Delhi Court August 2015 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Tatpal Singh Jaggi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The present public interest litigation, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, concerns the selection of Respondent No. 5 as the recipient of an award, i.e. Rashtriya Khel Protsahan Puraskar (hereafter referred to as the Puraskar ?) for the year 2011 and the constitution of the committee under the Scheme for the Puraskar subsequent to the amendment dated 01.03.2011, responsible for selection of the Puraskar awardees. 2. The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as MYAS ?) is the first respondent; the second respondent is the Sports Authority of India ( SAI ?), the third respondent is the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu ( SDA ?), the fourth respondent is the Tamil Nadu Squash Rackets Association ( the Association ?). The fifth respondent is an individual businessman who is also in the field of sports administration. 3. MYAS instituted the Puraskar in the year 2009 for contribution to sports by...
Govt of Delhi and Others Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Challenge by the Government of NCT of Delhi and its Principal Secretary in LPA No.677/2011 and LPA No.680/2011 and the challenge by the Delhi Vidyut Board Employees Terminal Benefit Fund, 2002 (a Trust) in LPA No.738/2011 and LPA No.739/2011 is to an order dated April 20, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of Civil Miscellaneous Application filed by the North Delhi Power Ltd. and BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. seeking clarification of the judgment dated July 02, 2007 passed in a batch of writ petitions filed by North Delhi Power Ltd., BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. which was followed by an order dated October 08, 2007 and finally the order dated January 25, 2008. Challenge in the remaining captioned appeals is by BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. and TATA Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (the successor-in-interest of North Delhi Power Ltd.) to the judgment and order dated May 17, 2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.1680/2012 by th...
Malkeet Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The controversy involved in the above captioned intra-court appeal relates to appointment to the post of Air Traffic Control (hereinafter referred to as ATC') cadre in Airports Authority of India. 2. To adjudicate upon the controversy in the present case we need to start our journey from the year 1972 when all airports in India were under the direct control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India. The employees engaged to manage the airports were the employees of the Central Government and were paid wages as recommended from time to time by the Pay Commissions subject to such changes as were made by the Central Government. In other words these employees were receiving salary as per the CDA Pattern. 3. At that time the hierarchical structure of ATC Cadre in the Department of Civil Aviation was as follows:-Senior Aerodrome Officer|Aerodrome Officer|Assistant Aerodrome Officer|Aerodrome Assistant. 4. The conditions of service of employees of the Dep...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-III Vs. Kabul Chawla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These three appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') are directed against the common order dated 25th May 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA Nos. 779, 780 and 781/Del/2013 relating to Assessment Years ('AYs') 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07. 2. The issue that the Court proposes to address in these appeals is the same that was considered by the ITAT viz., 'Whether the additions made to the income of the Respondent Assessee for the said AYs under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') were not sustainable because no incriminating material concerning such additions were found during the course of search and further no assessments for such years were pending on the date of search?' Background facts 3. A search was carried out under Section 132 of the Act on 15th November 2007 on BPTP Ltd., a leading real estate developer operating all over India and mainly in the National Capital region a...
Premwati Represented by: Lrs Vs. Premwati Represented by: Lrs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2015
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Banwari Lal, common ancestor of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6 constituted proprietorship concern under the name and style of M/s Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal, Chawri Bazar. Later Banwari Lal with his son Bal Kishan Das incorporated six private limited companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 which took over the entire capital, assets and liabilities of M/s Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal, the sole proprietorship concern. The plaintiffs in the suit are Smt.Premwati, daughter of Bal Kishan Das and legal heirs of his son Gopal Kishan Das who died in 1984. The defendant No.1 is the wife and defendant Nos.2 to 6 the other legal heirs of Bal Kishan Das. The six companies incorporated by Banwari Lal and his son Bal Kishan Dass from the capital and assets of M/s Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal have been impleaded as defendant Nos.7 to 12 in the suit. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant Nos.2 to 6 were controlling defendant Nos.7 to 12. The pedigree chart of Banwari Lal i...
Late Prem Raj Chaudhary, Thr Legal Heirs Vs. Babu Ram and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2015
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Prem Raj Chaudhary, the deceased plaintiff filed a suit being CS(OS) 2043/89 in respect of Plot No.5, Block No.60, WEA, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi admeasuring 569 sq. Yards (in short the suit property) inter alia claiming declaration that the plaintiff was not competent to deal with the suit property, qua the sale deed dated September 03, 1983 executed in favour of Babu Ram Gupta/ defendant No.1 and Smt. Swaran Kanta Gupta/ defendant No.2 as null and void, subsequent sale deed dated August 06, 1984 executed by defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.4 M/s. Ashoka Metal Decor (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Director Ashok Gupta as null and void, possession and mesne profit. 2. A written statement was filed by defendants No.1 to 3 jointly and another by defendant No.4. Defendant No.9 adopted the written statement of defendant No.4. In the written statement defendant No.4 claimed that the plaintiff transferred complete rights in the plot by means of agreements to...
M/s. SICPA India Private Limited Vs. Kapil Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2015
Gita Mittal, J. 1. Vide this judgment, we propose to decide the challenge to the judgment dated 1st July, 2014 whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of several applications and consequently the suit being CS(OS)No.2277/2010. 2. For the sake of convenience, we propose to refer to the appellant as 'SICPA' and the other parties by the same nomenclature as has been assigned to them by the learned Single Judge. Also to facilitate consideration, we may first and foremost note the parties to the litigation. SICPA India Pvt. Ltd. ( ˜SICPAfor brevity hereafter) as plaintiff brought the suit against Shri Kapil Kumar (Defendant no.1); his wife Smt. Ritu Kumar (Defendant no.2); M/s Brushman (India) Ltd. (defendant no.3); ICICI Bank Ltd. (defendant no.4); DLF Ltd. (defendant no.5) and; M/s Genesis Finance Co. Ltd. (Defendant no.6). It is noteworthy that while the opposite party nos.1 to 3 were arrayed as defendants', the defendant nos.4 to 6 were arrayed as proforma parties'. They are...
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. Mani Rastogi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2015
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. These two appeals are preferred against the common order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.Ps.(C) No.7770/2015 and 7788/2015. 2. The said writ petitions were filed by some of the candidates aspiring for admission into B-Tech Course with a prayer to set aside the Caution Notice dated 07.08.2015 issued by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University notifying that any admissions made by the affiliated institutes in deviation from the schedule for filling up the remaining vacancies after 31.07.2015 notified vide University's Note dated 04.08.2015, would not be regularized by the University and to direct the University to admit the writ petitioners in various streams of B-Tech. Course as per their merit against the vacant seats available with Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology (arrayed as respondent No.18 in LPA No.545/2015 and as respondent No.5 in LPA No.544/2015). The said writ petitions were disposed of at the threshold by the order under app...
Commissioner of Income-tax-I Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2015
CM APPL No. 3774 of 2015 in ITA No. 160 of 2015 CM APPL No. 3775 of 2015 in ITA No. 161 of 2015 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. ITA No. 160 of 2015 and ITA No. 161 of 2015 3. These two appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act ('Act') are directed against the common order dated 21st July 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No. 2972/Del/2012 and ITA No. 877/Del/2013 for the Assessment Years ('AYs') 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. 4. At the outset, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the Revenue that the questions (a) to (e) as projected by the Revenue in para 2 of the memorandum of appeal concerning ITAT's order deleting certain additions stand answered in favour of the Assessee by the order dated 2nd March 2015 in ITA No. 162 of 2015 (CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.) concerning and earlier AY. Consequently, those questions for the present AYs also stand answered in favour...
Abdul Rashid Vs. Delhi WAQF Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2015
Oral: I.A. No.17653/2015 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. I.A. stands disposed of. + CS(OS) No.2537/2015 and I.A. No.17654/2015 (stay) 2. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff/Mr. Abdul Rashid, claiming himself to be a Mutawali, seeking the relief of permanent injunction effectively by which plaintiff wants that it should he held that he is in possession of the suit property being Dargah/Mazar Biwi Fatima, Kaka Nagar, New Delhi-110003 and that the sole defendant/Delhi Waqf Board be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. 3. The suit is predicated on the averments that injunction should be granted because plaintiff is in possession of the suit property which is a Dargah/Mazar. The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint is that the plaintiff is in open and settled possession for the past 60 years and which is so stated in para 17 of the plaint. Plaintiff claims that plaintiff's possession is being threatened by the sole defendant/Del...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »