Delhi Court August 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 14 of about 306 results (0.030 seconds)Madhukar Khosla Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:12. 05.2014 Pronounced on:14. 08.2014 + W.P.(C) 1320/2014, C.M. NO.2744/2014 & 2745/2014 MADHUKAR KHOSLA ..... Petitioner Through : Sh. Salil Kapoor with Sh. Vikas Jain and Sh. Varun Gupta, Advocates. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through : Sh. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Ruchir Bhatia, Jr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % C.M. No.2745/2014 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 1320/2014, C.M. NO.2744/2014 1. The petitioner challenges the notice dated 25.03.2013 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (the Act) proposing to re-open the assessment for Assessment Year 2006-07 @ `1,12,760/completed under Section 143 (3) by the Assessing Officer (AO). W.P.(C) 1320/2014 Page 1 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed income tax returns on 30.10.2006 for AY20060...
Tag this Judgment!Narender Kumar @ Pappu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: August 14, 2014 + CRL.A. 816/2012 NARENDER KUMAR @ PAPPU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with Insp.Joginder Singh P.S.Patel Nagar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Raghubir Singh PW-7 was residing at house No.D-222, Gali No.21, Sanjay Park, Baljeet Nagar, in the year 2008. Returning to his house at 8.00 P.M. on June 09, 2008 he saw a lady in a pool of blood lying in the gali with a crowd nearby. From his mobile phone having No.9811514730 he informed the police control room of said fact which in turn passed on the information to PS Patel Nagar where ASI Rishipal PW-10 on duty as the duty officer reduced the same into writing vide DD No.42-A, Ex.PW-10/A at 8.10 P.M. He handed over copy of DD No.42-A to SI Chander Prakash PW-18 who, accompanied b...
Tag this Judgment!Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of I ...
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:14. 08.2014 WP (C) No.414 of 2014 & CM No.822 of 2014 PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR Respondents WITH WP (C) No.566 of 2014 & CM No.1149 of 2014 PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR Respondents AND + WP (C) No.567 of 2014 & CM No.1150 of 2014 PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR Respondents AND + WP (C) No.572 of 2014 & CM No.1156 of 2014 PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR Respondents AND + WP (C) No.573 of 2014 & CM No.1157 of 2014 PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR Respondents AND + WP (C) No.574 of 2014 & CM No.1158 of 2014 PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT C...
Tag this Judgment!Kewal Krishan Kumar and anr Vs. Rudi Roller Flour Mills
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:13. h August, 2014 + CS (OS) No.393/ 2003 KEWAL KRISHAN KUMAR AND ANR. Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. M.K. Miylani, Advocate Versus RUDI ROLLER FLOUR MILLS Through ..... Defendant Ex-parte CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL1 This suit for perpetual injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, damages and rendition of accounts has been filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant alleging that the trade mark SHAKTI BHOG was adopted by M/s Kumar Dal Mills in the year 1975. M/s Kumar Dal Mills was a partnership firm of Plaintiff No.1 and his two brothers Jagmohan Kumar and Shri Harbans Lal Kumar. The two brothers retired from the firm and Plaintiff No.1 became the sole proprietor in respect of the trade mark SHAKTI BHOG. Plaintiff No.2 was incorporated as a company whereof Plaintiff No.1 is the Managing Director since its inception till the filing of this suit and even till recording his evidence as PW-1.2. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chopra Vs. Hdfc and anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:13. h August, 2014 + IA No.12655/2014 (Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC) in CS(OS) 2041/2014 SATISH CHOPRA Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Ranjit Singh, Advocate versus HDFC & ANR Through: .... Defendant Mrs. Pallavi Deepika, Advocate for D-1. Mr. Rakesh Mukhija, Advocate for D-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL1 The case of the Plaintiff is that with his hard work, he had established a company, namely M/s. Haryana City Gas Distribution Limited, having its registered office at E-71, SKN Office, South Extension Part-1, New Delhi and its corporate office at A-107, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Sector 44, Gurgaon, Haryana.2. By virtue of this application, the Plaintiff seeks following relief:(i) Restrain Defendant no.1 from allowing/resuming the operation of current a/c bearing No.04402020001733 in HDFC Bank Branch Naraina, New Delhi during the pendency of the present suit. 3. It is averred that out of love and affection, Defendant no.2, who is ...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. ShahIn Rustam and anr Vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University a ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA5262014 MS. SHAHIN RUSTAM & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate. versus INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. R.N. Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Ms.Sana Ansari, Advocate for Respondent No.6. Mr.Akshay Makhija, Advocate for Respondent No.7. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG ORDER1308.2014 : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.(Oral) CM No.13182/2014 Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. LPA5262014 and CM No.13181/2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 23, 2014 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court declining to entertain the writ petition filed by the Appellants and disposing of the same with liberty to the Appellants to either file a writ petition in the High Court for seeking appropriate directions to the Respondent No.3/National Council for Teacher Education and Respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate Vs. the Principal Secretary, Prime Ministe ...
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:13. 08.2014 WP(C) 4653/2013 N GOPALASWAMI & ORS ... Petitioners versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent No.1 For the Respondent No.2 : Mr Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr Prashant Bhushan and Mr Pranav Sachdeva : Mr G. E. Vahanvati, AG with Mr Paras Kuhad and Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr Jatan Singh, Mr Sumeet Pushkarna, Gaurav Sharma, Mr Soayib Qureshi, Mr Kartikey Mahajan, Mr Devdutt Kamat, Mr Anoopam Prasad, Ms Tara Narula, Mr Nizam Pasha and Ms Sania Husaini : Mr Amit Sibal with Mr Amrinder Singh AND + WP(C) 4619/2013 MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE ... Petitioner versus THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PRIME MINISTER OFFICE AND OTHERS ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Petitioner-in-person with Ms Suman For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr Paras Kuhad and Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASGs with Mr Jatan Singh, Mr Sume...
Tag this Judgment!Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
$~R-58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:13. h August, 2014 + ITA562002 DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. Simran Mehta, Advocate. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX..... Respondent Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) This appeal by the assessee-Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. relates to assessment year 1982-83 and was admitted to hearing vide order dated 15th July, 2002, on the following substantial question of law:Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,99,000/- and Rs.49,750/-, respectively made by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals)2. The assessment for the assessment year 1982-83 was completed under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) vide order dated 29th March, 1985. Subsequently, it was reopened under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act and return declari...
Tag this Judgment!Ntpc Limited Vs. M/S V U Seemon and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON:08. 11.2013 PRONOUNCED ON:13. 08.2014 % FAO(OS) 489/2009 NTPC LIMITED ... Appellant Through: Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yakesh Anand and Ms. Sonam Anand, Advocates. Versus M/S V U SEEMON AND ANR. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Jayant. K. Mehta, Mr. Abhay Anand Jena and Ms. Bina Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.% In these proceedings, the appellant, National Thermal Power Ltd (hereafter NTPC), is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.08.2009 of a learned Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) 1393A/1999, CS (OS) 1444-A/1999 and I.A. 9932/1999. The impugned judgment rejected NTPC's challenge to an award, preferred under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The brief facts are that on 25.05.1987, NTPC accepted the bid of M/s V.U. Seemon (the Respondent, hereafter the Contractor ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd Vs. M/S Mankind Food and Beverage Pvt Ltd and a ...
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision :13th August, 2014 % + CS(OS) 2385/2012 M/S MANKIND PHARMA LTD .... Plaintiff Through : Mr. Miloy Dasgupta, Advocate versus M/S MANKIND FOOD & BEVERAGE PVT LTD & ANR Through : None ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademarks, delivery up and damages. Summons were issued in the suit on 08.08.2012. Defendants entered appearance on 18.10.2012. An ad interim injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff vide order dated 12.11.2013.2. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 for appointment of a Local Commissioner as the defendants, despite the order of injunction, continued to sell impugned products with deceptively similar registered trade mark as that of the plaintiff. Vide order dated 24.01.2014 a Local Commissioner was appointed. After ...
Tag this Judgment!