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.
Sunil Kumar and Others Vs. UOI and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2015
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. In these two writ petitions, identical reliefs are sought: in W.P.(C) 1358/2014, the petitioners, working as Combatised Staff Nurses (holding the rank of Sub-Inspector [SI]) seek parity of pay with Non-Combatised Staff Nurses. In W.P.(C) 3829/2014, the petitioners seek similar relief in the form of parity with Nursing Sister, in the grade pay of Rs. 4600/- (PB-2) in the pay scale of Rs. 9300/-34800/- of the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) in the case of all petitioners, except Petitioner Nos. 10,12,18,19 and 20- in the case of the latter, they seek the grade pay of Rs. 4800/-. The ITBP Petitioners are also working as Nurses. Both complain that their employers have acted arbitrarily in denying them a normal replacement scale pertaining to Category S-10 after the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, (2008 Rules) by granting them a lower grade. They say that given the arduous nature of their duties of Staff Nurses entitles them to be placed in ...
Vodafone South Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These are two appeals filed by the Assessee Vodafone South Ltd. (formerly known as Vodafone Essar South Ltd. and earlier to that as Hutchison Essar South Ltd.) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('1961 Act') against a common order dated 7th February, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA Nos. 4146/Del/2011 and 91/Del/2011 for the Assessment Years ('AYs') 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively. 2. The Assessee is engaged in the business of providing cellular services in the Delhi Region. The Assessee actually commenced its business from June, 2002. During the AY 2002-03 the Assessee availed of financing facilities from the HSBC Bank, Barakhamba Branch, New Delhi. HSBC's sanction letter dated 2nd August 2001, a copy of which has been placed on record, offered the Assessee a combined credit limit of Rs.340 crores. The fixed rate of interest was 11.5% for the first year but the letter mentioned that this was "an indicative rate and ...
Advanced Medical Science and Education Society Vs. Medical Council of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2015
1. The petition impugns the letter dated 15th June, 2015 of the respondent No.2 Union of India (UOI) to the petitioner intimating to the petitioner disapproval of the scheme submitted by the petitioner in August 2014 for establishment of a new medical college with an intake capacity of 150 students annually in MBBS course / programme with effect from the academic year 2015-2016. Axiomatically, the petition also seeks a mandamus to the UOI and to the respondent No.1 Medical Council of India (MCI) to issue a letter of permission to the petitioner for establishing the said medical college with effect from the academic year 2015-2016. 2. Though the petition impugns the communication dated 15th June, 2015 supra and which according to the petitioner was received by it on 26th June, 2015 and further though the last date prescribed for grant of such approval was 15th July, 2015 but this petition though dated 23rd July, 2015 was filed first only on 31st July, 2015 but with defects and was there...
Surabhi Gehlot and Others Vs. Swarn Kanta Punj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2015
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This common judgment will dispose of two connected appeals, i.e FAO No. 367/2013, (where the defendant complains that the application for rejection of the respondent's plaint in the suit - I.A. No. 5932/2013 in CS (OS) 3559/2012- was wrongly dismissed) and FAO(OS) 420/2013, (where the ad-interim injunction claimed in I.A. No. 1035/2013 in the said suit was granted). The application for rejection of plaint was dismissed by order dated 08.07.2013 and the temporary injunction was granted by an order dated 06.08.2013. 2. The factual matrix within which the present dispute arises is as follows. Since 1948, one Shri Chaman Lal, and his brother, Shri Swaran Lal's family had been living at 12, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (hereafter the demised premises) as tenants. After the latter's death, his family members continued in possession of the premises and his widow, the respondent in the present matter has been paying rent to the landlord. Subsequently even after Shri ...
MS Shoes East Ltd. Vs. R.K. Singh and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Case of the appellant pleaded in the plaint is that the defendant is a broker and provides financial services, inter-alia, as broker to procure applications concerning public issues. As per the appellant it decided to raise capital by way of a public-cum-right issue aggregating Rs. 6,99,00,000/- as also a public issue of fully convertible debentures aggregating Rs. 3,49,93,75,200/-. SBI Capital Markets Ltd. (SBI Caps) was the Lead Manager. In consultation with the Lead Manager, the appellant had a scheme to provide incentive to brokers who gave firm commitment to bring investors i.e. procure applications for allotment of fully convertible debentures. The defendant committed to procure subscription amount of Rs. 31 crores towards the public issue of fully convertible debentures. Appellant released 50% of the incentive amount i.e. Rs. 15,00,000/- by two cheques dated January 30, 1995 and February 07, 1995. Since the defendant failed to procure the committed subsc...
Hamdard Laboratories India and Another Vs. Assistant Director of Incom ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2015
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This judgment disposes of six writ petitions, primarily concerning the charitable status of Hamdard Laboratories (India) (hereafter referred to as Hamdard the first Petitioner in the six writ petitions) “ under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act ?). The Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) ( DGIT(E) ?) “ Respondent in W.P.(C) 5711 of 2013 “ by order dated 21.08.2013 retrospectively withdrew the exemption granted to Hamdard under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act with effect from assessment year (AY) 2004-05. 2. In W.P.(C) 5711 of 2013, Hamdard has impugned the said order of the DGIT(E). In W.P.(C) 3599 of 2012, Hamdard challenges reopening of its assessment for AY (assessment year) 2005-06, and impugns the notice of reopening dated 27.03.2012 issued under Section 148 of the Act as well as the order dated 25.05.2012 rejecting Hamdard's preliminary objections pertaining to the reopening of assessment proceeding...
Dr. MGR Educational and Research Institute University Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2015
WP(C) 7855/2015 AND CM No.15639/2015 Preface 1. This writ petition is directed against the communication dated 11.05.2015 issued by respondent no.2 i.e. the Medical Council of India (hereafter referred to as MCI) and communication dated 15.06.2015 issued by respondent no.1 i.e. the Union of India (hereafter referred to as UOI).1.1 By virtue of the impugned communications, in effect, the petitioner's scheme for admittance of students to the MBBS Course upto a maximum extent of 150 candidates, for the academic year 2015-2016, has been rejected.1.2 Pertinently, UOI's communication dated 15.06.2015 is pivoted on the recommendation of MCI contained in its letter dated 11.05.2015. 2. The challenge raised by the petitioner arises in the background of the following broad facts:-2.1 The petitioner, which is constituted as a deemed university, was desirous of setting up a medical college by the name of ACS Medical College and Hospital (hereafter referred to as the ACS Medical College') as a cons...
Prem Mardi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
1. In these days of challenge to the bans imposed by the Governmental and Municipal Agencies on various aspects of life being brought before the Courts by the Advocates community, the petitioner, belonging to the same community, has brought this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a ban on the screening of the film MSG-2- The Messenger ?, by seeking the reliefs of (i) quashing of the Certificate issued by the respondent no.3 Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to the said film; (ii) by seeking a direction to the respondent no.2 Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (GOI) to issue appropriate orders to YouTubeto take down the trailer of the said film from its website; (iii) by seeking a direction to the respondent no.1 Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, GOI to issue appropriate orders to cable and television networks proscribing them from broadcasting the said film or its trailer; and, (iv) by restraining the respondent no.5 Hakikat...
Rajshree Educatonal Trust and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
1. The petition impugns the recommendations dated 12th February, 2015 and 11th May, 2015 of the respondent No.2 Medical Council of India (MCI) to the respondent No.1 Union of India (UOI) to refuse permission to Rajshree Medical Research Institute (RMRI), Bareilly, U.P. established by the petitioner No.1 Trust (of which petitioner No.2 is the President Trustee) as well as the communication dated 15th June, 2015 UOI to the said RMRI not to admit any students in second batch (150 seats) of MBBS course for the academic year 2015-16 and further notifying that admission in next batch of students for the year 2016-17 be made only after obtaining the permission of UOI. 2. The writ petition was entertained and counter affidavit has been filed by MCI and to which rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners. UOI has adopted the pleadings and arguments of MCI. The senior counsel for the petitioners and the senior counsel for MCI have been heard. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that: (i) They ...
Commissioner of Income-tax- IV Vs. Pritam Das Narang
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the Revenue against the order dated 30th August, 2013 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No.4158/Del/2011 for Assessment Year ('AY') 2008-09. 2. By an order dated 9th February, 2015, the following questions of law were framed: (a) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that the sum of Rs.1,95,00,000/- in the circumstances of the case, was compensation in the hands of the Assessee and could not be treated as income as profits in lieu of salary? (b) Did the ITAT fall into error in allowing the order of the CIT (Appeals) in allowing the credit of TDS of Rs.22,09,350 on Rs.1,95,00,000/- to the respondent? 3. The facts are that the Assessee filed return of income on 28th July, 2008 declaring total income of Rs. 1,65,70,750/- and also claiming a refund of Rs.1369/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) on 26th August, 2009 determining a refund of Rs.860/-. 4. The case was subsequently sel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »