Delhi Court March 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.
Cit-I Vs. M/S Malibu Estate P Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:18. h March, 2015 + ITA2132015 & CM No.4961/2015 CIT-I Through ..... Appellant Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Adv. versus M/S MALIBU ESTATE P LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Mayank, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. Admit.2. The question of law raised by the Revenue in its appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the Act) is with respect to the correctness of the ITATs order dated 13 th December, 2013 in ITA No.2278/Del/2011. The Revenue urges that the ITAT fell into error in permitting the accountancy practices of the assessee for the relevant year.3. The facts briefly are that assessee carries on business as a colonizer and real estate developer. It developed a colony known as Malibu Town in Gurgaon. Its return for the Assessment Year 2007-2008 is `1,61,88,518/-. The A...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunny and and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
$-41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:18. h March, 2015 + MAC.APP. 787/2012 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Pankaj Seth, Advocate versus SUNNY AND & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Surabhi Rai, Advocate for Respondents no.1 to 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. There is twin challenge to the judgment dated 26.04.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs.4,74,580/- was awarded in favour of Respondents no.1 to 3 for the death of Banwari Lal who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 25.09.2009 at 5:15 a.m. while the deceased was sleeping on a cot outside his Jhuggi at F-Block, New Power House, J.J.Colony, Bawana, Delhi.2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Claims Tribunal dealt with the aspect of negligence and simply awarded the compensation on the basis that a criminal case has been...
Raj Kumar Jain Vs. M/S Balaji Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: March 18, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 1072/2015 & Crl. M.A.Nos.4006-07/2015 RAJ KUMAR JAIN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Gaurav Kakkar & Ms. Bhavna Chopra, Advocates versus M/S BALAJI ENTERPRISES ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Parvin Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentNo.2-State with Inspector Afzar Raza CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of Criminal Complaint No.11SHDm , under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, titled as Balaji Enterprises Vs. PRJ Enterprises Ltd. and the summoning order of 23rd February, 2013 is sought on merits in this petition. At the hearing, it was disclosed by learned counsel for petitioner that Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. has not yet been framed and the next date before trial court is 7th April, 2015. At the outset, it is made clear that learned counsel for petitioner has not been heard on merits. Since petitioner has an alternate and efficaciou...
M K Jain and Anr. Vs. Sunita Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: March 18, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 1084/2015 & Crl. M.A.Nos.4031-32/2015 M K JAIN & ANR. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Rajesh Gupta & Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocates versus SUNITA GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of Criminal Complaint No.2479/2014, Mrs. Sunita Gupta Vs. Mr. M.K. Jain & anr., under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the summoning order of 8th September, 2014 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 26th June, 2015. At the outset, it is made clear that learned counsel for petitioner has not been heard on merits. Since petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy available to them to urge the pleas taken herein before trial court at the time of framing of Not...
Union of India Vs. M.N. Sridhar Rao
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2676/2015 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC, Ms.Noor Anand, Mr.Prashant Ghai, Advocates versus M.N. SRIDHAR RAO Through: % ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA ORDER1803.2015 C.M. Appl. No.4781/2015 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. W.P. (C) No.2676/2015 & C.M. Appl. No.4780/2015 (Stay) The petitioner Union of India has filed the instant petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the impugned order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide orders dated 15th September, 2011. On perusal of the contents of Writ Petition, we find that in the entire petition the petitioner has not given any reasons for such inordinate delay on their part to challenge the impugned order dated 15th September, 2011. The petition is al...
Commissioner of Income Tax-Vi Vs. Vrm India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided On:18. 03.2015 + ITA No.2069/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus VRM INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Padma Priya, Advocate. AND + ITA No.318/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus VRM INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Padma Priya, Advocate. AND + ITA No.320/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus ITA No.2069/2010, 318/2014 & ITA No.320/2014 Page 1 VRM INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Padma Priya, Advocate. 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 substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter "the Act"):Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in vie...
Roop Narain Sharma Vs. Manoj Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
* + HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R.S.A. No.85/2007 & C.M. Nos.19141/2012, 19142/2012 Decided on :18. h March, 2015 ROOP NARAIN SHARMA Through: Appellant Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate. Versus MANOJ KUMAR Through: Respondent Mr. Sandeep Khatri, Advocate. WITH + R.S.A. No.93/2007 & C.M. Nos.19787/2012, 19788/2012, 13951/2012, 13952/2015 ROOP NARAIN SHARMA Through: Appellant Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate. Versus ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Khatri, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. These are regular second appeals which were filed way back on 19.3.2007. Although application for restoration is listed today along with application seeking condonation of delay in filing the restoration application but till date no substantial question of law has been framed despite sufficient number of opportunities having been given to the appellant in this regard.2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of R.S.A. No.85/2007 are being referred...
Union of India and Ors. Vs. Pradeep Tomar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of hearing and order :18. h March 2015. + W.P.(C) 2529/2015 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr.J.K. Singh, Mr.Aray Singh, Advocates versus PRADEEP TOMAR Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Anjana Gosain, Mr. Pradeep Desodya, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA ORDER % 18.03.2015 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.(ORAL) C.M. Appl. No.4509/2015 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. W.P. (C) No.2529/2015 & C.M. Appl. No.4508/2015 (Stay) 1. By way of this instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners question the tenability of the order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.4136/2013, whereby it allowed the Original Application preferred by the respondent.2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the Respondent submitted his applica...
N Gnanasambandan Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:18. h March, 2015 % + CRL.M.C. 174/2015 N GNANASAMBANDAN Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Rajiv Mohan and Mr.Nitin Saluja, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State along with SI Vijay Kumar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of orders dated 21st August, 2014, 23rd August, 2014, 28th August, 2014, 3rd September, 2014 and 4th September, 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi, arising out of Anticipatory Bail Application No.6313 and 6210, titled as State vs. Neelam & Abhinav.2. The FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by Sh. Swatantra Bhushan Sharma before DCP/EOW. It was alleged in the complaint that accused Neelam deceived the complainant by misrepresenting that she can g...
Nek Ram Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:26. h February, 2015 Judgment Pronounced on:17. h March, 2015 CRL.REV.P. 527/2008 NEK RAM ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Anand, Advocate versus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI Through: ..... Respondent Mr. P.K.Mishra, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 18.09.2007 and order on sentence dated 21.09.2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, awarding the sentence to the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 406 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days and upholding the judgment of conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 11.08.2008, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.2. Factual matrix, as emerges from the record, is that on 13.02.1997, the complainant Gopal had gone t...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »