Delhi Court January 2015 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Raj Kumar Jain Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:14. h November, 2014 Date of Decision:8. h January, 2015 % + CRL. M.C. 1868/2014 RAJ KUMAR JAIN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH JUDGMENT1 By way of the present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner calls in question the order dated 21.03.2014 passed by learned Special Judge-03 (PC Act), New Delhi and order on charge dated 29.03.2014 for the offence under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that on 06.05.2005, on the basis of source information an FIR beari...
M/S M.S. Shoes East Ltd. Vs. Pressman Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:14. 10.2014 Judgment delivered on:08. 01.2015 % + IA No.13652/2013 in CS(OS) 2094/2012 M/S M.S. SHOES EAST LTD. ....Plaintiff Versus PRESSMAN LTD. .....Defendant ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Plaintiff : Mr Pavan Sachdeva, CMD of the Plaintiff. For the Defendant : Mr Biswajit Choudhury, Advocate. CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J IA No.13652/2013 (u/s 5 of Limitation Act by defendant) 1. This is an application preferred by the defendant for condonation of delay in preferring objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short the 1940 Act). It is averred that the applicant was earlier known by the name Pressman Limited and is now known as Nucent Estates Ltd. By an order dated 14.10.2014, I had allowed the non-applicants/ plaintiffs application bearing No.12772/2012. This application was filed under Section 28 of the 1940 Act. While allowing the said application, I h...
Nina Khanna and Ors Vs. Narayan Parwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
7 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 367/2012 NINA KHANNA AND ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Sonali Chopra, Advocate. versus NARAYAN PARWAL ..... Defendant Through: Mr. J.M. Bari, Advocate for defendant. Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mridul Yadav and Ms. Rupali Kapur, Advocates for M/s. Unique Buildwell (India) Pvt. Ltd. Date of Decision:08. h January, 2015 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) I.A. 21849/2014 (condonation of delay) in O.A. 239/2014 Keeping in view the averments in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, present application stands allowed. O.A. 239/2014 1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 27th September, 2014 passed by the Joint Registrar dismissing the appellantdefendants application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of M/s. Unique Buildwell (India) Pvt. Ltd. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:- ...............H...
Ved Prakash Vs. Suraj Saxena and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 341/2014 & CM173962014 (stay) Decided on:8. h January, 2015 % VED PRAKASH Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Rajat Aneja, Mr. Vijay Kasana, Advs. versus SURAJ SAXENA & ORS Through ..... Respondent Mr. Puneet Goel, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) CM173952014 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CAVEAT9292014 Counsel as above appears for the respondent/ caveator, hence caveat is discharged. RC.REV. 341/2014 & CM173962014 (stay) 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 1st July, 2014 passed by the learned Rent Controller allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent Smt. Suraj Mukhi the petitioner prefers the present petition. Smt. Suraj Mukhi, wife of late Gopi Chand had filed an eviction petition No.E-74/2011 before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises situated at plot No.209, P.O. Block Krishna Nagar, Delhi i.e. two rooms and one store room on the ground floor wh...
Shree Bhagirathi Ganga Educational and Cultural Soci Vs. Delhi Develop ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) No.4394/2014 Decided on :8. h January, 2015 SHREE BHAGIRATHI GANGA EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL SOCIETY (REGD.) Petitioner Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor & Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocates. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan & Mr. Arush Bhandari, Advocates for the DDA. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner society for issuing demand-cum-allotment letter of a plot measuring 800 square meters in Block E, Sector 16, Rohini, for setting up of a nursery school.2. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner society is stated to have applied for allotment of a land for nursery school vide application No.3497 on 19.3.2001. On 12.4.2001, the Directorate of Education is purported to have sent a letter to the respondent/DDA recommending the case of the petitioner society for establishment of a nursery school. On 3...
the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Bhushan Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
$~46 to 49, 53, 55 to 62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:8. h January, 2015 + ITA6482009 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant versus BHARAT BHUSHAN JAIN + ..... Respondent ITA6692009 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant versus ANIL KUMAR BANSAL + ..... Respondent ITA6702009 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant versus ANIL KUMAR BANSAL + ..... Respondent ITA7112009 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant versus ITA6482009,669/2009,670/2009,711/2009,1075/2009,1318/2009,196/2010,198/2010, 279/2010,777/2010,1145/2010,1313/2010 and 1326/2010 Page 1 SADHU RAM AGGARWAL + ..... Respondent ITA10752009 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX XIII ..... Appellant versus BHARAT BHUSHAN JAIN + ..... Respondent ITA13182009 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant versus SUNIL JAIN + ..... Respondent ITA1962010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant versus ANU AGGARWAL + ..... Respondent ITA1982010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... App...
Bhagwan Sahai Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.132/2011 Date of decision :08th January, 2015 % BHAGWAN SAHAI Through : STATE . APPELLANT Shri Mukesh Sharma, Advocate, Shri Raj Kumar, Advocate, Shri Tomar, Advocate and Shri Manish Tanwar, Advocate .. RESPONDENT Through : Shri Sunil Sharma, APP for the State. CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SISTANI HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 374 Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of conviction dated 18th December, 2010 and order on sentence dated 24th December, 2010, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay Rs.10,000/- as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine Rs.2,000/and in de...
Srishti Pandey Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:08. 01.2015 W.P.(C) No.3402/2014 & CM No.7007/2014 SRISHTI PANDEY ..... Petitioner versus IDBI BANK LTD & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr K. Rajendran and Mr S. C. Singh. For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Bhatt and Mr Abhishek Anand. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner impugns an order dated 13.01.2014 passed in appeal by the District and Sessions Judge under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereafter the Act).2. The petitioner was allotted a residential unit being flat No.352-D, Pocket-2, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, New Delhi-110091 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) by virtue of being an employee of Industrial Development Bank of India (arrayed as respondent no.2.) The petitioner was removed from the services pursuant to the disciplinary action taken against her for alle...
Cit Vs. Modi Xerox India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :08. 01.2015 + ITA6622012, C.M. APPL.19726/2012 CIT ..... Appellant Through : Ms. Rubal Maini, Advocate. versus MODI XEROX INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Kavita Jha and Sh. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 13.06.2008 in ITA No.3116/(ASR)/2004.2. The appeal was disposed of on an earlier occasion, on 01.02.2011, on the basis of a direction to the revenue to approach the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) again by reframing the questions urged. The order permitted the withdrawal of the appeal, ITA Nos.1319-21/2009 and permitted the revenue to amend the questions of law. It is in these circumstances that the present common appeal has been filed.3. The revenue urges the following questions of law in support o...
Ms. Jharna Banerjee and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.1337/2014& CONN. 8th January, 2015 % + W.P.(C) No.1337/2014 MS. JHARNA BANERJEE & ANR. Through: ......Petitioners Ms.Padmini Gupta, Advocate. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: + ...... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr.Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Ms.Astha Jain, Advocate for UOI. Mr.Siddharth Dias, Advocate for FPAI. Ms.Zubeda Begumm, Standing Counsel for GNCTD/Directorate of Family Welfare. W.P.(C) No.1817 /2014 DR. MANGALA KHATTAR & ORS. Through: ......Petitioners Ms.Meenu Mainee, Advocate. VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF NCT, DELHI & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Ms.Sidhi Arora, Advocate for UOI. Mr.Siddharth Dias, Advocate for FPAI. Ms.Zubeda Begumm, Standing Counsel for GNCTD/Directorate of Family Welfare. + W.P.(C) No.2506 /2014 SH. SUBHASH CHAND & ANR. Through: ......Petitioners Ms.Padmini Gupta, Advocate. VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF NCT & ORS. W.P.(C)No.1337/2014 & conn. matters Through: + Mr. Manish Moh...
- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »