Delhi Court September 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.
Om Kanwar Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2015
1. The present petitioner, i.e., Shri Om Kanwar (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-workman') has preferred the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of impugned Award dated 28.04.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. IX, Karkardooma, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator') in I.D. No. 477/91 (old No. 477/91 “ 64/89). 2. The brief facts as stated are that the petitioner-workman, i.e., Shri Om Kanwar was appointed as conductor w.e.f 18.05.1975 at a monthly salary of Rs 1300/- per month. The petitioner-workman was on duty in bus No. DL-P-1064 plying on Machiwara-Delhi route. On 12.04.1984, the checking officers of the respondent-management intercepted the said bus at Ambala Cantt. at about 08.15 hours and detected a group of six passengers alighting from the bus without tickets. It is alleged that the said passengers had already paid the fare @ Rs 5.70 ...
Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2015
1. The petitioner, which is a company registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956, has challenged through the District Sales Manager of the company, the notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.') issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 23.4.2012 in CC No.599/11/WM. 2. The notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads hereunder:- I, Sheetal Chaudhary, MM, Patiala House Courts, do hereby serve notice u/s 251 of the Cr.P.C. upon you M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., B-100, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110028 through Sh.Gurmeet Singh. It is alleged against you that on 18.08.2010, the inspection was conducted by the complainant at the above place and a packet of tube packed by M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.12, Kheda Growth Centre, Pithanpur, Distt. Dhar (M.P.) PIN-454774 bearing packing date as 6/10, net size 1.467m and customer care No.022-42496400 was found with mutilated MRP. Thereby committed ...
Pradeep Singh Ahluwalia Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner inter-alia seeking the following reliefs:- (a) pass an order to quash the order dated 18.09.2006 (Annexure-A) of compulsory retirement by issuing a writ of certiorari; (b) pass an order, direction of reinstatement of the petitioner through a writ of mandamus with all consequential benefit and effects etc. including his seniority promotions etc.; ? 2. The above reveals that, the challenge is limited to order dated September 18, 2006. I note, that against the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on October 16, 2006, which culminated in an order dated May 30, 2007. Accordingly, this Court would also consider the legality of the said order as well. The Facts:- 3. Some of the relevant facts are, the petitioner while working in the respondent No.2 organisation, was issued two charge sheets dated February 14, 2003 and March 7, 2003. The subject-matter of this petition is the charge sheet dated Ma...
Commissioner of Income-tax - II Vs. Multiplex Trading and Industrial C ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the 'Act') has been preferred by the Revenue impugning an order dated 9th November, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the 'Tribunal') in ITA No.1202/Del/2011. The said appeal (ITA No.1202/Del/2011) was preferred by the Revenue to impugn an order dated 23rd December, 2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter the 'CIT(A)] allowing the appeal preferred by the Assessee against an assessment order dated 31st December, 2008 passed by the Assessing Officer (hereafter 'AO') in respect of Assessment Year 2001-02 pursuant to reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 2. The controversy involved in the present appeal relates to the action of the AO in reopening the assessment in respect of transactions that had been examined and verified by the AO during the initial assessment proceedings which culminated in the assessment order dated 31st Dec...
Somnath Bharti Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby directing the IO/SHO concerned that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he will be released on bail in FIR No.0745/2015 registered at PS Dwarka North (South-West District) under Sections 307/313/ 324/498-A/406/417/420/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC'). 2. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner got married with the complainant on 08.12.2010 after an intensive courtship period of 9 months. The couple being of same age, i.e., 35 years after knowing each other and spending good time together decided to marry. From 13.12.2010 to 23.12.2010, the couple went on honeymoon to Sri Lanka and Maldives. Between 23.12.2010 and 23.02.2011, complainant used to spend day time on the week days in her office at Chattarpur and weekends with her mother at Dwarka. She worked with one Mr. Siddharth Shankar as his executive assist...
Jitender Chawla and Another Vs. M/s. Choudhary Cement Agency and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
1. Writ petitions bearing Nos. 2966/2012 and 5621/2013 impugns the award dated 22.12.2011 passed by Labour Court No. XIX in ID No.226/06/22(old ID No. 175 of 2002). 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the workman is that he was in the employment of the management since 25.11.1999 on the post of field worker at the monthly wages of Rs.2,800/-. On 29.04.2001 while working in the establishment, he fell down from the stairs and sustained injuries in the right leg. The management did not provide any facility or funds. After recovery, he reported for duty on 02.06.2001 but the management refused to take him back on duty. Instead of making payment of its outstanding dues, the management asked him to tender his resignation and on his protest, his services were terminated illegally withholding his outstanding dues. Neither any show cause notice was served by the management nor any compensation before termination of his services was paid. A demand notice was sent to which management did...
SP Tripathi IO NCB Vs. Yudhister Kumar Alias Y Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
1. These appeals have been preferred on behalf of the Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi, against the common judgment and order dated 06.05.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Court, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 179/1988 and Sessions Case No. 7/1990 acquitting the respondents, namely, Yudhister Kumar @ Y. Kumar, Joginder Mohan Malhotra @ Jindo Malhotra, Narinder Pal Singh, Manju Narula, Surinder Mohan Malhotra and Anil Kumar Gandhi (in S.C. No. 179/1988) and respondents Amrik Singh and Kamal Manku @ Paul (in S.C. No.7/1990) for the offences punishable under Section 29 read with Sections 21 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as NDPS Act') and respondent Manju Narula for separate offence punishable under Section 21 NDPS Act. 2. Since the aforementioned appeals involve common question of facts and law and arise from the common judgment dated 06.05....
Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2015
Jayant Nath, J. 1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the order of the learned Single dated 11.08.2015. The brief facts which led to filing of the writ petition are that the appellant is a recognised Medical College in Dehradun. The appellant was started in the year 1995 to impart medical education and since 2002 the appellant institution is stated to have been recognised for 100 seats of MBBS. In the year 2012, the appellant decided to apply for increase in the number of MBBS seats from 100 to 150. Upon recommendations of respondent No.2/The Medical Council of India, the appellant was permitted to increase the MBBS seats to 150 for the Academic Year 2013-14 and thereafter for the Academic Year 2014-15. 2. That accordingly as per The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as The IMCAct) read with Establishment of Medical College Regulation, 1999 including the amendment of 2010, (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations') the appellant applied for renewal...
Verhoeven, Marie-Emmanuelle Vs. Union of India Through Ministry of Ext ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2015
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. The petitioner in these two petitions is a French National who was intercepted in Uttar Pradesh on 17.02.2015 on the basis of a Red Corner Notice issued by Interpol on the request of the Republic of Chile for her detention for the alleged offence committed in Chile. Subsequently, she was provisionally arrested vide order dated 24.02.2015 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi under Section 34-B of the Extradition Act, 1962. Thereafter, accepting the extradition request dated 24.03.2015 made by the Republic of Chile, by order dated 18.05.2015 the Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs directed inquiry under Section 5 of the Extradition Act, 1962 as to the extraditability of the offence committed by the petitioner. 2. The said action of the Union of India resulting in continuous detention of the petitioner from 17.02.2015 is under challenge in these two writ petitions. 3. While W.P. (Crl.) No.666/2015 has been filed with a...
Avinash Gupta Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2015
CM No.20437/2015 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The CM stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No. 9032/2015 and CM No.20436/2015 (for stay) 3. The petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: ” "a. Issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, thereby declaring that the time prescribed for filing the Income Tax Returns under Section 139(1) in the form of "Due Date" is the constitutional and statutory right of the Assessee; and/or b. Issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, thereby declaring that the delay in notifying the prescribed Income Tax Forms under Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules 1962, on and after 1st of April of every assessment year, is unconstitutional and is an consequence of the abdication of powers by the Respondents; and/or c. Issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, thereby directing the Respondents to extend/increase the due date of filing the Income Tax Returns as prescribed under Section 139(1) and furnishing Audit Reports under Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »