8 (3) read with Section 8 (4) and Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) and imposing a total penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each on certain directors of Modi Xerox Limited (MXL) including the Appellant and Rs. 5 lakh on MXL.2. The Appellant states that he was a part time, non-executive director of MXL but neither in-charge of nor respons...
Tag this Judgment!M/S S R M (India) Ltd Vs. Sh. Amarjeet and ors
Court: Delhi
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:31. t July, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 7233/2012 M/S S R M (INDIA) LTD ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. R.D. Bansal, petitioner in person. versus SH. AMARJEET AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Rama Shankar, Adv. for R1 and R3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner was heard in length on 25.07.2014, wherein it was recorded as under:1. Vide the present petition the petitioner has assailed exparte award dated 18.08.2011 passed in Case No.S&E/5051/NW/10/2010/1085-86 titled as Amarjeet vs. M/s. S.R.M. (India) Ltd. and seeks setting aside of order dated 25.05.2011 passed by the said authority whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte.2. He further seeks directions to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to submit copy of their original appointment letters.3. Mr. R.D. Bansal, the petitioner appearing in person submits that the present case is of errors, mistakes, misrepresentation, dishonesty...
Tag this Judgment!Vikrant Puri Vs. the State and anr
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3290/2014 VIKRANT PURI Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Abhijat and Mr. Tejeshman Sharma, Advocates. versus THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP. Mr. T. N. Tyagi, Advocate for complainant / respondent No.2 SI Pawan Kumar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.237/2014 dated 15.06.2014, registered under Sections 380 IPC at police station Greater Kailash, at the instance of second respondent, Sh. Jyotveer Singh Chada on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled in terms of a compromise entered into between the parties on 16.06.2014. The said Settlement Deed has also been annexed to this petition.2. Issue notice.3. Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. T. N. Tyagi, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the complainant / ...
Tag this Judgment!Banasthali Vidyapith and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:31. 07.2014 W.P.(C) 3390/1998 BANASTHALI VIDYAPITH AND ANR. ..... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Ms Indu Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr Vanshdeep Dalmia, Ms Nishtha Kumar and Mr Gautam Demba, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr Shivanath Mhanta, Advocate for R2 & R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner university seeking quashing of orders dated 04.05.1998 and 12.06.1998 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned orders) passed by the Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (respondent no.3). By the impugned orders, respondent no.3 has rejected the petitioner universitys contention that by virtue of Section 16(1)(c) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the provisions ...
Tag this Judgment!B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:31. t July, 2014 + W.P.(C) 3263/2012 B.S.E.S. RAJDHANI POWER LTD. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Nikhil Singla, Advocate. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Represented by: Mr. S.B.S. Vashistha, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present petition the petitioner seeks to set-aside the order dated 02.12.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority and order dated 19.01.2009 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.2. I have gone through the averments made in the writ petition. The relief sought in the instant petition is against respondent No.1. The present petition is entitled to be dismissed on this sole ground, however, in the interest of justice I consider the respondent No.1 as respondent No.2 while adjudicating the present petition.3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 was appointed by the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pp Engineering Work
Court: Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:31. t July, 2014 + Income Tax Appeal 179/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus PP ENGINEERING WORK ..... Respondent Through Mr. Mr. Ved Jain and Mr. Pranjal Shrivastava, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) By order dated 27th September, 2012, the following substantial question of law was framed in this appeal by the Revenue which pertains to assessment year 2000-01:Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for the purpose of making addition of Rs.32 lakhs, overlooking Section 150 of the Income Tax Act?.2. The appeal relates to addition of Rs.32 lakhs under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, in short), which the respondentassessee had claimed that they had received from Jaconde Overseas Pvt. Ltd. The addition was initia...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S Orient Abrassive Ltd
Court: Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:31. t July, 2014 + ITA Nos. 991/2010, 1078/2010, 1077/2010 1079/2010 & 535/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S ORIENT ABRASSIVE LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Mayank Nagi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) These appeals by the Revenue pertaining to assessments years 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06 2006-07 and 2007-08 raise an identical question and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common decision. By order dated 23rd November, 2011, the following substantial questions of law were framed for adjudication:(1) Whether the electricity unit is an undertaking for the purpose of Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961?. (2) Whether profit and gain from captive consumption of electricity supplied from the generator set and which cannot be sold to any third person will qualify for ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shakuntala and ors. Vs. Smt. Kanti Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RC. REV. No.352/2012 31st July , 2014 SMT. SHAKUNTALA & ORS. Through: ......Petitioners Mr. Kriti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, Mr. Sajan K. Singh and Mr. Aman Bhalla, Advocates. VERSUS SMT. KANTI DEVI & ANR. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. O.P.Verma, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this petition under Section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is to the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 16.5.2012 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application and has granted eviction with respect to the suit premises comprised of two halls on the first floor in the property bearing municipal No.IX/1254, Satish Market, Tikona Park, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhli-31.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) ...
Tag this Judgment!Abhai Singh Vs. Boder Security Force
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:31. 07.2014 + WP (C) No.2059 of 2007, CM No.11506/2013 ABHAI SINGH Through:Ms. Amita Gupta, Adv. ..... Petitioner Versus BODER SECURITY FORCE ..... Respondent Through:Mr. Prashant Sivarajan, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.(Oral) 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondent to grant disability pension to the petitioner in terms of Rule 3-A(1)(a) CCS (EOP) Rules. The petitioner herein was recruited as Constable in Border Security Force on 21.2.1994. One day, during the course of his duty, while he was learning to walk on ropes he fell down from a height and hurt himself, which led to causing of pain in L2-L5 region of his spine. Hospital. He was admitted in Ahmedabad Later, he was examined by the Chief Medical Officer of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 2nd February, 2001. WP (C) No.2059...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Metropolitan Book Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Ajay Rastogi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RC.Rev. No.484/2013 31st July , 2014 % M/S METROPOLITAN BOOK CO. PVT. LTD. ......Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Pankaj Sharma and Mr. Chirojeet Mukherjee, Adv. VERSUS SHRI AJAY RASTOGI & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Rajat Aneja and Mr. Aarohi Holani, Adv. for R-1 to 6. Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This revision petition is filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 3.9.2013 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner-tenant and has granted an eviction order to the respondents/landlords(essentially for respondent no.1) with respect to the tenanted premises which comprises of one hall on the g...
Tag this Judgment!