Delhi Court July 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 34 of about 371 results (0.021 seconds)Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on January 30, 2014 Judgment Delivered on July 02, 2014 + W.P.(C) 5514/1993 GUJARAT HEAVY CHEMICALS LTD. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Venkata Subramanian, Advocate with Ms.Adrija Thakur and Mr.Sanjeev Narula, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Prasouk Jain, Advocate with Mr.Udit Gupta, Advocate appearing for Mr.B.V.Niren, CGSC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the notification issued by the respondent No.1 dated March 17, 1993 in exercise of its power under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (Act in short), whereby the respondent No.1 prohibited from the date of publication of the notification, the employment of contract labour in the following works in the limestone and dolomite mine in the country:(i) Raising of minerals including breaking, sizing, sorting of limestone/d...
Tag this Judgment!State Trading Corporation of India Ltd Vs. M/S Toepfer International A ...
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:2. d July, 2014. % + FAO(OS) 242/2014 STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD ...Appellant Through: Dr. A. Francis Julian, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, Adv. Versus M/S TOEPFER INTERNATIONAL ASIA PTE LTD. Respondents Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. A. Majumdar, Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta and Mr. Siddarth Ranka, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugns the order dated 28th January, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of the objections, being OMP1062014 filed by the appellant, to the Arbitral Award dated 27th September, 2013 of an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of the nominees of the appellant and the respondent, who as per the Arbitration Agreement were to be the retired judges of the High Court or the Supreme Court, and of a thir...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmender Sharma and anr Vs. Sriram Transport Finance Co Ltd and anr
Court: Delhi
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + F.A.O. No.375/2011 & C.M. No.16262/2011 F.A.O. No.377/2011 & C.M. No.16270/2011 F.A.O. No.379/2011 & C.M. No.16279/2011 F.A.O. No.399/2011 & C.M. No.17005/2011 F.A.O. No.402/2011 & C.M. No.17049/2011 Decided on :2. d July, 2014 DHARMENDER SHARMA & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate. versus SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LTD & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sourabh Leekha, Advocate. WITH + F.A.O. No.376/2011 & C.M. No.16265/2011 F.A.O. No.378/2011 & C.M. No.16271/2011 F.A.O. No.381/2011 & C.M. No.16383/2011 F.A.O. No.390/2011 & C.M. No.16541/2011 LOKESH KUMAR & ANR Through: ..... Appellants Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate. versus SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LTD & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sourabh Leekha, Advocate. WITH F.A.O. No.398/2011 & C.M. No.17002/2011 NEERAJ BHOLA & ANR Through: ..... Appellants Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate. versus SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LTD & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sourabh Leekha, ...
Tag this Judgment!T.C.Chawla Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: May 22, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on: July 02, 2014 + CRL.A.728/2002 T.C.CHAWLA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta and Mr. Sahil Dhawan, Advocates Through: ..... Respondent Mr. R.V.Sinha, Standing Counsel for CBI with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocate versus C.B.I. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % 1. JUDGMENT Appellant was a Junior Engineer in Public Works Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, who had purportedly accepted bribe of `1,500/from complainant-Jeewan Singh (PW-6) in the afternoon of 11th November, 1997 for clearing his bill for the contract work. In RC No.87(A)/97-DLI, appellant was tried and on the strength of evidence of complainant-Jeewan Singh (PW-6), recovery witness-Vikram Singh (PW-3), shadow witnessBabban Singh (PW-1), official witnesses and trap laying official (PW-7), appellant stands convicted vide impugned judgment of 4 th April, 2002 for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read wi...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Jitendra Prasad Agarwal and ors Vs. Associated Tubewell (India) L ...
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:02. 07.2014 CO. APPL. NOS. 1/1994, 79/1997, 1002/1997 & 602/2001 IN CO.PET.195/1986 SHRI JITENDRA PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS .....Petitioners versus ASSOCIATED TUBEWELL (INDIA) LTD & ORS .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Dr Arun Mohan, Sr. Adv. with Mr Rajeev Sharma, Mr Sahil Bhalaik, Mr Uddyam Mukherjee & Mr Harsh Vardhan. For the Respondents : Mr Daljit Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr M.S. Vinaik. Mr Manish Kumar Srivastava for R-6. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 Petitioners have filed these applications under Section 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 (herein referred to as the Act), inter alia, seeking appointment of a receiver/administrator to take over the management of the respondent Company and removal of Mr Gautam Agarwal from the Board of Directors of the Company, and to debar Mr Gautam Agarwal and Mrs Raj Kumari Agarwal from participating in the management o...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saraswti Devi Vs. Smt. Santosh Kumari.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:02. 07.2014 + RC.REV. 59/2014 SMT. SARASWTI DEVI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ashutosh Bhattacharjee & Mr. J.P. Tripathi, Advs. Versus SMT. SANTOSH KUMARI. Through: ..... Respondent None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI1 This petition impugns an order dated 24.8.2013 whereby the respondent-landladys petition under Sections 14(1)(e) and 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was allowed. The petitioners application seeking leave to defend was dismissed and an eviction order has been passed against her with respect to the shop situated at the ground floor of property No.643 B-43, Jood Bagh, Tri Nagar, Delhi. The eviction was sought on the ground that the landlady had a bonafide need for it i.e. her husband who was otherwise carrying on a business with his son in manufacturing readymade garments required the premises, since due to old age he could not cope-up with the hectic schedule of manufa...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Singh Vs. Dharm Singh
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:02. 07.2014 + RC.REV. No.205 of 2014 PREM SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Som Dutt Sharma, Adv. versus DHARM SINGH ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.CM No.9808/2014 (Exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions. RC Rev. No.205/2014 & CM No.9807/2014 (Stay) This petition impugns the order dated 7.12.2013 whereby the petitioner (tenant) has been directed to vacate a shop admeasuring 9ft. X18t. on the ground floor of premises bearing No.1958, Pillanji, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. In terms of the said order the respondent- landlords eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) was allowed and the tenants application for leave to defend was rejected. The case of the tenant was that there was no bona fide need; the landlord was not the actual owner of the premises; the property was given...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Global Associates
Court: Delhi
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:02. 07.2014 + ITA832014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Jr. Standing Counsel. versus GLOBAL ASSOCIATES Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The office report indicates that the respondent/assessee was served on 22.05.2014. There is no appearance on their behalf. The Court accordingly proceeds to set them down ex parte.2. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration: Did the Tribunal fall into error in directing the deletion of penalty imposed upon the assessee on the ground that it had filed inaccurate particulars and was, therefore, liable under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act.3. The assessee filed its return for the AY200809. In a scrutiny assessment, the AO, inter alia was of the opinion that...
Tag this Judgment!P L Singla Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:02. 07.2014 W.P.(C) 2664/2013 and CM No.2646/2014 (early hearing) P L SINGLA ..... PETITIONER VERSUS UOI AND ANR ..... RESPONDENTS ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjiv Kakra and Mr. Bheem Sain Jain, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Amiet Andlay, Advocate for R-2 CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 Despite opportunities being given to the respondents to pass an appropriate order granting exemption from observance of Rule 49(2)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (in short 1972 Rules), no substantive decision has been taken in that behalf either by the Government of NCT of Delhi or by the Government of India. For this purpose, the proceedings of 24.02.2014 and 28.05.2014 are referred to as a measure of good order and record.2. I had made it clear in my last order dated 28.05.2014 that if no decision is taken, in that behalf, by the...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Sh. Sunil Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:02. 07.2014 + RC.REV.131/2014, CM Nos.5669-70/14, Cav.288/2014 DINESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. G.L. Rawal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kuljeet Rawal & Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advs. versus SH. SUNIL GUPTA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Asutosh Lohia, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI The present petition impugns an order dated 9.12.2013 whereby the petitioner (tenant) has been directed to be evicted from the tenanted premises being property No.2841, Gali Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Khazi, Delhi6. The order was passed in the petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 wherein the eviction petitioner/landlord had claimed the premises for his bonafide need. He claimed that his family had eleven members and all of them were dependent on the earnings of the firm being run by him; he was desirous of separating the business of his three sons and ...
Tag this Judgment!