Delhi Court April 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.
Google Inc. and Ors Vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2015
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:27. h April, 2015 % + LPA No.733/2014 GOOGLE INC. & ORS. Through: ... Appellants Mr. Gopal Subramaniam and Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Ravisekhar Nair, Mr. Sameer Gandhi, Ms. Hemangini Dadwal, Mr. Arjun Khera, Ms. Shivangi Sukumar, Ms. Sara Sundaram and Mr. Rishabh Kapur, Advs. Versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: .. Respondents Mr. Pallav Saxena with Mr. Abhishek Kumar and Mr. Apurv Ranjan, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah with Mr. Arjun Dewan, Mr. Pranav Jain, Mr. Ishan Das and Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advs. for R-2. AND + W.P.(C) No.7084/2014 .. Petitioners GOOGLE INC. & ORS. Through: Mr. Gopal Subramaniam and Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Ravisekhar Nair, Mr. Sameer Gandhi, Ms. Hemangini Dadwal, Mr. Arjun Khera, Ms. Shivangi Sukumar, Ms. Sara Sundaram and Mr. Rishabh Kapur, Advs. Versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: .. Respondents Mr. Pallav Saxena with Mr. Abhishek K...
Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:26. 03.2015 Pronounced on:27. 04.2015 + ITA4172014 CHRYSCAPITAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Appellant Through: Sh. Vikas Srivastava, Sh. Parag Mohanty and Ms. Varsha Bhattacharya, Advocates. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..Respondent Through: Sh. Rohit Madan, Sh. Ruchir Bhatia and Sh. P. Roy Choudhary, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % "A phrase begins life as a literary expression; its felicity leads to its lazy repetition; and repetition soon establishes it as a legal formula, undiscriminatingly used to express different and sometimes contradictory ideas".-. Justice Felix Frankfurter in Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 318 U.S. 54 (1943) 1. Is there a concept of super profit in the arms length price/transfer price determining process under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") or the Rules framed thereunder, entitli...
M/S New India Colour Co Ltd. Vs. M/S Hanung Toys and Textiles Ltd and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2238/2014 & I.As. No.13784/2014, 17546/2014 AND186602014 M/S NEW INDIA COLOUR CO LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate with Ms. Swati Sinha and Ms. Prerna Chopra, Advocates. versus M/S HANUNG TOYS & TEXTILES LTD & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Advocate with Ms. Kartika Sharma, Advocate. % Reserved On :08. April, 2015 Date of Decision:27. h April, 2015 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J:1. Present summary suit has been filed under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of Rs. 34,16,722/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.2. Ms. Kajal Chandra, learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that goods worth Rs. 20,25,883/- had been supplied to defendant No.1 Company for its Unit III plant at Noida during the period April, 2013 to September, 2013. She further stated that the plaintiff had supplied goods worth Rs. 7,44,732/- to the defendant No.1 for its Unit V...
Onika Mehrotra and Ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2015
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:27. 04.2015 W.P.(C) 2913/2014 & CM No.6035/2014 ONIKA MEHROTRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & CM No.6377/2014 NARENDER JAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3051/2014 & CM No.6381/2014 SURENDER SOLANKI & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Petitioners : Mr A.S. Chandihok, Sr. Advocate with Mr Anil Amrit and Mr N. Tripathi in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Amit Gupta and Mr Anant A. Pavgi in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & W.P.(C) 3051/2014. For the Respondents : Mr Subodh Kumar with Dr Kanchan Chawla for R- 1 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Laliet Kumar and Mr Vipin Malik for R-2 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Gaurang Kanth, Advocate with Mr Biji Rajesh, Mr Rajeev Yadav, Mr Anchit Sharma, Mr Abhay Pratap Singh for MCD in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 ...
Registrar, University of Delhi Vs. Union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:27. h April,2015 % + W.P.(C) 2743/2012 REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Chibber and Mr. Prashant Sivarajan, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prashant Mehta and Mr. Himanshu Kapoor, Advs. for R12. Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advs. for DDA. Mr.Sushil Kr. Tripathi, Adv. / Proxy Counsel for Ms. Anita Pandey, Adv. for R7 to R9. Mr. Tarun Joshi, Adv. for DMRC with Mr. A.S. Rao, Law Officer from DMRC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner University prayed, inter alia, as under:a. Issue a writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents thereby quashing / setting aside the impugned decision taken by the respondent No.3, i.e., DDA in its meeting held on 12th May, 2011, wherein the responden...
Surender Solanki and Ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2015
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:27. 04.2015 W.P.(C) 2913/2014 & CM No.6035/2014 ONIKA MEHROTRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & CM No.6377/2014 NARENDER JAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3051/2014 & CM No.6381/2014 SURENDER SOLANKI & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Petitioners : Mr A.S. Chandihok, Sr. Advocate with Mr Anil Amrit and Mr N. Tripathi in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Amit Gupta and Mr Anant A. Pavgi in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & W.P.(C) 3051/2014. For the Respondents : Mr Subodh Kumar with Dr Kanchan Chawla for R- 1 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Laliet Kumar and Mr Vipin Malik for R-2 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Gaurang Kanth, Advocate with Mr Biji Rajesh, Mr Rajeev Yadav, Mr Anchit Sharma, Mr Abhay Pratap Singh for MCD in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 ...
Sammi and Anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : MARCH24 2015 DECIDED ON : APRIL27 2015 + CRL.REV.P.565/2014 SAMMI & ANR. Through : ..... Petitioners Mr.Vimal Puggal, Advocate. versus STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Navin K.Jha, APP. SI Sumer Chand, PS Nabi Karim. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Petitioners Sammi and Ved Parkash @ Lekhu were convicted under Section 392/34 IPC by a judgment dated 22.03.2014 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Central), Tis Hazari and were awarded RI for three years each. It is relevant to note that Subhash-petitioners associate was also convicted by the said judgment. It is unclear if he has filed any revision petition. The petitioners challenged their conviction and sentence in Crl.A.No.62/2014 which was dismissed by an order dated 20.08.2014. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition.2. Briefly stated, the allegations against the petitioners and their associate Subhash...
Maniram Sharma Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2015
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8041/2014 MANIRAM SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. J.K. Mittal and Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advs. versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC for R2 with Mr. V.K. Sharma, Designated Officer to IC(VS). % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER ORDER2704.2015 1. This is a writ petition whereby a challenge is laid to the communication dated 31.3.2014 issued by the designated officer of the Central Information Commission (in short the CIC).2. Mr. Gogna has produced the file concerning the matter. Incidentally, Mr.Gogna appears not only for respondent No.1, i.e. the CIC but also for respondent No.2, i.e. the Central Public Information Officer (in short the CPIO) of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.3. Mr. Gogna is instructed by Mr. V.K. Sharma, the designated officer, who is attached with the Information Commissioner (VS) and is the author of the communication dated 31...
Sunhari Singh and Anr Vs. Jagdish
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 361/2015 Decided on:27. h April, 2015 % SUNHARI SINGH & ANR Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Manish Vashisht, Mr. Sameer, Mr. Amit Kr. Thakur, Advs. versus JAGDISH ..... Respondent Through Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) CM76052015 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM(M) 361/2015 & CM76062015 (stay) 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 15th January, 2015 whereby an application filed by Jagdish respondent/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed, the petitioners who are the defendants in CS No.148/13 file the present petition.2. In the plaint Jagdish stated that he was allotted plot Nos. 85 & 114 Masoodpur, New Delhi (in short the suit plots) from DDA. He permitted his brothers Sunhari Singh and Daya Ram to use the said plots for running their dairy business, however subsequently Jagdish noticed construction made over part of the plots. Thus, he filed the suit seeking possession of the suit plots fr...
Maya Jain Vs. Yash Chhabra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve:26. 02 2015 Date of Decision:27. 04. 2015 + CS(OS) 2254/2013 MAYA JAIN Through: versus YASH CHHABRA Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. R. K. Rathore and Mr.Vijay Gupta, Advs. ..... Defendant Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.IA No.10525/2014 (for leave to defend) 1. This is an application under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of the CPC seeking leave to defend the suit. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.59,85,000/-. It is averred in the plaint that the defendant is well known and acquainted with the plaintiff having business association with her husband. The plaintiff agreed to give a dasti loan of Rs.45 lacs to the defendant on 20.01.2011. The defendant acknowledged having received the said sum of Rs.45 lacs in cash vide receipt dated 20.01.2011. The defendant is stated to have handed over an original signed receipt to the plaintiff with two cheques dated 1.2.2012 for Rs....
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »