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.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt Gulvashri and A ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
$-19 & 19A * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:9. h February, 2015 + MAC.APP. 434/2014 UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate SMT GULVASHRI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. J.P. N. Shahi, Advocate for Respondents no.1 & 2. versus + MAC.APP. 144/2015 SMT GULVASHRI & ANR. Through: ..... Appellants Mr. J.P. N. Shahi, Advocate versus UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) CM. APPL197612014 (delay) For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 69 days in filing the Cross-Objections is condoned. Application stands disposed of. CM APPL.19760/2014 (Cross-Objections) These Are Cross-Objections filed by Respondents no.1 and 2. Let the Cross-Objections be registered as MAC. APP. 144/2015. The application stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 434/2014 & MAC. APP. 144/2015 1. These tw...
M/S. Adhishwar Lal Jain and Sons (Huf) Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
$~32 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:09. 02.2015 + W.P.(C) 8833/2014 & CM No.20267/2014 M/S. ADHISHWAR LAL JAIN & SONS (HUF) versus .... Petitioner UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Dr Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva with Mr R. Satish Kumar , Advocates. For the Respondents :Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC with Mr Deepak Gupta, Advocates for respondent No.1 . Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for R-2. Mr Pawan Mathur, Advocate for R-3/DDA CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain on behalf of Respondent No.2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as he would be relying on the averments contained in the writ petition.2. The petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair ...
Manoj and Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: February 09, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 493/2015 & Crl.M.A.1928/2015 MANOJ & ORS Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Vijay Kinger, Advocate versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with SI Vinod Mr. S.K.Grover, Advocate, with respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of FIR No.386/2007, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered at police station Bhajan Pura, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement whose terms find mention in the Family Courts order of 27th November, 2014. Notice. Mr. Karan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and Mr.S.K. Grover, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, ...
M/S I.S. Dye Stuff Industries Ltd. Vs. Uoi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
$~28 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:09. 02.2015 W.P.(C) 8798/2014 & CM202022014 M/S I.S. DYE STUFF INDUSTRIES LTD. ... Petitioner versus UOI & ORS. ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr B.S. Mathur, Mr Rajat Mathur, Mr Siddharth Gupta and Ms Srishti Bhatia For the Respondent No.1 : Mr S.D. Windlesh For the Respondent No.2 : Mr Dhanesh Relan and Mr Arush Bhandari For the Respondent Nos.3 &4 : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The learned counsel for respondent No.4, Mr Yeeshu Jain, has handed over the counter affidavit, which is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as all the necessary averments are contained in the writ petition itself.2. By way of this writ petition the petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fai...
Mr. Karan Nath Vs. Ms. Minakshi Nath and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Judgment :09.02.2015. CS(OS) 1630/2006 MR. KARAN NATH Through ..... Plaintiff Mr. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Praveen Agarwal, Advocate versus MS. MINAKSHI NATH AND ORS. ..... Defendants Through Mr. Amit Sehgal, Adv. for D-1 and D-2 Ms. Swaty S. Malik, Adv. for D-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) I.A.No.9189/2014 (u/ Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) and I.A.No.20883/2014 (u/O XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) 1. The application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been filed by defendant nos.1 to 3. They are the two daughters and the wife of defendant no.4 (Kailash Nath). Kailash Nath is admittedly the owner of the suit property i.e. the property bearing No.39, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi. The prayer made in the application is that the plaintiff (surrogate son of defendant no.4) be restrained from getting his name mutated in the electricity connection no.1006560 or to substitute his name as a co-owner in the sui...
Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi ???Xvi Vs. Ram Gopal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:09. h February, 2015 + ITA702015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI XVI ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Rohit Madan, Adv. versus RAM GOPAL Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Poonam Ahuja with Mr. Mukul Mathur, 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 Revenue is aggrieved by the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in respect of its appeal ITA No.5910/Del./2012. The impugned common order also allows the cross-objections preferred by the assessee in C.O.No.479/Del./2012. The Revenue complains that the ITAT fell into error in misappreciating that the amounts spent by the assessee were towards acquisition of a capital asset, during the relevant year, and that the amount spent towards improvements was deductible.2. The assessee, in the return for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 reported sales of two capital assets in the form of half shares in a ...
Rahul Bhatia and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
$~26 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:09. 02.2015 + W.P.(C) 8753/2014 & CM No.20104/2014 RAHUL BHATIA & ANR. .... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr G. Sarin with Mr S.K. Rout, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for R-1 & R-2 Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for R-3 CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as he would be relying on the averments contained in the writ petition.2. The petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to...
H C Chawla and Anr. Vs. State and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: February 09, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 2907/2013 & Crl.M.A. 110030/2013 H C CHAWLA & ANR Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Chaitali Jain, Mr. Nakul and Ms. Barkha, Advocates versus STATE & ANR Through: .....Respondents Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State Mr. A.B. Pandey and Ms. Priyanka Rathor, Advocates for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of Criminal Complaint No.14582/2011, under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 titled M/s. Ingram Micro India Limited v. M/s. S. D. Infosys & Ors. is sought on merits in this petition. At the hearing, it was disclosed by learned counsel for petitioners that Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. has not yet been framed and the next date before trial court is 15th May, 2015. At the outset, it is made clear that learned counsel for petitioner has CRL.M.C. 2907/2013 Page 1 not been heard on me...
Smt Gulvashri and Anr. Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
$-19 & 19A * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:9. h February, 2015 + MAC.APP. 434/2014 UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate SMT GULVASHRI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. J.P. N. Shahi, Advocate for Respondents no.1 & 2. versus + MAC.APP. 144/2015 SMT GULVASHRI & ANR. Through: ..... Appellants Mr. J.P. N. Shahi, Advocate versus UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) CM. APPL197612014 (delay) For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 69 days in filing the Cross-Objections is condoned. Application stands disposed of. CM APPL.19760/2014 (Cross-Objections) These Are Cross-Objections filed by Respondents no.1 and 2. Let the Cross-Objections be registered as MAC. APP. 144/2015. The application stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 434/2014 & MAC. APP. 144/2015 1. These tw...
State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) Vs. Mullah Muzib
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION No.62/2015 Date of decision:09. h February, 2015 % STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Through : . Appellant Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for the State versus ..Respondent MULLAH MUZIB Through : None CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SISTANI HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G. S. SISTANI, J.1. By the present criminal leave petition filed under section 378(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 04.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in sessions case No.204/2013 whereby the respondent (accused before the trial court) was acquitted of the charges punishable under section 377 of Indian Penal Code read with section 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act.2. The facts of the case, as noticed by the learned trial court, are as under :1. Briefly stated facts of prosecution case are that on October 29, 2013 at about 2 PM, complainant along with his friend Tausif and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »