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 Alias Kala and Another Vs. The State NCT of Delhi and Ano ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2015
R.K. Gauba, J. Oral: 1. On 20.12.2008, some time before 9.10 PM, Dhanpat Rai resident of BA-97, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-52 received gunshot injuries at a place opposite Income Tax Colony near Sabzi Mandi on outer ring road near the police station Maurya Enclave (hereinafter referred to as the police station ?) and when taken to Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini by the PCR staff, he was declared brought dead as per medico legal record (MLC) (Ex.PW-19/A) at 9.30 PM. On the basis of available information, Inspector Ram Sunder (PW-38) got the FIR no. 47/2008 (Ex. PW-26/A) registered. The investigation resulted in the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) being submitted in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 26.03.2009 whereby trial of two persons was sought in the Sessions Court for offences punishable under Sections 302/120-B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Section 25/27 of Arms Act. The said two persons put to trial in Session C...
Merck Sharp and Dohme Corporation and Another Vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuti ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2015
1. Plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendant for permanent injunction praying therein that defendants, its directors, employees, officers etc. be restrained from making, using, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale or dealing in Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate or any other salt of Sitagliptin in any form, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or from doing any other thing that infringes the claimed subject matter of the plaintiffsIndian Patent No. 209816. Damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up of the infringing materials has also been prayed. 2. Briefly stated, plaintiffs have alleged in the plaint that plaintiff no. 1 was formally known as Merck and Company, Inc. Plaintiff no. 1 has been incorporated under the laws of New Jersey, USA, having its principal place of business at Whitehouse Station, USA. Plaint has been signed and verified by its constituted Attorney- Mr. K.G. Ananthakrishnan. Plaintiff no.2 is a licensee of ...
Mool Raj Tyagi and Others Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2015
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The petitioner seeks the quashing of Notification No. F.10 (6)/2012/WEST/ LandB /LA/8316 dated 27.8.2013 issued under Section 4, 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act') and the impugned declaration bearing No. F.10(6)/2012/WEST/ LandB /LA/8360 dated 29.08.2013 issued under Section 6 of the said Act in respect of the petitionersland comprised in Khasra Nos. 65/11/2 (3-15), 12/2 (3-15), 13/2 (3-15) and 14/2/2 (0-6) measuring 11 bighas and 11 biswas, in all, in the revenue estate of village Hastsal, New Delhi. 2. Two points of challenge have been raised in the present petition. The first point is that the Section 6 declaration is prior to the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the said Act. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is impermissible in law. In support of this proposition, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this c...
Om Prakash and Another Vs. Delhi Jal Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2015
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the Award dated 22nd February, 2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No. 114/2008 whereby it was held that the workman was entitled to be considered for regularization on their respective posts on the basis of policy of regularization followed by Management, if they fulfil the criteria for regularization but they are not entitled for regularization from initial date of their engagement, i.e., 1989. 2. The petitioner No.1 joined the services of the respondent w.e.f. 1st June, 1989 as a chowkidar while petitioner No.2 joined services of the respondent w.e.f. 10th November, 1989 as beldar. Services of both the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as workmen ?) were terminated on 1st October, 1991. The termination was challenged by the workmen and vide Award dated 31st May, 2001, the termination was held to be illegal and unjustified. The workmen were held entitled for re-instatement in service with 50% back wage...
Principal Commissioner of Custom Vs. RISO India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J CM No.22556/2015 (Delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. CM No.22555/2015 (Exemption) 3. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 4. The application stands disposed of. CUSAA 20/2015 and CM No.22554/2015 (Stay) 5. The appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act 1962 ('Act') is directed against the final order dated 21st January, 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal No. C/4014/2012. 6. The substantial question of law that is sought be urged by the Principal Commissioner of Customs in this appeal is whether an importer is entitled to interest beyond the period of three months under Section 27A of the Act on refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 102/2007 issued under section 25 of the Act in the absence of a specific provision for payment of interest in the said Notification as subseque...
Seagram Distilleries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax-III, New ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J 1. These five appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') by the two assesses, Pernod Ricard India Private Limited (earlier, Seagram Distilleries Private Limited) and Seagram Manufacturing Private Limited, raise a common question of law as to whether provision for transit breakages has a scientific basis or is contingent in nature and as such is not an allowable deduction while computing the total income of the Assessees. The Assessment Years (AYs') involved in the present appeals are AYs 2001-02 to 2004-05. 2. The first Assessee, Seagram Distilleries Private Limited was a 100% subsidiary of Seagram India Private Limited engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Grain Neutral Spirit (GNS) and India Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) from its Nasik plant. The parent company, originally incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 3rd September, 1993 under the name and style of Seagram India Private Limited, changed its name to Pernod Ricard Indi...
Ashok Baugh Vs. Kamal Baugh and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-2015
1. The present leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.04.2012 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, in Crl. A. No. 51/2011 whereby the judgment and order of conviction by the Trial Court namely, Metropolitan Magistrate, sentencing the Respondent no.1 to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 9 months and pay a sum of Rs. 15 Lacs as compensation to the complainant/petitioner and in default of such payment to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months, has been reversed and the Respondent no.1 has been acquitted. 2. The dispute is between two real brothers over the issue of repayment of a loan which was given by the petitioner to the Respondent. 3. The facts of the case are as hereunder. 4. The petitioner advanced a loan of Rs. 5 Lacs to Respondent no.1 in the year 1991 for the purposes of helping him set up a business venture. The aforesaid loan was agreed to be repaid by the Respondent with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. accruing till ...
Devender Kumar Vs. Khem Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-2015
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 60/2012 dated 12.09.2012 whereby the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.05.2012 and 23.05.2012 respectively passed by the Trial Court, convicting the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short NI Act') and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for five months and a fine of Rs.3 lacs, in default of payment of which one month SI, has been set aside and the respondent has been acquitted. 2. The petitioner, being friendly to the respondent, gave a loan of Rs.1.40 lacs to him vide an agreement executed on 16.09.2008 (Ex.CW1/A). The aforesaid agreement indicated that the petitioner would pay Rs.1.40 lacs on the next date i.e. a day after the agreement was executed and the respondent would return the amount of Rs.1.50 lacs on 23.04.2009. The agreement further indicated that the respondent had issued a promissory note admitting his liability and obligation to pay...
Lavlesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-2015
1. Lavlesh Kumar stands convicted by judgment dated 13.01.2011 passed by the learned ASJ/Special Judge, NDPS/South and South-East, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.41A/09 arising out of FIR No.13/09 (P.S.Saket) under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. By order of sentence dated 14.01.2011, appellant Lavlesh has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years, a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine a further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The appellant was apprehended from near the Bus Terminal, Lado Sarai, M.B.Road on 10.01.2009 at about 5.20 pm and was found to be in possession of 22 kgs of Ganja, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 3. The appellant has assailed the Trial Court judgment of conviction and sentence on various grounds namely that (i) only police witnesses have be...
Pr. Commissioner of income Tax Vs. E-Funds International India Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. CM No. 15688/2015 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) in ITA No. 607/2015 CM No. 15689/2015 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) in ITA No. 608/2015 1. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in re-filing the respective appeals is condoned. 2. The applications are disposed of. ITA No. 607/2015 and 608/2015 3. These two appeals by the Revenue are under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜Act'). 4. At the outset, Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue states that page 6 of the memorandum of appeal in both appeals shows the wrong cause title. The cause title in each of these appeals should read as Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax versus E-Funds International India Private Limited.' 5. ITA No. 607/2015 is directed against the order dated 20th October 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') in ITA No. 2004/Del/2006 for the Assessment Year ( ˜AY') 2002-03. 6...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »