Delhi Court August 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 3 of about 306 results (0.019 seconds)Sh. Santanu Sur Vs. Gail India Limited
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:27. h August, 2014. % + LPA No.531/2014 & CM.No.13281/2014 (for condonation of 11 days delay in refiling) SH. SANTANU SUR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath with Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja, Advs. versus GAIL INDIA LIMITED Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. for Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J1 This intra court appeal impugns the order dated 22 nd May, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal in limine of W.P.(C) No.3315/2014 filed by the appellant.2. The appellant had filed the said writ petition, i) seeking a direction to the respondent to release the agreement/bond money of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum; ii) for setting aside the reply dated 5th October, 2012 of the respondent; and iii) for a direction to the respondent to make the payment of salary amount of ten days from 4th to 12th Nove...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Bansal Vs. Monika Gupta
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:27. h August, 2014 + C.S. (OS) No.503/ 2013 .. Plaintiff SANJAY BANSAL Through: Mr. K. K. Makhija, Advocate with Mr. Anuj Arora, Advocate. Versus MONIKA GUPTA .. Defendant Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL G.P. MITTAL. J.(ORAL) 1. The brief facts of the case at hand are that an Agreement to Sell dated 07.05.2012 was entered into between the Defendant (Vendor) and the Plaintiff (Vendee) in respect of property situated at Plot No.68, measuring 50.40 sq. mt., PocketII, BlockG, Sector11, Rohini, New Delhi110085 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) for a total sale consideration of Rs. 80,00,000 (Rupees Eighty Lakhs) to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. Out of the total sale consideration, Rs. 50,00,000 (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) was paid on the same day by the Plaintiff and the receipt in respect of the same was also issued by the Defendant. The remaining consideration of Rs. 30,00,000 (Rupees Thirty La...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raghubir Singh Garg
Court: Delhi
$~5. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No.1420/2010 Date of decision:27. h August, 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus RAGHUBIR SINGH GARG ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): The following substantial question of law is framed:Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the block assessment proceedings under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were invalid as reasons/satisfaction note was recorded, after passing of the block assessment order under Section 158BC, by the Assessing Officer of the person searched2. Block assessment order for the period 1st April, 1990 to 20th August, 2000 was passed on 30th August, 2005. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) has held that the block assessment order is invalid and void.3. One Mr. Manoj...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Jindal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:27. 08.2014 + + + W.P.(C) 8154/2013 D.P. JINDAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 331/2014, C.M. NO.1756/2014 BIRENDRA KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 2284/2014, C.M.NO.4802/2014 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus BIRENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ..... Respondent Through: Sh. C. Mohan Rao and Sh. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates, for petitioners in Item No.9 and respondents in Item No.7 and 10. Sh. Sourabh Ahuja, Advocate, for Resp. Nos. 6 to 10, in Item No.9. Sh. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate, for Resp. Nos. 1 to 3 in Item Nos. 7 and 9. Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for petitioner in Item No.10. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The present petitions challenge an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 05.09.2013 in O.A. No.3596/2011. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mantola Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Delhi
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:27. h August, 2014. + INCOME TAX APPEAL5692013 MANTOLA CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) Heard the learned counsel for the parties in this appeal, which relates to assessment 2008-09 and impugns order dated 28th September, 2012, by which it has been held that the interest income, earned by the appellant-assessee, from the fixed deposits did not qualify for the exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short).2. The appellant-assessee, a cooperative thrift and credit society, was engaged in the activity of providing credit facilities to its members. However, the finding recorded by the Assessing O...
Tag this Judgment!Virjesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~21. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.5453/2014 Date of decision:27. h August, 2014 VIRJESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Hashmat Nabi, Advocate. versus KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): CM No.10840/2014 Exemption application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) No.5453/2014 The petitioner is defendant No.2 in the original proceedings initiated by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (Bank, for short) in OA No.253/2011 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi. In the said proceedings, the petitioner herein has been described as a co-borrower with AR Industries Private Limited. Two brothers of the petitioner Devender Kumar and Subhash Chand Aggarwal, reside in the same property where the petitioner was/is residing, are the co-guarantors.2. The petitioner has filed his defence and submitted ...
Tag this Judgment!Pt. Munshi Ram and Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authorit ...
Court: Delhi
$~R-8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Pronounced on:27. h August, 2014 + RFA(OS) 87/2010 PT. MUNSHI RAM & ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR...... Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR GITA MITTAL, J ( ORAL) 1. The appellant assails the judgment dated 31st May, 2010 in CS(OS) No.1288/1997 whereby the learned Single Judge held that the appellant was entitled to damages which were quantified in the sum of `8,87,783.55/- with costs, counsels fee having been quantified at `75,000/-. We are informed that the respondent has paid the decreetal amount including the costs which was awarded by the impugned judgment and decree.2. The appellant had filed the suit initially praying for a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction, in which an amendment was permitted during the pendency of the suit to incorporate prayer ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Payal Visions Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ms. Radhika Chaudhary
Court: Delhi
$~ 51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1701/2008 Date of decision :27. h August, 2014 % M/S PAYAL VISIONS PVT. LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.K. Dutta and Mr.Manish Kumar Srivastava, Advocates versus MS. RADHIKA CHAUDHARY Through CORAM: ..... Defendant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of damages and mesne profit.2. Prior to the filing of the present suit, plaintiff had instituted a suit against the defendant for recovery of possession, which was decreed by the trial Court and the order of the trial court was reversed in appeal by the High Court. The Supreme Court vide order and judgment dated 20.9.2012 has upheld the order of the trial court. Possession of the suit property was handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff on 12.12.2012.3. As per the plaint the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by a legal notice dated 17.3.2003. The last paid rent of the premises was Rs.57,600/- per month...
Tag this Judgment!Nanika Intrnational Vs. Praveen Gupta and Associates
Court: Delhi
$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:27. h August, 2014 % + CS(OS) 5/2008 NANIKA INTRNATIONAL Through: Mr. Nitish Kush, Advocate .... Plaintiff versus PRAVEEN GUPTA & ASSOCIATES 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 trademark, passing off, rendition of accounts of profit, delivery up and damages.2. Summons in the suit and notice in the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2, were issued on 04.01.2008. On an application for appointment of local commissioner filed by the plaintiff, a local commissioner was appointed. Defendant no.1 entered appearance on 08.04.2008 and sought time to file written statement and reply to the interim application. Further, on the same day counsel for the plaintiff submitted that he does not wish to get defendant no.2 served as he is just a proforma party.3. Defendant no.1 filed i...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax-ii Vs. M.G.Share and Stock Pvt.Ltd.
Court: Delhi
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA1772014 Date of Decision:26. h August, 2014 % THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr.Standing Counsel versus M.G.SHARE & STOCK PVT.LTD. Through: ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(Oral) This appeal by the Revenue in the case of MG Shares & Stock Pvt. Ltd., relates to assessment year 2006-07 and impugns order dated 8th August, 2013 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short). The issue raised is whether short term capital gains of Rs.68,06,698/on sale of shares, should be assessed as income from business.2. The respondent-assessee during the relevant time was a registered sub-broker with SEBI and had filed return declaring income of Rs.89,47,150/-.3. Learned counsel for the appellant Revenue has emphasised and stressed that the respondent assessee was a sub-broker and was dealing in shares and, ther...
Tag this Judgment!