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.
Rahul @ Puneet @ Philip Thr. Parokar Rajinder and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. This case may be described as one of murder over paaparh (a savoury Indian snack made with round flattened wafer-thin dough, generally served after roasting or frying). The four appellants herein have been held guilty, primarily on the basis of ocular evidence, on the allegations that they, on feeling infuriated over not being timely served with the savoury, in spite of demand and wait, in furtherance of their common intention knifed four persons, one after the other, one of the wounded ones dying as a result. 2. The venue of the incident that occurred statedly at about 10.30 PM on 11.10.2008, which is subject matter of the case from which these appeals arise, was an eatery run in the name of Zaika Bar and Restaurant ?, Community Centre, Karkardooma, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the restaurant ?), within the jurisdiction of Police Station Anand Vihar. Four persons received stab injuries, they being Shahid (who resultantly died), Sheikh Pappu (PW-4), Mohd. Jaffar ...
PR.Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
1. This appeal by the Revenue is against an order dated 18th February, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No.1068/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2008-09. 2. The Assessee filed its return of income for the AY in question on 16th September, 2008. The said return was accepted by the Department and an acknowledgement was issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. 3. It appears that subsequently the return was picked up for scrutiny. After recording reasons, notice apparently was issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the Assessee on 30th March, 2010 under Section 148 of the Act. It is not in dispute that this notice was never served on the Assessee. 4. Subsequently, on 1st October, 2010, a notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act by the AO stating that there were certain points in connection with the return filed for the AY in question on which the AO "would like some further information". The date for the Assessee to attend the AO's office was...
Tek Chand (Since Deceased) Thr Legal Heirs and Others Vs. Delhi Develo ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
Vipin Sanghi, J. (Open Court): 1. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2014 passed in RCA No.34/13/09, whereby the First Appellate Court, namely, ADJ (W), Tis Hazari Courts dismissed the first appeal preferred by the appellants/LRs of the original plaintiff. The said appeal had been preferred to assail the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2009 passed in Suit No.969/2006 preferred by the original plaintiff Sh. Tek Chand (since deceased), whereby the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction had been dismissed by the Trial Court, namely, the Civil Judge (W), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 2. The original plaintiff had preferred the said suit on the premise that he was in possession of a plot admeasuring 1200 sq. yds out of Khasra No.27/17/1667 shown in red in the site plan annexed with the plaint. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession for over 50 years. He claimed to have constructed a house on the plot, and had claimed to be in peaceful enjoy...
Kumar Saumitra and Another Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
Suresh Kait, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No 34/2014, whereby while upholding the judgment dated 28.04.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in CC No.71/1/13, the said petition was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the intervening night of 06/07.08.2012, petitioners were going on a motor bike and hit by a Suv Car at about 11:00 PM. Both the petitioners suffered injuries due to the above mentioned road accident. They reached at AIIMS Hospital, where they were told that they would be treated in JPN Centre, New Delhi. As per complaint, the petitioners waited in JPN Trauma Centre till 1:00 AM but neither they were attended by any doctor nor given any first aid as all the doctors and staff of the said...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Sudhir Budhraja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. This is the Revenue's appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act'), against an order dated 30th July, 2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter Tribunal') in ITA No. 1124/Del/2001. The aforesaid appeal (ITA No. 1124/Del/2001) was preferred by the Assessee impugning an order dated 12th March, 2001 passed by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter CIT(A)'] rejecting the Assessee's appeal against an assessment order dated 27th March, 1998 passed by the Assessing Officer (hereafter AO') in respect of Assessment Year 1995-96. 2. The principal controversy involved in the present appeal relates to an addition of Rs. 1,87,38,100/- made by the AO to the taxable income of the Assessee under Sections 68 and 69 of the Act. This addition was made as the AO held that the Assessee had been unable to establish his claim that a sum of US $ 6 lacs received by him was a gift. The Assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) against the said ...
S.K. Trading Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. WP(C) 9508/2015 and CM No.22311/2015(stay) 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 02.09.2015, whereby the Commissioner of Customs has extended the period for issuance of show-cause notice for confiscation of the goods under proviso to Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ?) . 2. The ground is that under proviso to Section 110(2), the power can be exercised by the Commissioner prior to the expiry of initial period of six months stipulated under section 110(2) and in case the said power is not exercised within the stipulated period of six months, the seized goods are liable to be released. It is contended that the goods were seized on 03.03.2015 and the stipulated period would expire on 02.09.2015. By the impugned order dated 02.09.2015, the period of six months has been extended from 04.09.2015. It is submitted that since the period expired on 02.09.2015 and the extension is from 04.09.2015, the period has lapsed and the go...
Satya Developers Pvt Ltd. and Another Vs. Pearey Lal Bhawan Associatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Pearey Lal Bhawan Association (in short PLBA') filed two suits being CS(OS) Nos. 1016/2008 and 1018/2008 against Satya Developers Pvt. Ltd. (in short Satya') whereas M/s Meattles Private Limited (in short Meattles') filed CS(OS) No. 512/2012 against M/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (in short HDFC Bank') seeking declaration and injunction qua the service tax paid in respect of rented premises. 2. The plaintiffs in the suit sought a declaration holding the defendants to be liable to pay the service tax leviable on the rent and the maintenance charges payable under the lease deed executed inter se the parties, recovery of amount and mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to pay to the plaintiff service tax of the amount on the lease rentals payable in future. Thus the three appeals are being disposed off by a common judgment as they involve common question of law. 3. In CS (OS) Nos.1018/2008 and 1016/2008 Plaintiff PLBA claimed that it was a registered society and being the ow...
M/s. Sab Industries Limited Vs. M/s. Gas Authority of India Ltd. and A ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. In this appeal, the correctness of the learned Single Judge's order and judgment, in OMP 245/2002 preferred by the respondent Gas Authority of India Ltd. ('GAIL') under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( ˜the Act') has been questioned. GAIL had challenged an Award dated 26.04.2002 of the Sole Arbitrator in the disputes between it (GAIL) and the first Respondent ('SAB'). These disputes arose out of a letter of intent ( LoI ?) dated 23.12.1996 by which SAB agreed to construct hundred houses for GAIL at Sector 23, Noida for a total consideration of Rs. 5,37,83,775. The award (of the arbitral tribunal), was set aside by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. 2. SAB claimed amounts under twenty-eight items aggregating Rs. 1,97,52,143.62 with future interest at 24% per annum compounded quarterly on the amounts claimed under Claim Nos. 1 to 28. GAIL's preliminary objection, in its reply was that since SAB had accepted payment o...
Bikram Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
Oral: Crl.M.A.14467/2015 1. Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. CRL.REV. P. 624/2015 1. Bikram Singh has challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.12.2012/22.12.2012 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in connection with FIR No.759/1999 whereby he has been convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for 10 days and simple imprisonment for 1 years, fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for 15 days respectively. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The revisionist has also challenged the judgment and order dated 18.9.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-02 (West), Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.231/4/2013 whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence by the Trial Court has been upheld. 3. The pet...
Abrar Ahmad and Another Vs. The Delhi WAQF Board and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
1. The petition impugns (a) the order dated 24th September, 2013 of the respondent No.1 Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) superseding the Management, Committee [of Masjid and Graveyard, Kharsa Nos.60-61, Azadpur (Kewal Park) Delhi] of which the two petitioners namely Mr. Abrar Ahmad and Mr. Irshad Ahmad were members; and, (b) seeks a direction to the respondent No.1 DWB and respondent No.2 the present Managing Committee of the waqf property aforesaid to not cause any hindrance in the functioning of the Managing Committee of which the two petitioners were the members. 2. Notice of the petition was issued, though the interim relief sought not granted. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.1 DWB. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 the new Managing Committee, though the counsel appears. 3. The counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent No.1 DWB have been heard. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 DWB by office order dated 9th ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »