Delhi Court August 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.
Seema Thakur Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2015
Oral: I.A.No. 3453/2014 (Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC by defendant no.6) 1. This is an application moved by the defendant no.6 in the suit, one Sh. Raj Kumar Bhatara. Defendant no.6/applicant was not an original party to the suit but he was added as defendant no.6 in the suit vide Order dated 22.5.2013 of a Division Bench of this Court in RFA(OS) No. 42/2013. It may be noted that the suit was originally dismissed for non-prosecution and by the Order dated 22.5.2013 the suit was restored and by the same order the applicant/defendant no.6 was made as a party to the suit on the ground that defendant no.6/applicant claims to be a bona fide purchaser for value of the suit property. The suit property is the property bearing no.18/50, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi having an area of 86.7 sq. yds. 2. In the subject suit originally there were a total of five defendants. Defendant no.1 is the Union of India. Defendant no.2 is the Land and Development Office of the Union of India. Defendant no.3 is on...
Naveen Garg Vs. Rajrani Garg and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) CM No.21398/2014 For the reasons stated in the application 30 days delay in filing the appeal is condoned. RFA(OS) 163/2014 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record of the suit. 2. At the outset we note that the pleading in para 6 of the appeal that on September 29, 2014 the appellant had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the plaint is not borne out from the record of the suit. No such application is to be found in the suit record. Learned counsel for the appellant has been told to identify the application in the suit record if at all any was filed. Counsel does not even make an attempt to identify the application. The reason is obvious. None exists. 3. That apart, the copy of the application seeking amendment of the written statement filed by the appellant which has been filed along with the appeal shows that it was sent to learned counsel for the plaintiff on September 30, 2014. We say so for the reason the photocopy ...
Rahul Vs. M/s. Allied Reality Private Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Rahul, the appellant filed a suit, impleading M/s.Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd., Satish Kumar, J.P.Jain and Dheeraj Kumar as defendants No.1 to 4 respectively. He pleaded that he was born on March 12, 1990. He pleaded that 4 bigha and 8 biswa land comprised in Khasra No.444 in the revenue estate of village Kadipur Kaushak was inherited by him and his brother Dheeraj Kumar (defendant No.4) on the death of their father on January 17, 1998 and their names were mutated as the owners of the land in the revenue record. He pleaded that in the first week of April 2008 he received a notice from the Tehsildar to appear before him on April 07, 2008 concerning some mutation proceedings pertaining to the land in question and when he went to the office of the Tehsildar he learnt that on the strength of a sale-deed dated September 20, 2006 executed by J.P.Jain in favour of M/s.Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. the said company had applied for mutation of the suit land in its name. He plead...
M/s. S and S Technocraft (P) Ltd. Vs. Rathi Steel Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The appellant was the defendant and challenge in the appeal is to the order dated October 10, 2014, dismissing IA No.13981/2013 filed by the appellant under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Declining to grant the appellant leave to defend the suit filed by the respondent, a decree has been passed against the appellant in sum of Rs. 28,93,421/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Ninety Three Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty One only) together with interest @ 16% per annum from August 04, 2009 till date of filing of the suit as also pendente lite and future interest till realization. 2. It is trite that to defend a suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant has to disclose such facts as would be deemed sufficient to entitle the defendant to defend the suit, i.e., such facts have to be disclosed, which if proved would result in the suit being dismissed. 3. Has the appellant done so? 4. It takes us to the pleadings of t...
Sanjeev Bansal and Others Vs. Gurnam Kaur and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2015
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. For the purposes of deciding the instant appeal we have considered the record of the suit which has been sent to this Court as per practice directions issued. Since learned senior counsel for the appellant, on instructions from the appellantscounsel and learned counsel for the plaintiff/the contesting respondent No.1 stated that the appeal itself be heard and no date for hearing of the appeal be fixed as contemplated by sub-Rule of Rule 11 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we had heard arguments in the appeal on July 29, 2015. 2. Vide a common judgment dated April 10, 2015 the learned Single Judge disposed of CS (OS) No.1350/1995 titled as Mrs.Gurnam Kaur vs. Pritam Singhand Test Case No.81/2008 titled as Administrator General vs.State and others'. The present appeal arises from the impugned judgment dated April 10, 2015 disposing of CS (OS) No.1350/1995 by passing a decree in favour of Gurnam Kaur in terms of Para-32 (i-ix) of the prayer clause of the amen...
Vandana Gupta and Others Vs. Kuwait Airways Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2015
1. M/s Transair and Ors. (hereinafter referred as TA) and its partners Mr.Chetan Gupta, Ms. Vandana Gupta and Ms. Jagwati (now deceased through LR) have filed the present petitions under Section 14 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the Arbitration Act) for declaring that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal (hereinafter called the tribunal ?) consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy (Retd.) Chairman, Hon'ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand (Retd.), Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.N. Khare (Retd.) since stood terminated by efflux of time on 17.10.2012, the tribunal had become de jure unable to perform its functions, and so its further extension by Director General (hereinafter referred as DG of International Air Transport Association (IATA)) of its mandate vide letter dated 18th December, 2012 and by impugned order dated 14.03.2014 is illegal and contrary to the IATA Arbitration Rules, and be set aside and quashed. 2. Common question of law and facts are involved in bo...
Nepal Singh Vs. Upender Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
1. The appellant Nepal Singh has impugned the award dated 12.03.2007 passed in Claim Petition bearing S.No.142/2006 whereby he was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 57,635/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of institution till its realization to the respondent for the injuries suffered by him in a road side accident caused by two wheeler scooter bearing No.DL-3S-7420 near Vikas Marg Flyover. 2. As per the averment made in the claim petition, on 02.08.1995 at about 11.20 am, the respondent/claimant Upender Singh was hit by two wheeler scooter No.DL-3S-7420. The respondent/claimant was removed to LNJP Hospital and at the time of preparation of MLC, he mentioned the registration number of the two wheeler scooter as DL-3S-7420 which had hit him and caused injuries. FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Sh.Vinod Kumar who was walking alongwith injured Upender Singh at that time. Statement of injured Upender Singh was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 07.08.199...
ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Late Smt Shakuntla Gupta (Since Deceased) Repre ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. As the owner of 2955 square feet built up area on the ground and mezzanine floor forming part of property bearing No.82, Janpath, on October 01, 2008 Late Ms.Shakuntala Gupta (the mother of the respondents) executed a lease-deed in respect of the property. The lessee was the Bank of Rajasthan, authorized representative whereof was the cosignatory to the lease-deed. The lease-deed was duly registered and the duration of the lease was 15 years with rent to be increased every 5 years by 20%. Being relevant to deal with the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and its rebuttal thereto by the learned counsel for the respondents, we need to note the description of the parties to the lease-deed and clauses 3, 10 and 26 thereof. They read as under:- LEASE DEED This indenture of lease is made at New Delhi on this 1st day of October, 2008.BY AND BETWEEN Mrs.Shakuntala Gupta, W/o Mr.Mahendra Kumar Gupta and R/o Shanti Niwas, 6, Under Hill Roa...
State Vs. Vishesh Chaudhary and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2015
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.05.2008, in SC No. 29/06, arising out of F.I.R. No. 126/05, under Section 498A/306/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( ˜IPC') passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, acquitting the respondents of the said offence. 2. The case of the prosecution, as taken note of in the impugned judgment, is that one Dr. Subhash Arora of Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi married his daughter Kajal with accused No.1 Vishesh Chaudhary on 21.11.1997 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, Kajal shifted to her matrimonial home in Shalimar Bagh itself, along with her father-in-law Bharat Bhushan (Accused No.4), mother-in-law Nirmal Chaudhary (Accused No.5) and two younger brothers-in-law namely Parichay (Accused No.3) and Amit (Accused No.2). After a few months, Kajal and her husband (accused no. 1) shifted to United States of America (USA) for a period of about three years. Two children were born to the couple while staying in USA. In ...
Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2015
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The Assessee has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'the Act') impugning the order dated 22nd March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 6286/Del/2012. The Assessee had preferred the aforesaid appeal before the Tribunal, impugning the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (hereafter 'AO') making the Transfer Pricing Adjustments (hereafter 'TP Adjustments') in respect of the Assessment Year (hereafter 'AY') 2008-09 as finalised by the Transfer Pricing Officer (hereafter 'TPO') pursuant to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereafter 'DRP'). 2. The Assessee is, essentially, aggrieved by the TP Adjustments made in respect of the consideration for the services rendered by the Assessee to its overseas holding company. The TP Adjustments have been made on the basis of the average operating profit margin (operating profit as a percentage of operatin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »