Delhi Court August 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 1 of about 306 results (0.021 seconds)Abdul Wasim @ Majnu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
$~9 to 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: August 29, 2014 + CRL.A. 79/2012 ABDUL WASIM @ MAJNU ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Jatin Rajput, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Insp.Ashok Kumar, P.S. I.P.Estate CRL.A. 315/2012 NURUDDIN @ BUNDUL Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Avninder Singh, Advocate versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Insp.Ashok Kumar, P.S. I.P.Estate CRL.A. 772/2014 VIKRANT @ CHELA Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate with Ms.Priyanka Jaiswal, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: Crl.A.No.79/2012 & conn.matters ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A.No.10032/2014 in Crl.A.No.772/2014 Delay of 1025 days in filing Crl.A.No.772/2014 is condoned for the reason appellant thereof has been convicted for an offen...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ramesh Chander Sharma Vs. Mcd and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~S-1&S-2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:29. 08.2014 + C.M. Nos.8425 & 8442/2014 IN W.P. (C) 1164/1989 DR. GURCHARAN SINGH versus MCD ETC. ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents C.M. No.8443/2014 IN W.P. (C) 2252/1989 DR. RAMESH CHANDER SHARMA versus MCD AND ANR. ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents Appearance: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms. Rashmi Verma and Ms. Aarohi Holani, Advocates for applicant/petitioner in W.P. (C) 1164/1989. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for applicant/petitioner in W.P. (C) 2252/1989. Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for MCD in both matters. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The applicants/petitioners seek clarification in light of the order made by another Single Judge in contempt proceedings - C.P. No.175/2008 and 200/2008 on 5.5.2014.3. The applicants are successful writ petitioners; they had approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) 1164/1989 and 2252/1989 W.P.(C)1164 &...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Gurcharan Singh Vs. Mcd Etc.
Court: Delhi
$~S-1&S-2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:29. 08.2014 + C.M. Nos.8425 & 8442/2014 IN W.P. (C) 1164/1989 DR. GURCHARAN SINGH versus MCD ETC. ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents C.M. No.8443/2014 IN W.P. (C) 2252/1989 DR. RAMESH CHANDER SHARMA versus MCD AND ANR. ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents Appearance: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms. Rashmi Verma and Ms. Aarohi Holani, Advocates for applicant/petitioner in W.P. (C) 1164/1989. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for applicant/petitioner in W.P. (C) 2252/1989. Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for MCD in both matters. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The applicants/petitioners seek clarification in light of the order made by another Single Judge in contempt proceedings - C.P. No.175/2008 and 200/2008 on 5.5.2014.3. The applicants are successful writ petitioners; they had approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) 1164/1989 and 2252/1989 W.P.(C)1164 &...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Uma Kapoor and anr. Vs. Kapil Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: August 19, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: August 29, 2014 + FAO(OS) 363/2013 SMT. UMA KAPOOR & ANR. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.Prem Kumar, Advocate with Mr.Bhasker, Advocate versus KAPIL AGGARWAL Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.P.K.Verma, Advocate with Ms.S.Sood, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. On October 04, 2005 a development agreement was executed in writing. Uma Kapoor and her son Vivek Kapoor were referred to therein as the first party and Kapil Aggarwal was referred to therein as the second party. As per the agreement, the first party was the owner of property bearing No.18, Road No.78, Punjabi Bagh, ad-measuring 550 sq.yds. As per the agreement, the second party had to demolish the existing building and reconstruct the same using his own funds. He had to pay `2,10,00,000/(Rupees Two Crores Ten Lacs only) to the first party. Aft...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:29. 08.2014 + W.P.(C) 5519/2014 DR. A.K. SINGH ..... Petitioner Through :Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Sh. Shyam Sundar Rai, Advocate, for Resp. Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % C.M. NO.10961/2014 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 5519/2014 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 09.05.2014 in O.A. No.85/2013; he had sought for quashing of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for alleged major misconduct in regard to an action which is subject matter of criminal proceedings. W.P.(C) 5519/2014 Page 1 2. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 17.07.2006, which inter alia alleged as follows:It is alleged that Shri A.K. Singh, being the Incharge of...
Tag this Judgment!Bharti Papnai Pandey and ors. Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:29. 08.2014 % W.P.(C) 5518/2014 & C.M. No.10960/2014 BHARTI PAPNAI PANDEY & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through : Sh. Ashok Agarwal and Ms. Nisha Tomar, Advocates, for the petitioners and interveners. versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel for DSSSB Sh. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate, for R4 & 5, SDMC/NDMC. Mr. Rajesh Singh, Standing Counsel for R-6 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) dated 28.05.2014 in O.A. No.2848/2013, wherein they had sought for a direction to the respondents, viz. the three Municipal Corporations i.e. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, South Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal Corporation (collectively referred to as the MCDs) that general age rel...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kanagasabhavathy Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Lim ...
Court: Delhi
$~31. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.5536/2014 Date of decision:29. h August, 2014 P. KANAGASABHAVATHY ..... Petitioner Through Mr. S. Mahendran, Advocate. versus INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED (IREDA) & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. ENDLAW SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): CM No.13752/2014 Exemption application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.5536/2014 The present writ petition by P. Kanagasabhavathy, impugns order dated 21st July, 2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (Appellate Tribunal, for short). By the said order, the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed application seeking condonation of delay of 733 days, in filling of the appeal.2. The respondent No.1 herein Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA, for short) had initiated recovery proceedings under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and F...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Kumar Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation
Court: Delhi
$~R-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: July 21, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on: August 29, 2014 + RFA (OS) No.93/2010 KRISHAN KUMAR AGGARWAL & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % JUDGMENT GITA MITTAL, J.1) The short question raised for consideration in the present appeal is whether mere writing of letters by a tenant to the landlord calling upon him to take the possession of the tenanted premises would tantamount to surrender /termination of the lease. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the further question which requires to be answered is whether merely writing such communications absolve the tenant of the liability to pay rent for the period till such time the premises were actually handed over to the landlord?.2) The factual narration giving rise to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:14. 08.2014 Pronounced on:29. 08.2014 + W.P.(C) 8100/2013 + W.P.(C) 8107/2013 MANOJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through : Sh. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Tarun Gupta, Sh. Shreyans Singhvi, Sh. Umrao Singh Rawat, Ms. Ekta Mehta and Ms. Joann Pudussery, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Ruchir Mishra with Sh. Sanjiv. K. Saxena, Advocates, for Resp. Nos. 1, 4 and 6 in W.P.(C) 8100/2013. Sh. Padma Kumar. S., Advocate, for Resp. No.7 in W.P.(C) 8100/2013 and Resp. No.4 in W.P.(C) 8107/2013. Sh. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for UPSC along with Ms. Aditi Gupta and Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Advocates. Sh. Prasant Sivarajan, for Sh. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate, for Resp. Nos. 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) 8107/2013. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT W.P.(C) 8100/2013 & 8107/2013 Page 1 % 1. In these two proceedings under Article 226 of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax - Viii, New Delhi Vs. Gulab Sundri Bapna
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No.198/2001 Reserved on:24. h July, 2014 Date of Decision:28. h August, 2014 % Commissioner of Income Tax - VIII, New Delhi ....Appellant Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel for Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus Gulab Sundri Bapna Through Respondent None CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue which relates to assessment year 1988-89, was admitted for hearing vide order dated 18th May, 2004 on the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the ITAT is justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.59,63,410/- being the amount of enhanced compensation received by the assessee during the year?.2. Whether the amount of Rs.59,63,410/received by the assessee during the previous year relevant to assessment year 1988-89 is taxable in view of the provisions of Section 45(5)(b) of the I.T. Act?.3. Whether the ITAT is correct in law t...
Tag this Judgment!