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. Brands Academy Pvt Ltd. and Others Vs. Rishu Monga and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2015
Oral: 1. Cross contempt petitions have been filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 09th January, 2015 whereby the CS(OS) 7/2015 was disposed of in terms of an oral agreement recorded in Court. 2. While Mr. Bijender Singh, learned counsel alleges that Mr. Rishu Monga and his brother Mr. Amol Monga have breached their undertakings of not using the database of M/s. Brands Academy Pvt. Ltd. and of not involving themselves in the 10th January, 2015 event; Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned senior counsel for Mr. Rishu Monga states that accounts have not been de-frozen by Mr. Sanjay Kumar of M/s. Brands Academy Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with the aforesaid order. 3. On the last date of hearing, this Court had raised an issue about the maintainability of the present contempt petitions on the ground that as mutual obligations had to be performed by both the parties and each of the parties in the present proceedings was alleging breach on the part of the other party, which could constitute a vali...
Common Cause Vs. The Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2015
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the reliefs, (a) that no retired Supreme Court Judge can give chamber advice to any party; and, (b) that no retired Supreme Court or High Court Judge will take up arbitration work while he / she is a Chairperson / Member of any Government appointed constitutional / statutory body, commission, commission of inquiry, tribunal or appellate body. 2. The petition was entertained only qua prayer (b). 3. An affidavit dated 19th July, 2011 was filed by the Under Secretary in the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt. of India stating that the issue of taking up arbitration work by the Chairpersons / Members of Tribunals and Statutory Authorities, while so functioning was under consideration and it was proposed to formulate a Uniform Policyregulating the terms and conditions of service of the Chairpersons / Members of Tribunals a...
Rakesh Kumar Garg and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These three appeals are directed against the common order dated 6th August 2010 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜CESTAT') in E/266/2006-268/2006-EX/DB arising out of an order-in-original dated 28th October 2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi (CCE). 2. By the impugned order, CESTAT reduced the penalty levied on the Appellants herein by the CCE under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (CE Rules 1944) and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 (CE Rules 2002) to Rs. 5 crores each. 3. While admitting these appeals on 24th October 2011, the following question of law was framed: Whether the Tribunal is right in imposing penalty of Rs. 5 crores on the Appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944? Background facts 4. The brief facts leading to the present appeals are that M/s. Amar Jyoti Packers ( ˜AJP'), a sole proprietary firm of...
Ascot Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bon Vivant Life Style Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) 1. The above captioned OMP (I) (Comm.) 16/2015 is an application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the petitioner concerning a hire agreement dated January 20, 2012, having an arbitration clause. Pleading that on account of non-payment of hire charges by the respondent the agreement in question has been determined, prayer made is to appoint a receiver to take possession of the assets which were hired. The subject matter of the dispute is concededly a Commercial dispute of the specified value as per the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Ordinance, 2015. 2. Being filed on November 20, 2015, after the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred as 'Ordinance') was promulgated on October 23, 2015, which provided for Constitution of Commercial Court, Commercial Division and Commercial Appella...
Management of CPWD Vs. Abdul Gaffar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
1. By virtue of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the award dated 07.03.2006 passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II whereby the action of the petitioner in terminating the services of the petitioners including one Jai Chand was held to be illegal and unjustified. The petitioners were held to be entitled for regularisation from the date of their initial engagement with all consequential benefits within one month. They were also awarded arrears of wages. Besides that, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded as cost. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, factual matrix of the case is that Shri Abdul Gaffar was initially engaged in MRM Project, Nepal and Shri Saleshwar Kamat was engaged in PWD ED-V on 29.03.1977 and 24.06.1981 respectively. Later, when the project work was completed both these workmen were transferred to the Mechanical and Workshop Division as Muster Roll workers. Some workers...
State Thr. CBI Vs. Shobha Chhabra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 378(2) read with Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( ˜Cr.P.C.'), appellant/CBI seeks setting aside of order of acquittal dated 10.01.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi, in case bearing RC84(A)/95-DLI. 2. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/CBI contended that Naimuddin/complainant (PW1) having supported the prosecution case and his evidence having been corroborated by the evidence of Banwari Lal Sharma/ independent witness (PW3), Inderjeit/shadow witness (PW4) and (PW7) Inspector S.R. Singh/ Trap Laying Officer(TLO) there being ample material evidence in proof of the prosecution case, however, the learned Special Judge had committed error and illegality in acquitting the respondent/accused. 3. She further submitted that the learned Special Judge had given undue importance to the minor discrepancies in the evidence of the Complainant, shadow witn...
In the matter of The Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies Act, 2013 ( ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
1. This joint application has been filed under Sections 391 to 394 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 Abhilasha Buildcon Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 1); Aesthete Realtors Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 2); Ansal API Affordable Homes Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 3); Ansal API Logistics Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 4); Ansal API Power Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 5); Ansal Retail Properties Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 6); Ansal Urban Township Developers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the t...
In the matter of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies Act, 2013 ( ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
1. This joint petition has been filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the petitioner companies seeking sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation of Sharp Capital Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company) with Sharp Credits Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company). 2. The registered offices of the transferor and transferee companies are situated at New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The transferor company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 7th March, 1995 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana at New Delhi. 4. The transferee company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 16th October, 1986 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana at New Delhi. 5. The present authorized share capital of the transferor company is Rs.10,00,000/- divided into 1,00,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each. The present issued, subscribed and paid-up share capital of the co...
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Toll Global Forwarding India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
1. These are two appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. ITA No. 374/2015 is directed against the impugned order dated 18th November, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No.5025/Del/2010 for Assessment Year ('AY') 2006-07. ITA No. 396/2015 is directed against the impugned order dated 18th November, 2014 passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 774/DEL/2012 for the AY 2007-08. 3. The Respondent Assessee is a logistics service provider, offering a bouquet of international and domestic freight handling services including time defined air and ocean transport and freight forwarding services. The Assessee has been using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') Method for benchmarking its international transactions with its Associated Enterprises ('AEs'). The residual profits were split between the Assessee and the AEs in the ratio of 50:50. 4. A reference was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') to dete...
Commissioner of Income-tax-7 Vs. Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') is directed against the impugned order dated 9th September 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No. 2186/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2008-09. Questions of law 2. On 13th March 2015 while admitting this appeal, the following questions of law were framed for consideration: "(a) Whether the ITAT fell into error in holding that the Assessee was entitled to additional depreciation for the machinery used by it to broadcast radio programs in the FM channel given the definition of 'manufacture' as it existed at the time the assessment was taken up in this case? (b) Did the ITAT fall into error in its opinion with respect to depreciation on broadcasting rights for the centres where the assets were not put to use, in the facts and circumstances of the case?" Background fact 3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the Responde...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »