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.
Marguerite Chawla Vs. Kiran Abnashi Chawla and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
IA No.1253/2015 in CS(OS) No.2951/2014 1. This application seeks a judgment and decree on the basis of admissions made in the written statement of the defendants. The plaintiff had filed the present suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking to recover possession of the first and barsati floor of the property bearing No.N-258, Greater Kailash, New Delhi-110048. Contentions 2. It is the plaintiff's case that she was married to Sh. H.P.S. Chawla on 16th April, 1963. He expired on 4.3.2014. She lived in India off and on and in 1989 she set up a home with husband Sh. H.P.S. Chawla; she was in possession of the property all along but has been surreptitiously dispossessed therefrom by the defendants while she was on way back from the United States of America after her husband's demise. She is presently 70 yearsold and lives in USA. Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks restoration/recovery of possession to her. This suit has been filed before the expiry of 6 months from the date of d...
Gulshan Chaudhary Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
1. The issue which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the judgment of the Supreme Court dated March 17, 2015 in W.P (C) No.274/2014, Ram Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India and other connected writ petitions, wherein the Supreme Court has set aside the notification No.63 dated March 4, 2014 including the Jats in the Central List of Other Backward Classes for the states of Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, NCT of Delhi, Bharatpur and Dholpur Districts of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, would have a prospective effect so as to save the selection of the petitioner with the respondent No.2. 2. It is argued by Mr. B.B. Sawhney, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, is a Chartered Accountant having passed from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) in the year 2014 and belongs to the Jat community, which was included in the Central list of Other Backward Classes by the respondent No.1 vide notifi...
M/s. Synergy Steels Limited Vs. Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory B ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. Through this writ petition, the petitioner (Synergy Steels Ltd [ ˜SSL']) seeks:-(a) quashing of the act of the respondent no.1 (Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board [ ˜PNGRB']) granting extension of time to the respondent no.2 (Indian Oil “ Adani Gas (P) Ltd [ ˜IOAGPL'] for submitting the Performance Bank Guarantee;(b) quashing of the Letter of Intent [ ˜LOI'] issued by PNGRB in favour of IOAGPL;(c) the issuance of a writ, order or direction requiring PNGRB to declare IOAGPL as disqualified and to declare the petitioner (SSL) as the successful bidder. 2. This petition pertains to the public notice dated 26.09.2013 issued by PNGRB inviting bids for development of City Gas Distribution networks in, inter alia, Ernakulam District (Kerala) in terms of Regulation 5(5) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorizing Entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulation...
Vijay Kumar Wadhawan Vs. State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2015
CRL.M.C. 4966/2014 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.') has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in relation to FIR No.345/2012 registered at Police Station Amar Colony, New Delhi, under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC'). 2. Briefly stated, FIR in question was registered on a written compliant dated 22.09.2012 made by one B.K. Kapoor, who alleged that on 21.09.2012 at about 5.00 PM, the petitioner was putting flower pots and bricks on the road blocking the smooth flow of vehicles and when the complainant asked him not to so obstruct the road, petitioner started shouting at the complainant. When the complainant himself tried to clear the said obstructions from the road, the petitioner not only stopped him but also assaulted him causing injuries on his left arm and left hand. Thereafter, the complainant came to the Police...
Prasheel Bharadwaj Vs. Registrar Coop. Societies and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2015
Gita Mittal, J. Oral: 1. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for consideration. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 12th April, 2013 whereby, the grievance of the petitioner has been referred to the Arbitrator. 2. We are also informed by learned counsels for the parties that pursuant to the orders made by us on 31st August, 2015, the records of the society produced by Sub Inspector from the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Delhi Police, have been inspected by them. 3. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are within a narrow compass and to the extent necessary are noted hereafter. 4. The petitioner became the member of the Din Cooperative Group Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as society Ÿ) vide membership No. 411 after allotment of the land. The petitioner made a total payment of Rs. 9,25,000/- towards the cost of construction as well as other amoun...
Mehar Chand Sharma Vs. Manjeet Singh Kohli and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2015
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. The present appeal arises out of order dated 06.08.2015 passed by a learned Single Judge in a Chamber Appeal being OA No.294/2015 in CS(OS) No.872/2010, arising out of the order dated 15.07.2015 passed by the Joint Registrar dismissing the application filed by the appellant seeking impleadment in the subject suit being I.A. No.15615/2012 under Order 1 rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC'). 2. The question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is a necessary or a proper party and thus entitled to be impleaded in the suit. 3. The respondent No.1 filed the subject Suit against respondent Nos. 2 to 10 seeking specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 07.06.2004 in respect of land comprised in khasra Nos.1531(14-03), 1534 (12-13), 1539 (06-01) and 1949 (21-12), total measuring 54 bighas and 18 biswas, situated at Aliganj, Nehru Nagar, Lajpat Nagar. 4. During the pendency of said suit, the subject applica...
Samuel John Vs. State of the NCT of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2015
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 03.10.2011 and 10.10.2011 respectively wherein the appellant had been convicted under Sections 21(C) of the NDPS Act and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac, in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 3 months. 2. Nominal roll of the appellant reflects that as on date he has undergone incarceration of about 7 years and 8 months. 3. The version of the prosecution is that pursuant to a secret information received on 04.1.2008 a raiding team was constituted; the secret information was to the effect that a person of Indian origin would be reaching Delhi by a grey coloured Hyundai Santro Car bearing registration No.CH-01-Z-7919 and he would deliver some narcotic substance to an African National; this would be between 8.30 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. near Gurudwara situated at Guru Nanak Nagar, Outer Ring Road, Delhi. The secret information was reduced into wri...
Vaneeta Khanna and Another Vs. Rajiv Gupta and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2015
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) 1. This is a suit filed for possession, declaration, mesne profits/damages, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction. The suit property is the property bearing no.8/289, Sunder Vihar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087 on a plot admeasuring 267 sq yds. There are two plaintiffs in the suit. Plaintiff no.1 is Smt. Vaneeta Khanna and who is the wife of plaintiff no.2/Mr. Arun Khanna. Plaintiff no.1 pleads that she purchased rights in the suit property in terms of the original bunch of documentation dated 12.5.2004 read with the registered Agreement to Sell dated 16.6.2004 executed by plaintiff no.2 as a general power of attorney holder (registered) of defendant no.2. There are six defendants in the suit. Defendant no.1/Mr. Rajiv Gupta is the original owner of the suit property. Defendant no.2/Mr. Judge Chawla is said to be the person who had purchased the suit property from defendant no.1 in terms of documents dated 12.5.2004 including the registered General ...
Jagriti Plastics Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. ST Appeal No.23 of 2015 by N.F. Impex Pvt. Ltd. (NFIPL) is directed against the impugned order dated 6th August 2014 passed by the Appellate Tribunal Value Added Tax ( ˜ATVAT') for the assessment year ( ˜AY') 2008-09. ST. Appeal No.5 of 2015 is by Jagriti Plastics Ltd. (JPL) and is directed against the order dated 11th August 2014 passed by the ATVAT for AY 2007-08. 2. The common question of law that arises in both the appeals as framed by this Court (by its order dated 6th May 2014 in ST Appeal No. 23 of 2015 and 14th July 2015 in ST Appeal No. 5 of 2015) is whether the Appellant Assessees are entitled to input tax credit on purchase of duty entitlement pass book ( ˜DEPB') scrips? 3. The second issue that arises as a corollary of the first above mentioned issue is whether the Appellant Assessees in both cases are liable to pay penalty under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT Act)? 4. Both the Appellants, who are registered dealers unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›