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.
M/s. Sai Nath Enterprises Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation and An ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
1. By way of this common order, I propose to decide eight applications filed by the plaintiffs. The details of such applications are given below:- In CS (OS) No.3397/2014 (i) I.A. No.25380/2014 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, (ii) I.A. No.22656/2014 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, (iii) I.A. No.1468/2015 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, and (iv) I.A. No.1469/2015 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. In CS (OS) No.3640/2014 (i) I.A. No.25382/2014 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, (ii) I.A. No.22422/2014 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC (iii) I.A. No.1466/2015 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, and (iv) I.A. No.1467/2015 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 2. The above two suits are filed by M/s Sai Nath Enterprises through its partners, namely, Harish Kumar Sharma and Anuradha Sharma. The amended memo of parties in the first suit was filed after filing of the suits. The issues involved in both the suits are common so as the parties. Therefore, the interim applications and t...
MMTC Ltd. and Another Belcom JV and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The present appeal, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereafter the Act ?) is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge, dated 17.02.2010 in OMP 40/2000. The impugned judgment dismissed the objections of the appellant (hereafter MMTC ?) to the majority award of a three member Arbitral tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal ?) dated 23.08.1999. The award had directed payments to the claimant/respondent (hereafter Belcom ?) by MMTC. 2. The facts relevant for this case are that on 14.10.1991, Contract No.35 was executed between MMTC and Belcom for sale of 50,000 metric tonnes of Muriate of Potash (MOP) at a price of Rs. 2,766.50 per metric ton. This was an F.O.B. contract.. The said contract contained a payment clause by which MMTC was to open a Letter of Credit with the Bank for Foreign Trade of USSR, Minsk “ Bank of Foreign Economic Affairs [hereafter BFEA ?], valid for a period of 90 days. The relevant portion of t...
Honda Siel Power Products Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal by the Assessee, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act') is directed against the impugned order dated 12th December, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.6023/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-2009. 2. Admit. Background facts 3. The facts are that the Assessee, Honda Siel Power Products Ltd ( ˜HSPP'), is engaged both in the manufacture of licensed products as well as the distribution of goods manufactured by its associated enterprises. The Assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of portable generating sets, IC engines, water pumping sets and manufacturing and processing of pressure die casting parts. The HONDA trademark is owned by Overseas Associated Enterprise (AE), i.e. Honda Motor Company, Japan ( ˜Honda Japan'). During the AY in question, the Assessee entered into the following international transactions with its AE: Sl. No.International transactionsAmount(in Rs.)Metho...
Microsoft Corporation and Another Vs. Sujan Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Oral: I.A. No.26118/2015 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. I.A. stands disposed of. + CS(COMM) No.70/2015 and I.A. Nos.26116/2015 (stay) and 26117/2015 (appointment of Local Commissioner) 2. I must begin this judgment with the statement that it is unfortunate that certain plaintiffs, and if I may say so certain lawyers also, in spite of obvious legal positions and also obvious legal propositions, such litigants/plaintiffs as also their lawyers insist on taking chances by filing the suits which are in violation of the mandatory provisions of law stated in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) pertaining to joinder of parties and causes of action. The reason for stating this preliminary statement is because plaintiffs in this suit allege violation of copyrights of its softwares by a total of five defendants-companies in the suit but each of the five defendants-companies are independently alleged to be violating copyrights of softwares of the plaintiffs withou...
Bausch and Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. The Addition ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. Introduction 1. These are seven appeals, five by the Assessee and two by the Revenue, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜Act'). The Assessment Years ( ˜AYs') involved are 2006-07 to 2010-11. 2. The Assessee's appeals, ITA Nos. 643 of 2014, 675 of 2014, 676 of 2014 and 677 of 2014, are directed against the common order dated 23rd May 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') in ITA Nos. 4924/Del/2011, 6580/Del/2013, 6382/Del/2012 and 3861/Del/2010 for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. The Revenue's two appeals, i.e., ITA No.165 of 2015 and 166 of 2015 are directed against the same impugned common order of the ITAT. The seventh appeal, i.e., ITA No.950 of 2015, is by the Assessee and is directed against the order dated 19th June 2015 of the ITAT in ITA No. 471/Del/2015. Background facts 4. The Assessee, Bausch and Lomb (India) Pvt. Ltd. ( ˜BLI'), formerly known as Bausch and Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt...
Manu Narang and Others Vs. The Lt. Governor, Government National Capit ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. W.P.(C) No.5975/2013 was filed, (i) for declaration that the policy/practice of construing the basements of residential properties at par with the other floors for the purpose of evaluating the applicable stamp duty, under the (a) Indian Stamp Act, 1899; (b) Delhi Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 2007; and, (c) the Notification dated 4th December, 2012, is violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India; (ii) for a direction to the respondent Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to prescribe for equitable stamp duty charges applicable in case of sale/purchase of basements in residential properties which are otherwise purely meant for parking or storage purposes; and, (iii) for a direction to the respondent GNCTD to modify the existing method for calculating the applicable stamp duty in case of sale of a floor of a residential property by taking into consideration the maximum permissible plinth area i...
Akhand Pratap Singh Vs. CBI
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
1. The present petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as Cr.P.C. ?) has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2014 and for quashing the proceedings emanating from RC/FIR No.2(A)/2005/CBI/SPE-ACU-V, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Saket Courts, Delhi. 2. Factual matrix, emerges from the record, is that the CBI registered a case against the petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the P.C. Act ?) on 19.03.2005 with the allegations that during the period 01.01.1978 to 31.05.1991, the petitioner amassed the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.21,45,872/- in the form of movable and immovable properties in his name and in the name of his family members and others. The petitioner being an IAS officer (UP Cadre), 1967 batch retired as Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pra...
New India Sanitary Works Vs. Khurshid Ahmed and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
1. The challenge in this writ petition filed by the petitioner (management) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the validity, propriety and legality of the impugned award dated 24.08.2008 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court XVI in ID No. 364/08/94 vide which a sum of Rs.3 lacs each was awarded to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 (workmen). 2. The factual matrix of the case leading to filing of the present writ petition are that both the workmen (respondent nos. 1 and 2) were working as commercial drivers with the petitioner “ management. Feeling aggrieved by the termination of their services, they raised industrial dispute which was referred by the National Capital Territory of Delhi, through its Secretary (Labour) vide reference number F-24(982)/94/ Lab. 34780-85 dated 15.07.95 to the Labour Court with following terms of reference: Whether termination of services of Sh. Surender Singh and Khursad Ahmed is illegal and / or unjustified and if so,...
Shivani Choudhary and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (NW), Rohini Courts, Delhi, the petitioners have preferred the present bail applications under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C.), seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 811/2015 under Section 498A/304-B/34 of IPC registered at Police Station North Rohini, Delhi. 2. Since the present bail applications arise out of common FIR and impugns the common order, therefore both these applications are heard together and are being disposed of together. 3. The present case is registered at the complaint of Mr. Raj Singh, who is father of Komal (now deceased). According to the complainant, the marriage of his elder daughter Komal was solemnised with Ashwini on 19.01.2014 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and he had spent Rs.30-32 lacs in the marriage, which included a Hyndai Verna Car, 25 Tolas Gold and Rs.6 lacs cash for household goods. It is alleged by the complai...
Ramesh Chand and Another Vs. CBI
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
1. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 09.8.2012 and 18.8.2012 respectively wherein out of the four appellants three of them namely Satish Kumar Kadian, Inder Singh Rana and Ramesh Chand were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323/342/304/34 of the IPC as also under Section 218 read with Section 109 of the IPC. The fourth appellant K.K.Arora had been convicted for the substantive offence under Section 218 of the IPC. Accused Jagmal Singh Yadav had died during the course of trial and the proceedings stood abated against him. The maximum sentence imposed upon Satish Kumar Kadian, Inder Singh Rana and Ramesh Chand was RI for a period of 10 years. This was for their conviction under Section 304 of the IPC. Each of them had also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- which was to be paid by way of compensation to Kashmiri Devi, widow of the deceased Gopi Ram. In default of payment of compensation they were to undergo SI...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »