Delhi Court August 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 24 of about 306 results (0.008 seconds)Kuchhal Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes
Court: Delhi
$~4. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + SALES TAX APPEAL NO.33/2014 Date of decision:7. h August, 2014 KUCHHAL ENTERPRISES ..... Appellant Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES ..... Respondent Through Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Additional Standing Counsel, Ms. Bandana Shukla & Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates with Mr. Rajeev, VATO. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to frame the following substantial question of law:Whether Appellate Tribunal Value Added Tax was justified and correct in directing the appellant-assessee to deposit 10% of the penalty amount as a precondition for hearing the appeal?.2. With the consent of the parties, we have heard arguments on the aforesaid question of law, which arises out of impugned order dated 16 th May, 2014. The appellant-assessee was at the relevant time engaged in the business of lubri...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision : August 07, 2014 + CRL.A. 101/2014 RAVI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Ajay Verma, Adv. DHCLSC versus STATE Represented by: .... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.B. 198/2014 Since we are proceeding to hear the appeal itself, instant application is dismissed. CRL.A. 101/2014 1. Ravi the maternal uncle of the unfortunate baby Babita (deceased) has been convicted for offence of her murder on the testimony of his own sister Poonam PW-8 vide the impugned judgment dated March 26, 2012 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 IPC and a fine of `2000 and a sentence of two months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC vide order on sentence dated March 31, 2012.2. Ravi assails the judgment on the ground that even if accepting the prosecution version neither any ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi Vs. M/S Vikas Chemicals
Court: Delhi
$~R-38 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:7. h August, 2014 + ITA112002 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI ..... Appellant Through Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Rupender Singhmar and Mr. Abhishekh Singh Baghel, Advocates. versus M/S VIKAS CHEMICALS ..... Respondent Through Mr. S.Krishnan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) In this appeal by the Revenue relating to assessment year 199293, by order dated 7th August, 2002, the following substantial question of law was admitted for hearing:Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs.45 lacs, paid by the assessee to the Customs authorities on account of redemption fine, was an allowable expenditure?.2. The respondent-assessee, a partnership firm, was engaged at the relevant time in manufacture of organic chemicals. Under an agreement dated 9th June, 1987 with M/s India Craft, the respon...
Tag this Judgment!State (Central Bureau of Investigation) Vs. R.P. Tiwari
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL. L.P. No.219 of 2006 [Now converted into Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2014 (to be registered and numbered by the Registry)]. STATE (CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) .... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Standing Counsel. versus R.P. TIWARI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Gosain, Mr. Harsh Bora, Ms. Rudrani Tyagi and Mr. Nikhil Ahjua, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER0708.2014 CRL.L.P. No.219 of 2006 1. The Petitioner, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 4th April 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge in RC No.43(A)/99 acquitting the Respondent for the offence under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).2. Leave granted. The leave petition is disposed of. Criminal Appeal No.of 2014 (to be numbered by the Registry) Background facts 3. The case of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sharad P.Jagtiani Vs. M/S.Edelweiss Securities Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: July 28, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: August 07, 2014 + FAO(OS) 188/2014 SHARAD P.JAGTIANI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Rakesh Mukhija, Advocate with Ms.Ira Gupta, Ms.Jasmine Detwani and Mr.Pulkit Sachdeva, Advocates versus M/S. EDELWEISS SECURITIES LTD. ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms.Indu Malhotra, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Apporva Bhumesh and Mr.Varun Singh, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Sharad P.Jagtiani filed a suit on the original side of this Court praying for a decree in sum of `46,71,768.29 (Rupees Forty Six Lacs Seventy One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Eight and Paisa Twenty Nine only) against M/s. Edelweiss Securities Ltd. on plea that representatives of Edelweiss met him with a request to open a brokerage account with the firm and to trade in the financial market through Edelweiss. He was assured 40% profit on trading...
Tag this Judgment!Vivekananda Kendra International and anr. Vs. N.P. Suri
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:12. 05.2014 Date of Decision:07. 08.2014 + CM (M) No.1027 of 2013 & CM No.15394 of 2013 VIVEKANANDA KENDRA INTERNATIONAL & ANR...... Petitioners Through: Mr. Alok Tiwari & Ms. Pragya, Advs. versus N.P. SURI Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Dev Rishi & Mr. Namit Suri, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.1. This petition impugns and order dated 18.7.2013 whereby the Trial Court had struck off the defence of the defendants/petitioners because the Written Statement had not been filed. The case of the petitioners is that notice in the suit was received by petitioner Nos.1 & 2 on 26th & 28th March, 2013, respectively. The Written Statement was required to be filed by 16.5.2013. However, it could not be filed since the authorisation for the same was to be obtained from the Head Office which is located in Kanyakumari. Furthermore the suit related to an old contract which had been closed more than three (3) years ago a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Rama Panel Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. S.Shankar and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: August 05, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: August 07, 2014 FAO(OS) 461/2013 S. SHANKAR & ANR. Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr.N.Srinivasan, Attorney versus M/S. RAMA PANELS PVT. LTD & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.D.K.Malhotra, Advocate with Mr.Rajesh Kumar Malhotra, Advocate FAO(OS) 47/2014 M/S. RAMA PANEL PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.D.K.Malhotra, Advocate with Mr.Rajesh Kumar Malhotra, Advocate versus S. SHANKAR & ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.N.Srinivasan, Attorney CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. S.Shankar and his wife Rajalakshmi are the owners of a flat at the rear of the first floor of property bearing Municipal No.M-78, Greater Kailash, part II, New Delhi. Sh.N.Srinivasan is the father of S.Shankar and holds a power of attorney in his favour executed by his son and his daughter-in-law and under s...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Kumar Diwedi and ors. Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
$~3 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 3086/2014 KRISHAN KUMAR DIWEDI & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajendera P. Sharma, Advocate with petitioners in person versus STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP with SI Anand Prakash, PS Khyala R-2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (ORAL) 1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying that FIR1152011 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Khyala, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled. The petitioners and the complainant, Vandana, who is also arrayed as respondent No.2 herein, are present.2. Issue notice.3. Counsel for the State, as well as the complainant/second respondent, enter appearance and accept notice.4. It is stated that the FIR in question came to be registered on 11.06.2011 as a result of certain m...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Digambar Singh Rana Vs. Sh. Janam Singh Dhariwal and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC REV No.210/2013 7th August, 2014 % SHRI DIGAMBAR SINGH RANA Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Sidharth Pandit, Advocate. VERSUS SH. JANAM SINGH DHARIWAL & ANR. Through: None. ...... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. No one appears for the respondents. No one appeared for the respondents even on 8.7.2014 and therefore they were proceeded exparte on that date.2. The present petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugns the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 15.5.2013 by which the respondents/tenants have been granted leave to defend. Leave to defend has been granted by making the following observations in para 4 of the impugned order and in which it is stated that two shops on the main road in property bearing No.H-193-B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi would be an alternative suitable accommo...
Tag this Judgment!Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:07. 08.2014 W.P.(C) 415/2014 & CM8232014 PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD. ..Petitioner versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..Respondent W.P.(C) 568/2014 & CM11512014 PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD. ..Petitioner versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..Respondent W.P.(C) 570/2014 & CM11542014 PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD. ..Petitioner versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..Respondent W.P.(C) 571/2014 & CM11552014 PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD. ..Petitioner versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WP(C) 415/2014 & Ors. W.P.(C) 575/2014 & CM11592014 ..Petitioner PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..Respondent W.P.(C) 576/2014 & CM11602014 ..Petitioner PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..Respondent Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Petitioner : Mr Deepak Chopra, Mr Harpreet Singh, Mr Amit Srivastava, Mr Piyush K. Singh and Mr Rishi Khanna. For the Respondent : Mr Rohit...
Tag this Judgment!