Delhi Court December 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.
Principal Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi €“II Vs. Tops S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CE Act) read with Section 83 of the Finance Act 1994, is directed against an order dated 18th November 2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal Nos.54595-54597 of 2014. 2. Admit. 3. The following question of law is framed: Was the CESTAT justified in granting to the Respondent the benefit of payment of reduced penalty to the extent of 25% in terms of the 3rd proviso to Section 78 (1) of the Finance Act 1994 (as it stood prior to its substitution by the Finance Act 2015) within 30 days from the date of the order of the CESTAT? 4. This Court has heard the submissions of Ms Sonia Sharma, learned counsel for the Appellant and Ms Kavita Jha, learned counsel for the Respondent. 5. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the Respondent, Tops Security Limited, is engaged in the business...
Archana Chugh and Another Vs. Ramjas School and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
Oral: W.P.(C) 6106/2014 1. The challenge in this petition by two petitioners is to the advertisements dated August 20, 2014 and August 24, 2014 issued by the respondent No.1, whereby applications from female candidates for the post of Principal were invited with a further relief for declaring the post of Principal a promotional post.2. It is the submission of Mr.Ashok Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the notification issued by the Education Department the post of Principal need to be filled by promotion, failing which by direct recruitment and not by direct recruitment as sought to be done by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. According to him, the advertisements are contrary to the Recruitment Rule of February 25, 1980 as amended on January 29, 1991. It would be his submission that the respondent No.1 being a non-minority unaided recognized private school is bound by the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the rules made thereunder. The respond...
Sunil and Another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
1. There are two appellants before this court namely Sunil and Sanjeev Kumar @ Kala. Both of them are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 22.01.2013 and 28.01.2013 wherein each of them had been convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. They have also been separately convicted under Sections 366/342 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The sentences awarded to each of them is RI 10 years for their conviction under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 2 years. For their conviction under Section 366 of the IPC they had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 1 year. For their conviction under Section 342 of the IPC they had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for a period of 3 months. Sentence...
Rajiv K. Kataria Vs. Ajay
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the ex-parte order dated 23.04.2014 passed by the authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in a petition bearing No.MW/SD/564/2013/7677 filed by the respondent-workman whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.22,812/- towards arrear of minimum wages alongwith compensation to the tune of 10 times amounting to Rs.2,28,120/-. 2. The respondent had filed a claim under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act before the designated authority under the Minimum Wages Act alleging that he was working with the petitioner on the post of Mechanic since 01.04.2004 at last drawn wages of Rs.6000/- per month and was paid less than the minimum wages of Rs.9,802/- for the period 01.01.2013 to 30.11.2013 and claimed Rs.41,822/- towards arrear. The respondent (petitioner herein) was proceeded ex-parte. The petitioner (respondent herein) filed affidavit alongwith salary sheets for the month of November,...
Vishnu Vs. Lt.Governor of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
Crl.M.A No.13496/2015 Exemption allowed subject to just exemptions. The Application is disposed of accordingly WP(CRL) No.2026/2015 1. Vishnu, the petitioner, has assailed the order dated 02.07.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District, Delhi whereby he has been externed from the limits of NCT of Delhi for a period of one year with effect from 09.07.2015 as also the Appellate order dated 05.08.2015 whereby the externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District Delhi has been upheld. 2. Externment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 04.06.2013 when a proposal was sent for the same by the SHO of M.S.Park police station. The petitioner was noticed for his having involved himself in six cases, the details of which are as hereunder:- SL. No.FIR No.DATEDSECTION OF LAWPOLICE STATION12714.02.199361/1/14 Excise ActM.S. PARK210506.05.199861/1/14 Excise ActVIVEK VIHAR313818.04.200361/1/14 Excise ActM.S. PARK428004.11.2011...
Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Science Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. Though this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed challenging, besides the letter dated 3rd December, 2014 of the respondent University Grants Commission (UGC) to the petitioner, a deemed to be university (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner University), also the Regulations 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 11.0, 12.0, 14.0, 15.0, 17.0, 18.0 and 22.0 of the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010 but there being no cause of action for impugning the Regulations 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 11.0, 14.0, 15.0, 17.0, 18.0 and 22.0, the hearing, with the consent of the parties, was confined to the challenge, besides to the letter dated 3rd December, 2014, to Regulation 12 only, with the understanding that the petitioner University as and when feels the need to challenge the other Regulations aforesaid, shall be entitled thereto. 2. The cause of action for the writ petition was the letter dated 3rd December, 2014 (supra) by which the res...
Naik Satya Narain and Another Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. The appellant Naik Satya Narain was held guilty and convicted by the court of Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 15.05.1999 on the charge for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for causing death of Balbir Singh son of Ramji Lal ( the victim ?) on 01.07.1992 as a result of injuries allegedly suffered in an incident that had occurred on 28.06.1992. Naik Satya Narain challenges the said judgment through criminal appeal number 50/2000. 2. By order dated 17.05.1999, the convicted appellant was sentenced to fine of Rs. 5000/- in default Rigorous imprisonment for six months. Feeling dissatisfied with the said order, criminal revision petition no. 310/1999 has been preferred by Om Prakash son of Mahabir Singh (PW-1), nephew of the victim, praying that the conviction to be converted into one for offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC and punishment commensurate therewith to be awarded. 3. Since the appeal and the revision pe...
Svetlana Kazankina and Others Vs. Union Of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
1. This petition was filed way back in the year 2013 seeking a mandamus to the respondent no.1 Union of India (UOI) and to the respondent no.2 Foreigners Registration Office (FRO) (FandR Branch) to process the application of the petitioners no.1 to 3 for extension of their visas and impugning the letters dated 26th December, 2012 and 18th January, 2013 of the respondents asking the said petitioners to leave the country. 2. It is the case in the petition (i) that the petitioner no.1 is an Uzbekistan national; (ii) that the petitioner no.1 was married to/is living-in with petitioner no.4 Mr. Anand Pradeep Kumar Fredrick, an Indian national, in Uzbekistan; (iii) that from the said alliance, the petitioner no.2 Ms. Nikole Kazankina Anand was born in Uzbekistan; (iv) that upon the petitioner no.4 coming back to India, the petitioner no.1 along with petitioner no.2 as well as petitioner no.3 Vladimir Esonkulovich Kazankina (son of the petitioner no.1 from a previous alliance/marriage) came t...
Mohd. Shahid and Others Vs. State NCT of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. This common judgment will dispose of the aforementioned appeals by Imrana, Mohd. Shahid and Sunil, who by the judgment under challenge dated 31st July, 2014 have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for having murdered Nasir, husband of Imrana in the intervening night between 10th and 11th February, 2009. Imrana and Mohd. Shahid have also been convicted for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Imrana has been individually convicted under Section 211 IPC. By the order on sentence dated 15th November, 2014, the three appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sections 302/120B IPC. Imrana and Mohd. Shahid have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vishishth Chay Vyapar Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These two appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜Act') pertain to the Assessment Year ( ˜AY') 1995-96. ITA No. 1108/2010 is directed against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') dated 30th June 2009 in ITA No. 4403/Del/2007. ITA No. 1109/2010, which is the penalty appeal, is directed against the order dated 30th April 2009 in ITA No.113/Del/2008. 2. While admitting ITA No. 1108/2010 on 27th November 2014, the following questions of law were framed by the Court: (1) Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were bad in law? (2) Whether the finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepting the genuineness of the loss in respect of shares held as stock-in-trade is perverse and accordingly cannot be sustained? ? 3. As far as ITA No. 1109/2010 is concerned, by an order of the same date, the f...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »