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.
S.K. Dhawan Vs. Union Bank of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2015
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of suspension dated February 21, 1998, charge-sheets dated November 22, 1997 and October 13, 1999, findings of the Enquiring Authorities dated March 17, 1999 and February 25, 2000, orders of penalty dated November 30, 1999 and January 18, 2001 and Appellate orders dated August 12, 2000 and August 18, 2002 and Review order dated June 18, 2002. 2. As noted from the above, two charge-sheets were issued to the petitioner, dated November 22, 1997 and October 13, 1999. 3. During the course of his submissions, Mr.N.K. Vohra, learned counsel for the petitioner had given up the challenge to the charge sheet dated November 22, 1997, and the consequential orders passed thereof. Hence the challenge to the charge-sheet dated November 22, 1997, Enquiry Officer's report dated March 17, 1999, penalty order dated November 30, 1999, Appellate Authority order dated August 12, 2000 is rejected. 4. Insofar as the charge-sheet dated October 13, 1999 is ...
Director of Income-tax Vs. Ericsson Communications Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2015
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The Revenue has preferred this Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the 'Act') against a common order dated 14th December, 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 4494 and 4495/Del/2000, whereby the appeals preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 26th September, 2000 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter 'CIT(A)'] confirming the demands made by the Assessing Officer (hereafter 'AO') under Sections 201(1) and Section 201(1A) of the Act, were allowed. 2. The controversy in the present appeals relates to the obligation of the Assessee to deduct tax at source (hereafter 'TAS') in respect of the amount of Rs.2,24,96,669/- credited to the account of Telefonaktiebolaget L.M. Ericsson, Sweden (hereafter 'TLME') in the books of the Assessee. The said amount was credited on account of royalty payable; however, the said entry was subsequently reversed, as according to the Assessee...
H.K. Chadha Vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2015
Gita Mittal, J. 1. The instant case manifests the difficulties which a peeved statutory auditor can create for a company, if he is removed from his office. Having knowledge of all intricate details about the working of the company, he can misuse the same and make distortions thereon by virtue of his position and resort to exploitative complaints to statutory government authorities and initiate malicious litigation as in the present case to prevent the company from functioning or implementing decision. 2. The appellant hereby challenges the order dated 20th February, 2013 passed by the learned Company Judge approving a merger between the respondent nos.1 and 2 companies. The appellant also assails the order dated 23rd April, 2013 rejecting C.A.No.645/2013 seeking modification of the court order accepting the scheme. 3. Before commencing with arguments, we had directed both sides to file detailed written submissions with reference to the court pagination. Both sides have filed the writte...
G.J. Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2015
1. These batch of writ petitions impugn the decision of the respondents whereby the petitionersrequest for the grant of Non-Functional Financial Up gradation (for short NFFU'), as applicable to other Group AOfficers of the Central Government was rejected. 2. During the pendency of these proceedings, vide an order dated 26.09.2013, the Court directed the respondents to re-examine the issue regarding grant of NFFU to Group Aofficers of the Central Reserve Police Force, Border Security Force and Indo-Tibetan Border Police. However, vide an Office Memorandum (for short OM) No. F. No. P.I.1/21022-Pers.DA-Pay dated 28.10.2013 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the issue was decided against the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners were given leave to file amended writ petitions to incorporate these subsequent events. 3. Hence, the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to grant them, i.e., Executive Group-A officers of CAPFs, the benefit of NFFU with effect from 01.06.2006, as given to...
Adesh Kumar Gupta Vs. CBI
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2015
1. The present writ petition seeks the following prayers:- (a) In the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR RC No.DAI-2014-A-0040 under section 168 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner registered by the respondent at CBI, Anti Corruption Branch (ACB), New Delhi and consequent proceedings arising therefrom. (b) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Ld. CMM, (South), Saket Court, New Delhi and the proceedings therefrom. (c) Pass such other order restraining the respondents, their offices and the IO from taking any further action against the petitioner on the basis of FIR and the impugned order or stay the operation of the impugned FIR and the order dated 21.11.2014. (d) Pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. ? 2. The petitioner is an officer belonging to the Indian Telecommunication Services (ITS), 1986 Batch and is presently posted as General Manager, Bharat S...
Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax-IV
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2015
1. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') against the order dated 4th January, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (' ITAT') in ITA No.87/DEL/2008 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2004-05. 2. Admit. 3. The following substantial question of law is arises for determination: "Whether disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can be made in a year in which no exempt income has been earned or received by the Assessee?" 4. The Appellant is engaged in the business of making investment in shares and accepting/granting of loans. The Assessee is one of the co-promoters of Max India Ltd. 5. In the AY in question, the Appellant borrowed funds on which interest expenditure of Rs.1,21,03,367/- was incurred. The factual assertion of the Appellant, which has not been controverted, is that in the relevant AY no dividend income was earned by the Appellant from the amount invested in various shares. For the AY in question, the Appellant f...
Sehdev Singh Verma Vs. J.P.S. Verma and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The dispute in the present appeal is between the two sons of Late Sh.Mohinder Singh Verma. 2. The genealogy tree of family of Late Sh.Mohinder Singh Verma is as under:-Late Sh. Mohinder Singh Verma(Original Plaintiff)I------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I I J.P.S. Verma Sehdav Verma Son/Defendant No.1 (Son)/Appellant I ------------------------------------- I I Om Wati Verma Vikas Verma (Wife)/Defendant No.2 Son 3. Late Sh. Mohinder Singh Verma (hereinafter referred to as the Deceased') instituted a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession in the year 2007 against his son Mr.J.P.S.Verma and daughter-in-law (wife of his son J.P.S.Verma) in respect of ground floor of property bearing Municipal No.A-2/163, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Suit Property'). 4. Needless to state, the deceased was the plaintiff and his son J.P.S. Verma and daughter-in-law Om Wati Verma were the def...
Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Mohan Construction ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2015
Oral: 1. This objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') is filed against the Award of the Arbitrator dated 21.3.2006. The impugned Award is passed by the Arbitrator with respect to disputes which had arisen between the petitioner/DSIDC/owner and the respondent/contractor with respect to contract dated 21.4.1995 for construction of Co-Ed. Polytechnic at Rohini, Delhi for the petitioner by the respondent. 2. The following are the salient dates and amounts with respect to the contract in question:- Salient features of the work are: Agreement No.DSIDC/PME(NP)/A/C/Agtt./95-96/25Dated 21.4.1995.Tendered amountRs.4,36,65,400/-Stipulated date of start30.4.1995Stipulated date of completion28.4.1997Actual date of completion30.4.1998 Extension of time (EOT) was granted upto actual date of completion without levy of compensation. Final bill paid on : 8.12.2003 ? 3. Respondent before the Arbitrator filed a total of 28 cla...
Bijender Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-2015
Gita Mittal, J. 1. The order dated 8th April, 2015 passed by the respondent no. 1 appointing an administrator of the National Cooperative Consumer's Federation of India Ltd. ( ˜NCCFfor brevity hereafter) arrayed as respondent no. 3 herein premised on allegations relating to the elections to the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors which were held on the 6th of February, 2015 is the subject matter of this writ petition. The NCCF is stated to have been constituted and registered under the provision of the Multi-State Cooperatives Societies Act, 2002 ( ˜MSCS Act, 2002hereafter). The impugned order is sourced to exercise of powers under Section 122 and 123 of this enactment. 2. The writ petitioners herein are members of the respondent no. 3 who successfully stood for the elections to the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 3 conducted on 6th February, 2015. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were also elected to the posts of Chairman and Vice-Chairman resp...
Harminder Singh Koghar Vs. Ramnath Exports Private Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-2015
1. These two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the impugned decision dated 16th September, 2013 passed by the learned ARC is identical except that in RC.REV. 392/2013 Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd.is the tenant of the petitioner for first and second floor and roof rights and in RC.REV. 394/2013 Bimla Devi and Ors.are the tenants in respect of basement, ground floor and garage of the petitioner in suit property bearing No.A-7, Green Park, New Delhi. 2. A brief exposition of facts is that the Petitioner filed two eviction petitions being Eviction No.11/09 and Eviction No.10/09 under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act stating that he was the owner/landlord of the suit property which was built by his father Sardar Sarjeet Singh Koghar (since deceased), who had bought the piece of land from Shri Udhe Singh Gahunia vide sale deed dated 6th November, 1963 which was duly registered on 13th November, 1963. The suit property comprises of a building on A-7, Green Park Main, New Delhi which...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »