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.
Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Trade and Taxes
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against a common order dated 9th April 2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal ( ˜AT'), Value Added Tax ( ˜VAT'). ST Appeal No. 31 of 2103 pertains to the period 1st April 2005 to 7th August 2005 and ST Appeal No. 29 of 2103 pertains to the period 30th November 2005 to 31st December 2007. 2. At the hearing of these appeals on 30th July 2013 (along with ST Appeal No.30 of 2013 which pertained to the period 8th August 2005 to 9th November 2005) the Court framed the following questions of law:i) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that Digital Still Image Video camera is not classified and covered by Entry No.41 or 41A (Description 15)?ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was deemed waiver of the application for pre-determination and if the Tribunal was wrong, effect thereof?iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding levy of penalty and interest? 3. The Court by the said order observed th...
Commissioner of Income Tax €“ II Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜Act') is directed against the impugned order dated 23rd August 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Authority ( ˜ITAT') in ITA No. 1846/Del/2010 (appeal of the Revenue) and ITA No. 1816/Del/2010 for the Assessment Year ( ˜AY') 2001-02. 2. There are three broad issues projected by the Revenue for consideration. The first pertains to deletion by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ ˜CIT (A)'] and affirmed by the ITAT of addition made by the Assessing Officer ( ˜AO') of Rs. 30,450 and Rs. 46,40,822 under Section 43 (B) of the Act on account of delayed contribution of ESI, provident fund ( ˜PF') and superannuation fund. 3. As regards the deletion of the addition of Rs. 30,450 relatable to the delayed contribution of ESI and PF, the Court declines to frame a question since the sum is insubstantial. The question is left open for the consideration ...
Major Amandeep Singh Vs. University of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
1. The petition impugns the refusal of the respondents No.1and2 University of Delhi of permission to the petitioner to take supplementary examination in the subject of Jurisprudence-II of VIth term Bachelor of Law (LLB) Programme and seeks a mandamus to the respondents University of Delhi and its Examination Branch to allow the petitioner to take the said examination. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and the respondents University has filed a counter affidavit. The counsels were heard on 28th July, 2015 and judgment reserved. 3. It is the case of the petitioner:(i) that he joined LLB course of the respondents University in the year 2002 and completed the First and Second Year thereof and appeared in the Vth term examination in December, 2004;(ii) that he joined the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun, Uttarakhand in January, 2005 and thus could not attend the classes of VIth and last term of the LLB course;(iii) that in January, 2013, he sought posting to Delhi in order to complete h...
Harish Relan Vs. Kaushal Kumari Relan and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2015
Gita Mittal, J. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions! ? [Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. K. Parasaran and Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 530] 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 28th November, 2014 passed in CS(OS)No.724/2006. A composite order dismissing I.A.No. 8296/2014 filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for brevity) and thereafter holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by time resulting in rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation was passed. As a consequence, the interim injunction order subsisting in favour of the plaintiff appellant came to be vacated. 2. Most of the respondents in this appeal are senior citizens. The respondent no.1 is around 90 years of age, compl...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Canon India Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2015
Vibhu Bakhru J. 1. The present Appeals are filed by the Revenue against a common order dated 3rd May, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter Tribunal') in respect of ITA Nos. 4602/Del/2010, 5593/Del/2011 and 6086/Del/2012; these appeals were filed by the Assessee challenging the orders of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) passed under Section 143(3)/144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereafter 'The Act') in respect of Assessment Years (hereafter AY's') 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. 2. The Assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s Canon Singapore Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter CSPL'). The Assessee started its operations in India in 1996. During the course of its business, the Assessee entered into various agreements/transactions with the Canon Group of Companies. These transactions pertained to purchase and resale of Canon products such as photocopiers, printers, scanners and cameras in India. The Assessee is also engaged in software development and as a part o...
Daleep Singh Chandrawat Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2015
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in S.C. No. 124/2006, arising out of FIR No. 186/2000 registered under Section 3 and Section 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred as the Act') convicting the Appellant for the said offences, and the order on sentence dated 06.08.2008, sentencing him for the period already undergone i.e. 7 years and 8 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial court, is that information was received that one Dalip Singh Chandrawat posted in Joint Cipher Bureau, Ministry of Defence in conspiracy with one Shah @ Sharma Nath “ a Kathmandu, Nepal based Pak Intelligence Official, was working in an unauthorized manner and communicating information relating to defense matters to known and unknown foreign agents, which were calculated to, or intended to directly or indirectly affect the sovereignty, integrity, safety of the country. It was further discl...
Sanjay Kapur and Others Vs. Vikram Kapur and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2015
1. The challenge in both these petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( ˜Act') is to an Award dated 1st November 2014 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the parties. Background facts 2. The parties are all descendants of late Rai Bahadur Janki Dass Kapur. His three sons were Mr. Bishambar Dass Kapur, Mr. Jaidev Kapur and Mr. Jagdish Kapur. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, one of the sons of late Mr. Jagdish Kapur, Mr. Gautam Kapur and Mr. Girish Kapur, sons of late Mr. Jaidev Kapur and Mr. Rishav Kapur, son of Mr. Girish Kapur are the Petitioners in OMP No. 30 of 2015. Another son of Mr. Jagdish Kapur, namely, Mr. Salil Kapur is not himself a Petitioner. However, his two sons, Mr. Prashant Kapur and Mr. Ashwin Kapur, have filed OMP No. 31 of 2015. 3. The contesting Respondents in both petitions belong to the family branch of late Mr. B.D Kapur. The first two respondents, Mr. Vikram Kapur and Mr. Rajiv Kapur are the sons of late Mr. B....
Jugal Kishore Khanna Through Lrs N.K. Khanna and Others Vs. The Swatan ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2015
Open Court: 1. The present second appeal is directed against the impugned order/judgment dated 19.03.2014 passed by Sh. D.K. Malhotra, ADJ, Central Delhi. By the said judgment, the learned First Appellate Court has held that the judgment of the Trial Court was rendered against a dead person and, consequently, non-est. The appeal preferred by the respondent/defendant has, therefore, not been decided on merits. 2. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their consent, I proceed to dispose of the appeal. 3. The background facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal may be noted. The original plaintiff Sh. Jugal Kishore Khanna filed a suit to seek declaration and reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunction on 16.04.1979 against the respondent society. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on 30.07.1984. Consequently, the said Jugal Kishore Khanna preferred a first appeal before the learned ADJ on 27.09.1984. During pendency of the said first appeal, Sh. Jugal Kishore...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›