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.
Nathia and Ors Vs. Mohd Imtiaz and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
$-28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:9. h February, 2015 + MAC.APP. 61/2015 NATHIA & ORS Through: ..... Appellants Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate with Ms. Rupika Singh, Advocate versus MOHD IMTIAZ & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Saral Chaturvedi, Advocate for Ms.Suman Bagga, Advocate for Respondent no.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) CM.APPL9392015(delay) 1. Notice.2. Mr. Saral Chaturvedi, Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent no.3 accepts notice.3. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 69 days in filing the appeal is condoned.4. The application stands disposed of. MAC. APP. 61/2015 5. Notice.6. Mr. Saral Chaturvedi, Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent no.3 accepts notice.7. The learned counsel for the Appellants states that it is a short matter and can be disposed of at this stage. The learned counsel for Respondent no.3 has no objection to the same.8. On finding that the accident was caused on ac...
M/S Trans Asian Industries Exposition Pvt Ltd. Vs. Govt of Nct of Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
$~27 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:09. 02.2015 W.P.(C) 8793/2014 & CM201922014 M/S TRANS ASIAN INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION PVT LTD. ... Petitioner versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Vishal Maan For the Respondent Nos. 1&2: Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi For the Respondent No.3 : Mr Pawan Mathur CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The counter affidavits handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain and Mr Mathur on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 &2 and respondent No.3, respectively, are taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit, inasmuch as, according to him, 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 Fair Compensation and Transparency in...
Sanjeev Joshi and Anr Vs. Manas Kumar Chatterjee and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
$~A-42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:09. 02.2015 + CS(OS) 204/2013 SANJEEV JOSHI & ANR Through ..... Plaintiffs Ms.Zehra Khan and Mr.Behal Rajshekhar Rao, Advocates versus MANAS KUMAR CHATTERJEE & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr.Vikas Aggarwal, Adv. for D-1 Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Ms.Anamika Ghai Niyazi and Mr.Manish Kumar, Advs. for D-2, D-4 and D-5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) IA No.26323/2014 This application is filed for early hearing of IA No.1795/2013. Dismissed as infructuous. IA No.1795/2013 1. This is an application filed for ex parte injunction to restrain the defendants from sharing and disclosing trade secrets, confidential data, intellectual property rights or work of plaintiff No.2 to any person, competitor or entity which may cause any harm or loss to plaintiff No.2. Other connected reliefs are also sought.2. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff No.2 is a private limited company engaged in the business of travel a...
Santosh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: February 09, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 483/2015 SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. S.K.Mishra, Advocate versus STATE & ANR Through: .....Respondents Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Daya Kishan Mr. T.D. Shukla, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of FIR No.363/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at police station Uttam Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement whose terms are mentioned in the joint statement of the parties made before Mahila Court on 4th February, 2014. Notice. Ms. Nishi Jain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. T.D. Shukla, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState submits CRL.M.C. 483/2015 Page 1 that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainan...
Hoshiyar Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY09 2015 + CRL.A. 83/2012 HOSHIYAR SINGH ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate with Ms. Neha Singla, Advocate. VERSUS STATE ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(ORAL) 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Hoshiyar Singh to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 10.03.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.60/2010 arising out of FIR No.67/2010 under Sections 376/506 IPC registered at Police Station Bhajanpur, Delhi by which he, victims father, was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC. By an order dated 15.03.2011, he was awarded RI for ten years with fine `7,000/- under Section 376 IPC and RI for two years with fine `3,000/- under Section 506 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as projected in t...
Commissioner of Income Tax-Xiv Vs. Vivek Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
$~4-10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:09. h February, 2015 + + + + + + + ITA662014 ITA672014 ITA682014 ITA692014 ITA752014 ITA762014 ITA772014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XIV ..... Appellant Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, sr. standing counsel with Mr. Aamir Aziz, Adv. versus VIVEK AGGARWAL ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prakash Kumar and Ms. Megha Kamthan, 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 common order dated 28.06.2013 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT) in several appeals filed by it in respect of a block assessment year 2001-02 to 2007-08. It urges that there are two questions of law i.e. the correctness of the ITAT order to the extent it rejected the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) adding income on account of a document seized during the search proceedings. Here reven...
Hdfc Bank Ltd and Ors Vs. Sudesh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
$ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM (M) No.630/2012 and CM No.9582/2012 (Stay) Decided on:9. h February, 2015 % HDFC BANK LTD & ORS Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate. versus SUDESH KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. C.J.Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL) 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 26th April, 2012 the Petitioners have preferred the present petition whereby the learned Trial Court set aside the sale of the vehicle and directed HDFC Bank to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- each per day to the Respondent in case of default of order of the Court and permitted the Respondent to recover the cost in accordance with Order 21 CPC.2. A brief exposition of the facts is that a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) was filed being Petition No.32/2008 titled as HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Shri Sudesh Kumar etc. wherein the learned Additional District Judge was pleased to appoint Shr...
Smt. Sona Babbar @ Sushmeethaa Vs. Government of National Capital Terr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.7938/2014 9th February, 2015 % SMT. SONA BABBAR @ SUSHMEETHAA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Manish Kohli, Advocate. versus GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Ferida Satarawala, Advocate for GNCTD. 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 Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is an employee of S.D.Hari Mandir Girls Senior Secondary School (Govt. recognized and aided); represented by respondent nos. 2 to 4; impugns the charge-sheet/memorandum of charges dated 11.8.2014.2. It is settled law that a charge-sheet can be challenged at the initial stage only when the charge-sheet is issued by an authority acting without jurisdiction or that the proceedings are being conducted by an authority without jurisdiction or there is such other fundamental ground fo...
Tulip Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:09. 02.21015 + ITA582015 TULIP ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Om Prakash Pahuja with Ms. Indu Pahuja, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Amir Aziz, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The assessee is in appeal before us and challenges an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter referred to as ITAT) dated 30.06.2014 in ITA410Del/2013.2. The assessee was subjected to re-assessment proceedings; the initiation of which has been challenged under Section 147. The second ground urged is with respect to the absence of notice under Section 143 (2) and the third is with respect to the merits of addition of Rs.4,84,000/-.3. Briefly, the facts are that for AY200809, the assessee had reported an income of Rs.444/-. This was processed under Section...
Dharmendra Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs. The Chairman, State Bank of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.4061/2013 9th February, 2015 % DHARMENDRA PRASAD SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Saket Sikri, Advocate with Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, Advocate. Versus THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mrs. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with Kr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who were contractual employees in terms of their appointment letters dated 29/30.6.2010, seek quashing of the orders of the respondent no.1/employer/State Bank of India (SBI) whereby petitioners contractual services have been terminated. Petitioners pray that they should be in fact permanently absorbed in the Junior Management...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »