Delhi Court October 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.
Hari Prakash Vs. Vipin Kumar Aggarwal and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
Sunita Gupta, J. 1. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the award dated 24.02.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court XIX, (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in LIR D No.154/08 whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed without granting him any relief. 2. Brief facts of the case, as borne out from the petition are that the petitioner filed a claim under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ID Act') against the management inter alia on the allegations that he was employed with the management since 01.10.1987 as Feeder Man on last drawn wages of Rs.4900 per month and performed his duty honestly and diligently to the satisfaction of the management without any complaint, however, the management was not providing him the statutory benefits and instead the management was looking for an opportunity to oust him from service. On 01.12.2007 while he was o...
United RWAS Joint Action and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. The common questions involved in these proceedings which have been heard together are:- (I) Whether under Section 20(1) of the Comptroller and Auditor Generals(Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971 (CAG Act) the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) can be requested to undertake the audit of the accounts of the Distribution Companies (DISCOMs), entrusted with the work of distribution and retail of electricity in Delhi pursuant to the unbundling of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), which are public-private partnerships in which 51% shares are held by private entities and 49% shares are held by a company wholly owned by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD). (II) If the answer to the aforesaid question is in affirmative, whether the said decision to request such audit is to be of the Administrator, acting on his own, or on the aid and advice of the Council of the Ministers of GNCTD. (III) If the answer to the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax-7 Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The Revenue has preferred these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act') impugning a common order dated 26th August, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal') in a batch of six appeals and six cross objections relating to six assessment years (AYs), being AYs 2003-04 to 2008-09. The aforesaid appeals before the Tribunal, were filed by the Revenue (being ITA Nos. 4232-4237/Del/2012) impugning a common order of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) dated 17th May, 2012 partly allowing appeals of the Assessee in respect of the assessment orders (all dated 31st December, 2010) passed by the Assessing Officer (hereafter AO') under Section 153C read with Section 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue was aggrieved inasmuch as the CIT(A) had set aside the addition to the total income of the Assessee made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the purchases as declared by the Assessee as well as the A...
M/s. Saini Construction Company Vs. Delhi Jal Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant before the learned Single Judge. We shall be referring to the parties by their nomenclature in the suit. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, relevant facts for the purposes of adjudication of the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 66,72,626/- (Rupees Sixty Six Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Six only) together with interest @ 15% per annum on the original side of this Court against the defendant: Delhi Jal Board. 3. Concise, case of the plaintiff was:-a) On May 10, 2006, the plaintiff a sole proprietorship concern was awarded work of providing and laying 800 mm diameter rising main/feeder main from Vikas Marg to Vishwakarma Park (Geeta Colony), UGR and BPS in Trans Yamuna Areavide order No.1/2006-2007 by the defendant.b) As per the contract entered into between the parties, the stipulated date of start of work was May 22, 2006 and work was to ...
Army Welfare Education Society and Another Vs. Manju Nautiyal and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. LPA No.223/2015, LPA No.225/2015 and LPA No.227/2015, lay a challenge to a common judgment and order dated February 25, 2015, allowing W.P.(C) No.1944/2014, W.P.(C) No.2112/2014 and W.P.(C) No.1845/2014 filed by Manju Nautiyal, Shayam Dutt and Anita Soharu Guleria respectively : the contesting respondent No.1 in the three appeals. LPA No.314/2015 lays a challenge to a judgment and order dated April 27, 2015 allowing W.P.(C) No.6180/2013 filed by Renu Barrot : the contesting respondent No.1 in the said appeal. LPA No.347/2015, LPA No.348/2015, LPA No.353/2015, LPA No.355/2015 and LPA No.356/2015 lay a challenge to a common judgment and order dated April 29, 2015 allowing W.P.(C) No.5191/2014, W.P.(C) No.5190/2015, W.P.(C) No.5189/2014, W.P.(C) No.5809/2014 and W.P.(C) No.5344/2014 filed by Ravi Kumar, Vikram Singh, Shatrughan Thakur, Sheeja Benoy and Bir Singh respectively : the contesting respondent No.1 in the five appeals. The appeals are being decided by a c...
The Management of M/s. Amalgamated Components (P) Ltd. Vs. Shri Radhey ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
I.S. Mehta, J. 1. The present petitioner, i.e., The Management of M/s Amalgamated Components (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-management') has preferred the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned Award dated 13.05.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal “ II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Industrial Adjudicator') in I.D. No. 979/90. 2. The brief facts as stated are that the respondent-workman, i.e., Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma joined the petitioner-management as turner w.e.f. 18.03.1983 and was drawing wages of Rs. 1055/- per month as a skilled labour/worker. During his engagement with the petitioner-management, it is alleged that the respondent-workman was late in reporting for his duties and a letter dated 20.03.1989 was issued to the respondent levelling charges of late attendance. The respondent-workman demanded Hindi translation of the a...
Commissioner of Income Tax -Central I Vs. Indo Arab Air Services and A ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. ITA No.292/2015 is an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') against an order dated 18th June, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.5415/DEL/2011 in [Indo Arab Air Services v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 151 ITD 744/51 taxmann.com 349 (Delhi)] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2002-03. 2. ITA No.299/2015 is an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Act against an order dated 22nd October, 2014 passed by the ITAT in ITA No.5414/DEL/2012 for the AY 2002-03. The Assessee in ITA No.299/2015, RL Travels, is a sister concern of the Assessee in ITA No.292/2015, M/s. Indo Arab Air Services ('Indo Arab'). Both Assessees are in the travel agency business. Since the question involved in both cases is more or less similar, the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The common question that arises for consideration in both cases, as urged by the Revenue, is whether in the facts and circ...
Rockland Hotels Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission Principal Be ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2015
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J 1. These 13 Writ Petitions arise out of a common Judgment dated 23.04.2014 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Settlement Commission), in a batch of 25 settlement applications filed under section 245C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). Out of the 25 applications, 12 applications were admitted and allowed to be proceeded with under section 245D(1) of the act and 13 applications were held to be not fit for admission as having been filed by persons who were not covered in the definition of related parties as per explanation to sub-section (1) of section 245C of the Act for the purposes of clause (ia) of the Proviso to sub-section (1) and have been dismissed. 2. The question that arises for consideration in these petitions is whether the petitioner in each of these petitions is a related party of the respective specified person under section 245C(1)(ia) of the Act ? 3. Before adverting ...
Kusum Kumria and Others Vs. Pharma Venture (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2015
Gita Mittal, J. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., Satya(truth) and Ahimsa(non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system.... In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice wi...
Vishwanath Khanna Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VIII
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2015
1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 29,22,692/- from the defendants with interest. The defendants are Departments of Income Tax. The cause of action which is pleaded in the plaint is that a search and seizure operation was carried out on 4.2.1995 by the defendants in the office and business premises of the plaintiff, who is the proprietor of his firm M/s Foto Traders. In terms of the search and seizure operation, total silver of 7003.859 kgs (222 bars) was seized from the plaintiff alongwith cash of Rs. 49,86,500/-. The seized silver was valued at Rs. 4,44,66,395/- at that time and since the value of silver which was seized by the Income Tax Department would fluctuate during the pendency of assessment proceedings to be taken, hence, plaintiff had filed a writ petition in this Court being CWP No. 4767/1998 for return of the silver bars, and in this writ petition by an Order dated 08.10.1998, this Court directed the defendants to release the seized silver to the pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »