Delhi Court February 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.
Mohd Imran Vs. The State (Govt of Nct of Delhi) and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :12. h February, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 5271/2014 MOHD IMRAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate versus THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Vijay Singh, PS Civil Lines Respondent No.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of FIR No.210/2013, under Section 324 of IPC registered at police station Civil Line, Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding of 25th February, 2014 and affidavit of 19th November, 2011 of Respondent No.2. Upon notice, Ms. Nishi Jain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent No.2 present in the Court, is the complainant/first-informant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by SI Vijay Singh on the basis of identity proof produced by her. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that...
Arvind Kumar and Ors. Vs. State and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: February 12, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 4461/2014 ARVIND KUMAR KARAN & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate versus STATE & ANR Through: .....Respondents Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with SI Vinod Tyagi Mr. K.K. Singh, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON' BLE MR. J USTICE SUNIL GAUR J UDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of FIR No.190/2008, under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at police station Mansarovar Park, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 22nd June, 2012 arrived at Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Notice. Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. K. K. Singh, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. CRL.M.C. 4461/2014 Page 1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState submits that respon...
Kashmiri Lal Bhutani Vs. Arvind Kumar Adukia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.S.A. No.223/2014 & C.M. No.13975/2014 Decided on :12. h February, 2015 KASHMIRI LAL BHUTANI Appellant Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Mr. Ayush Arora & Ms. Aastha Chopra, Advocates. Versus ARVIND KUMAR ADUKIA Respondent Through: Mr. Jugal Wadhwa, Mr. Rishabh Wadhwa, Mr. Parth Kaushik & Mr. Shashank Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant. Mr. Saini, the learned counsel for the appellant has formulated following questions in the appeal:(i) Whether the court is not required to look into and consider the rights and interests of both the parties and the current position and the subsequent events which may have taken place in the meanwhile while considering an application for restoration under Section 144 CPC and decide it accordingly?. (ii) Whether the trial court is bound to order to restore back possession under all circumstances, pending trial, which has alread...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sivalik Cellulose Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:12. h February, 2015 + ITA5362010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, sr. standing counsel versus SIVALIK CELLULOSE LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Satyen Sethi, Adv. with Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Vandana Bhatnagar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The following two questions of law were framed by the Court at the stage of admission:A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting to 1.52 crores on account of claim made by the assessee towards cost paid to Hindustan Lever Ltd. for salary of Managers, Officers on deputation?. B. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order ITA No.536/2010 Page 1 passed by the CIT (Appeals) deleting the addition of 24.30 crore...
Rajender Singh Vs. State and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :12. h February, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 4724/2014 & Crl. M.A. No.16093/2014 RAJENDER SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Manoj Bansal, Advocate versus STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Sant Ram Mr. Saourav Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % Quashing of JUDGMENT (ORAL) FIR No.163/2012, under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act registered at police station Sector-23, Dwarka, Delhi is sought in this petition on the basis of No Dues Certificate (Annexure-P2) issued by respondent No.2-BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Mr. Saourav Bajaj, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and submits that in view of the No Dues Certificate (Annexure-P2) and affidavit of authorized officer of respondent No.2 supporting this petition, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. In Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab (201...
Shri Deepak Chaudhary Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.1034/2014 12th February, 2015 % SHRI DEEPAK CHAUDHARY Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Pawan Bahl, Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. S.Nanda Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Soundara Saran Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Prateek Gautam, Advocate and Mr. Parivesh Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner seeking directions for quashing the appointment of the respondent no.3 as the van driver in the respondent no.2/Sahitya Akademi and for appointment of the petitioner to the post of van driver. Respondent no.3 has been appointed as the van driver vide order dated 3.5.2013.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 advertised on 29.1.2013 for appointment to the post of a van driver. The admitted eligi...
Escorts Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
$~2 to 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:12. 02.2015 + ITA14282006, C.M. APPL.2553-2554/2015 C.I.T ..... Appellant versus M/S. ESCORTS LTD. + ..... Respondent ITA20112010 CIT ..... Appellant versus BIG APPLE CLOTHING PVT. LTD. + ..... Respondent ITA12622011, C.M. APPL.21759/2011 CIT ..... Appellant versus NARESH. K. TREHAN + ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 836/2007, C.M. NO.1490/2007 ESCORTS LTD. ..... Petitioner versus ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Parag. P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Simran Mehta and Sh. Prabhat Kalia, Advocates, for petitioner in Item No.5 and for the respondents in Item Nos. 2 and 3. Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal and Ms. Sonia Dhamija, Advocates, for appellants in Item Nos. 2 to 5 ITA142806, ITA201110, ITA126211 & W.P.(C)836/07 Page 1 Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Sh. Mukul Mathur, Advocates, for respondent in Item No.4. Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Ms. Poonam Ahuja and Sh. Mukul Mathur, Advoca...
Cit Vs. M/S. Escorts Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
$~2 to 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:12. 02.2015 + ITA14282006, C.M. APPL.2553-2554/2015 C.I.T ..... Appellant versus M/S. ESCORTS LTD. + ..... Respondent ITA20112010 CIT ..... Appellant versus BIG APPLE CLOTHING PVT. LTD. + ..... Respondent ITA12622011, C.M. APPL.21759/2011 CIT ..... Appellant versus NARESH. K. TREHAN + ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 836/2007, C.M. NO.1490/2007 ESCORTS LTD. ..... Petitioner versus ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Parag. P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Simran Mehta and Sh. Prabhat Kalia, Advocates, for petitioner in Item No.5 and for the respondents in Item Nos. 2 and 3. Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal and Ms. Sonia Dhamija, Advocates, for appellants in Item Nos. 2 to 5 ITA142806, ITA201110, ITA126211 & W.P.(C)836/07 Page 1 Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Sh. Mukul Mathur, Advocates, for respondent in Item No.4. Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Ms. Poonam Ahuja and Sh. Mukul Mathur, Advoca...
Cit Vs. Naresh. K. Trehan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
$~2 to 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:12. 02.2015 + ITA14282006, C.M. APPL.2553-2554/2015 C.I.T ..... Appellant versus M/S. ESCORTS LTD. + ..... Respondent ITA20112010 CIT ..... Appellant versus BIG APPLE CLOTHING PVT. LTD. + ..... Respondent ITA12622011, C.M. APPL.21759/2011 CIT ..... Appellant versus NARESH. K. TREHAN + ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 836/2007, C.M. NO.1490/2007 ESCORTS LTD. ..... Petitioner versus ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Parag. P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Simran Mehta and Sh. Prabhat Kalia, Advocates, for petitioner in Item No.5 and for the respondents in Item Nos. 2 and 3. Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal and Ms. Sonia Dhamija, Advocates, for appellants in Item Nos. 2 to 5 ITA142806, ITA201110, ITA126211 & W.P.(C)836/07 Page 1 Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Sh. Mukul Mathur, Advocates, for respondent in Item No.4. Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Ms. Poonam Ahuja and Sh. Mukul Mathur, Advoca...
Rattan Lal Arora Vs. Delhi Vidhyut Board and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.4489/2001 12th February, 2015 % RATTAN LAL ARORA Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Mansi Ajmani, Advocate. versus DELHI VIDHYUT BOARD & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.N.Choudhri and Ms. Shruti Choudhri, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an erstwhile employee of the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), and of which entity the present respondent no.4/BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. is the successor entity, impugns the order dated 21.3.2001 as per which the petitioner has been imposed the following penalty:i) Full gratuity, otherwise admissible to Sh. Arora, had he not been convicted, shall stands forfeited. ii) His pension would be reduced to Rs. one thousand two hundred and seventy five only per month, permanently. iii) The period of suspension viz. From 21-1-95 to 30-6-...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »