Delhi Court November 2015 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2015 Page 13 of about 129 results (0.021 seconds)Captain Suresh Nath Jha Vs. Institute For Steel Development and Growth ...
Court: Delhi
Oral: 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner primarily seeking the following reliefs against the Institute for Steel Development and Growth (INSDAG) (respondent No. 1), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and Director General (INSDAG) (respondent No. 2):- (a) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to absorb and regularise the services of the petitioner in the E-6 Grade w.e.f. his date of appointment i.e. 1.2.2006; absorb and regularise the services of the petitioner in the E-7 Grade w.e.f. 29.11.2007, when the petitioner was selected to the said post; with all consequential benefits including all the benefits as per the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission; retirement benefits of gratuity etc; service benefits of promotion etc. on part with his juniors who have been since promoted to higher scales where they are considered for promotion after 4 years of service where a fo...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. M/s. N.K. Garg and Co.
Court: Delhi
Oral: 1. An issue of far reaching importance calls for decision in the present petition which is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On behalf of the petitioner/Union of India, it is argued that in view of Clause 16(2) of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) applicable to the contract in question, petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of any interest on the amounts awarded by the Arbitrator to the respondent/contractor, and that this defence and shield of non-liability for payment of interest enures for the benefit of the petitioner irrespective of the length of the time for which arbitral and court/judicial proceedings continue. In sum and substance, it is argued that even if the petitioner/UOI is found liable to pay any amount to the contractor, whether in a civil suit or any arbitration proceedings by an award, petitioner because of Clause 16(2) of the GCC cannot be called upon to pay interest for the pre-reference/present period or the p...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Anand Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
W.P.(C) 7114/2015 with CM 22755/2015 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act) 1. The petitioner Mr.Anil Kumar Anand has filed the present writ petition seeking the following prayers: a. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the report of the review D.P.C. dated January 09, 2008. b. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to promote the petitioner to Grade Cin Scale-III, with retrospective effect from January 2, 1995 for the panel year 1994-95 and to consider the petitioner for further promotions to higher Grades, with retrospective effect, as per the Promotion Policy and instructions issued by the Government of India and to give all the consequential benefits with due seniority. c. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to treat the petitioner as deemed to have been promoted to Grade 'C in Scale-III, with ret...
Tag this Judgment!In the matter of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies Act, 2013 ( ...
Court: Delhi
1. This joint application has been filed under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 by the applicant companies seeking directions of this court to dispense with the requirement of convening the meetings of their equity shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors to consider and approve, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of Basera Realtech Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 1); Bulbul Buildcon Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 2); Daksh Buildpro Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 3); DR Infra Developers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 4); Hi-Fashion Apparels Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 5); Kashish Buildpro Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 6); Radhey Infra Developers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Lal and Others Vs. Surya CGHS Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Gita Mittal, J. (Oral) 1. This writ petition has been filed by nine persons who claim occupancy of flats in the Surya Group Housing Society Limited (hereafter referred to as the Society') seven out of whom are members of the society as well. It appears that petitioner nos. 2 and 9 acquired rights in flats pursuant to transactions with other members and have not been enrolled as members of the society as yet. The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of prohibition against the society from carrying on unauthroised construction which is contrary to the building bye-laws and a notification dated 28th February, 2012. The petitioners also seek a mandamus to the society to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- collected from the members for additional construction and to compensate the petitioners for dragging them into the litigation. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to the instant writ petition are within a narrow compass and to the extent necessary are briefly noted hereafter. It is undi...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sunil Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 8th August 2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') in ITA No. 157/Del/97 for the block period 1st April 1986 to 20th June 1996. 2. In the present appeal, the Respondent, despite service did not enter appearance and the case has proceeded ex parte. By order dated 7th February 2005, the following two questions were framed by the Court for consideration: (A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law, in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,38,41,971? (B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.86 lakhs on account of cash seized from one of the employees of the assessee, namely, Shri Gopal Singh? 3. The background to the present appeal is that the Respondent Assessee is engaged in the business of plastic raw material and is carrying on the busi...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Kumar Arya and Another Vs. M/s. Prabhat Zarda Factory Internatio ...
Court: Delhi
IA No.16580/2014 in CS (OS) 2622/2014 and IA Nos. 20893/2014 and 24158/2014 in CS (OS) 3242/2014 1. These two suits are filed by the plaintiff seeking identical reliefs against the defendants pertaining to alleged infringement of rights of the plaintiff in the registered trademark RATNA and RATNACHHAP and numeral 300 and Prabhat Zafrani Patti as well as the colour scheme, lay out and other features. The plaintiff seeks permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from manufacturing, marketing and selling chewing tobacco/Zafrani Patti, Zarda, Quiwam under the said trademarks. Other connected reliefs are also sought. 2. For the purpose of narration of facts I will deal with the facts of CS(OS)2622/2014. In the present suit IA No.16580/2014 is filed by the plaintiff seeking interim injunction against the defendant to restrain them from infringing the trademarks of the plaintiff. No ex parte injunction has been granted to the plaintiffs. 3. The present two suits are essentially a family...
Tag this Judgment!Shamim Khan Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Sunita Gupta, J. (Oral): 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitiioner challenges the order dated 20.02.2013 and the recovery certificate dated 21.03.2011 issued pursuant to suo moto action initiated by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation (CWC), South District, Government of NCT of Delhi. 2. The facts as borne out in the writ petition are that vide order dated 12.09.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5812/2011 titled as Taskinuddin and Ors. v. The State ( NCT of Delhi) and Anr., the petitioner was served with a copy of the petition from which he came to know that the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as CWC') had issued a recovery certificate for recovery of Rs.79,74,841/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of accident till the date of payment along with penalty of 50% on the principal amount from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. On 08.10.2012, the petitioner moved an application before the CWC for setting a...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Anand Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
W.P.(C) 7114/2015 with CM 22755/2015 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act) 1. The petitioner Mr.Anil Kumar Anand has filed the present writ petition seeking the following prayers: a. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the report of the review D.P.C. dated January 09, 2008. b. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to promote the petitioner to Grade Cin Scale-III, with retrospective effect from January 2, 1995 for the panel year 1994-95 and to consider the petitioner for further promotions to higher Grades, with retrospective effect, as per the Promotion Policy and instructions issued by the Government of India and to give all the consequential benefits with due seniority. c. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to treat the petitioner as deemed to have been promoted to Grade 'C in Scale-III, with ret...
Tag this Judgment!