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.
Rajinder Prasad and Others Vs. Mukesh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2015
Open Court: 1. The present second appeal is directed against the order dated 09.02.2014 passed by the first appellate court, namely, learned Additional District Judge (Central)-11, Delhi, in RCA No. 19/12 whereby the said first appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed, and the order dated 22.08.2005 passed by the trial court, namely, the Civil Judge, Delhi, in suit No. 495/04, rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been upheld. 2. The plaintiffs/appellants filed the suit to seek the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. A decree of declaration was sought to declare that the plaintiffs as absolute owners of the suit land measuring 17 bighas and 8 biswas forming part of khewat No. 177 to 179, khatauni No. 695 to 696 in village Bawana, Tehsil and District Delhi, as shown in Fard Khatauni of the year 1984-85. The plaintiffs also sought delivery of possession of the said property from the defendants. An injunctive relief wa...
Vijay Bhushan Arora Vs. Dipak Arora and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2015
1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for mandatory and perpetual injunctions and for recovery of the sum of Rs.42,75,000/- along with pendent lite and future interest. 2. By way of this order, I propose to decide the pending application under Order XII Rule 6 filed by the plaintiff on the basis of the admissions made by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement and other documents i.e. Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties. 3. The plaintiff is the eldest brother of the defendant Nos.1 and 3 and the defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1, who is the youngest brother of the plaintiff. No relief is being sought against defendant No.3 and he is being impleaded only as a proforma defendant. Facts as per the Plaint 4. Admittedly, Late Sh.K.N.Arora and his wife Smt.Raj Kumari Arora, the deceased parents of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 3, had jointly purchased a plot of land admeasuring 296 sq. yds., bearing Municipal No.S-335, Grea...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Raj Pal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
1. The respondent/workman was employed with DTC as a driver. Alleging his termination on 19th February, 1992, he raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court by the Govt of NCT of Delhi vide reference No. F/24(4219)/92-LAB/99912-17 dated 11th December, 1992 with following terms of reference:- Whether the services of Shri Raj Pal have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? ? 2. Thereafter the claim was filed by the workman alleging, inter alia, that he was appointed by the management as driver-cum-fitter w.e.f. 9th September, 1975. On 3rd December, 1990, he met with an accident. The Medical Board of the management advised him light duty and as per the advice, he was given the job of clerk in the store of Gazipur Depot by the management. Since 16th April, 1991 to 18th February, 1992, he was working on the same post. On 19th February...
Kulbhushan Khosla Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜Act') by the Assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 22nd May 2003 in ITA No. 92/Del/2002 for the Assessment Year ( ˜AY') 1994-95. 2. While admitting this appeal on 28th February 2005, the Court framed the following question of law for consideration: Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in upholding the action of Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment originally framed under Section 143 (3)? ? 3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the Appellant-Assessee, Kulbhushan Khosla, filed his return for the AY 1994-95 on 14th November 1994 declaring an income of Rs. 3,36,970. The Assessee showed income from salary, business and other sources during AY in question. The Assessee had also done export business. 4. The return was picked up for scrutiny, and enquiries were raised by the Assessing Officer ( ˜AO...
M/s. Citi Bank Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This is a reference made to this Court by the Appellate Tribunal Sales Tax, Delhi ( ˜Tribunal') under Section 49 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 ( ˜DST Act') requiring it to answer the following questions of law: (i) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal that the ex parte order dated 21st July 1998 passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax was passed after reasonable and adequate opportunity is perverse? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the period of six months required by Section 49 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act read with Rule 42 is directory and therefore, the order of the Commissioner dated 21st July 1998 on the application dated 15th October 1995 was valid in law? (iii) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding that the disposal of repossessed cars by the Appellant Bank constitutes a sale by the Bank? (iv) Whether in the f...
Man Mohan and Others Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
1. There are four appellants before this Court. These appeals have been filed impugning the judgment and order on sentence dated 16.11.2012 and 30.11.2012 respectively wherein the appellant Man Mohan stands convicted under Sections 342/376/506 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac which amount, by way of compensation has to be paid to the victim and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of 6 months for his conviction under Section 376 of the IPC. For his conviction under Section 342 of the IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year. For his conviction under Section 506 of the IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year. Appellants Vinod, Preeti and Santosh Sharma have been convicted under Section 363 read with Section 365 of the IPC and each of them has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default o...
Worldfa Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2015
1. The petitioner is seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1. The petitioner insured its factory at 449-450, HSIIDC, EPIP, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana - 131001 with the respondent under Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No.222700/11/11/11/ 00000916 for the period 28th February, 2012 to 27th February, 2013. 2.2. On 25th October, 2012, a fire broke out in the insured premises whereupon the petitioner lodged a claim with the respondent. The respondent appointed M/s Cunningham Lindsey International Pvt. Ltd. as surveyor to assess the petitioner's loss on 27th October, 2012. In February, 2013, the respondent appointed second surveyor, M/s Jain Ambavat and Associates. 2.3. On 17th November, 2014, the surveyor assessed the petitioner's loss at Rs.6,04,36,887/- and sought the concurrence of the petitioner whereupon the petitioner gave its concurrence vide letter dated 17th November, 2014 and executed the u...
M/s. IMS Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2015
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. The petitioner is a registered trader who carries on sale of imported rechargeable LED flash lights. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the notice issued by the respondent No.3 purportedly in exercise of the power conferred under Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, compounding the alleged offence punishable under Section 36(1) of the said Act on payment of compounding fee of Rs.25,000/-. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction quashing sub-rule 3 of Rules 32 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and is ultra “ vires the Act; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction thereby clarifying that Rules issued by Respondent No.1 will be applicable to inter-state trade and commerce and those issued by Respondent No.2 will be applicable to intra-state trade and commerce; (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction there...
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. Introduction 1. These are two appeals by the Assessee, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. ( ˜MSIL'), under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜Act'). ITA No.110 of 2014 is directed against an order dated 2nd August 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') in ITA No.5237/Del/2010 for the Assessment Year ( ˜AY') 2005-06. ITA No.710 of 2015 is an appeal against the order dated 24th August 2015 passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 5120/Del/2010 for the AY 2006-07. 2. These appeals concern the issue of determination of arm's length price ( ˜ALP') of the advertisement, marketing and sales promotion ( ˜AMP') expenses incurred by the Assessee, MSIL. 3. By the impugned order dated 2nd August 2013, the ITAT followed its decision in LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 2013 22 ITR (Trib) I and held that the Assessing Officer ( ˜AO') was entitled to make a transfer pricing adjustment under Chapter X of the Act in respect of...
M/s. IMS Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2015
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. The petitioner is a registered trader who carries on sale of imported rechargeable LED flash lights. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the notice issued by the respondent No.3 purportedly in exercise of the power conferred under Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, compounding the alleged offence punishable under Section 36(1) of the said Act on payment of compounding fee of Rs.25,000/-. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction quashing sub-rule 3 of Rules 32 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and is ultra “ vires the Act; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction thereby clarifying that Rules issued by Respondent No.1 will be applicable to inter-state trade and commerce and those issued by Respondent No.2 will be applicable to intra-state trade and commerce; (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction there...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »