Delhi Court January 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 4 of about 92 results (0.021 seconds)Kumari Sushila Yadav Vs. Lt Col (Retd) Atul Chaudhary and Others
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) 1. The respondent does not dispute that the appellant is the owner of a plot of land bearing Municipal No.E-39A, East of Kailash, New Delhi “ 110065. Whereas appellant claims that the respondent No.1, who is appellant's nephew, was given permissive possession by her to reside in a portion of the building constructed on the plot shown in red colour in the plan annexed to the plaint and having revoked the permission she is entitled to a decree for possession and mesne profits; the claim of respondent No.1 is that under an oral permission granted by the appellant, from his own funds, he constructed the portion of the building which is in his occupation; possession whereof is sought and that the oral permission was with the understanding that the respondent No.1 would be the ultimate owner thereof. 2. With these pleadings of the parties, appellant filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a decree on admission a...
Tag this Judgment!European Motor Works Private Limited Vs. ICICI Bank Limited and Others
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find inchoate pleadings by the respondent bank in its application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment of the writ petitioner. 2. Concededly the transaction was between ICICI Bank and Link Engineers Private Ltd. with co-borrower being Siddharth Sikka. Loan was sanctioned to purchase a PILOTE FIAT DUCATO/MOTORHOME P 730 LACA(a motor vehicle). 3. It appears that the petitioner was to facilitate the purchase of vehicle i.e. to either act as an agent or render service for the import of the vehicle, and out of the loan amount sanctioned in sum of Rs. 80,40,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lacs Forty Thousand only), some amount was directly paid, of course to the account of the borrower and the co-borrower, to the writ petitioner. 4. There is a default, and it appears that the vehicle has changed hands. The borrower and the co-borrower are in default and the bank has proceeded to recover ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Om Kanwar
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. It was the sixth day of January, 1993. Bus No.990 belonging to the Delhi Transport Corporation was plying on the route: Chandigarh “ Delhi. Om Kanwar, the respondent in the two captioned appeals, was the conductor. The bus was intercepted by a checking squad of DTC at the Karnal Bye-Pass. The squad claimed that five passengers were caught while de-boarding at the Karnal Bye-Pass and failed to produce tickets; and claimed that each told having paid Rs. 12/- to Om Kanwar for travelling from Shahbad with the destination being Karnal. Their statements were recorded. In spite of being directed to hand over the complaint book, Om Kanwar refused to do so. A report was prepared. 2. Om Kanwar was served with a charge-sheet on January 18, 1993 containing the memorandum of the charge listing the gravamen as per para 1 above. Om Kanwar denied the charge and this necessitated the appointment of an Inquiry Officer. Serving Om Kanwar with the notice of conducting the in...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Kumar Bhatia and Another Vs. Madhu Bharti
Court: Delhi
1. Vide the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr P C, petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of the Criminal Complaint Case No.567/1/09 titled Smt.Madhu Bharti v. Mr.Pawan Kumar Bhatia and Anotherinstituted by respondent against them. 2. The petitioners further seek direction thereby setting aside order dated 18.09.2010 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, North District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (ix) (x) (xi), 2(vii), 4, 8(B) of the SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as the said Act) was taken against them. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that the above noted complaint filed against petitioners, is a pure counter-blast to the charge-sheet and consequential departmental enquiry initiated against the respondent on account of her misbehaviour/ misconduct. However, the respondent has filed a complaint case under the provisions of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!HS Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Assessee under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 against the order dated 23rd May, 2014 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax, Delhi ( ˜Tribunal') in Appeal No.637/ATVAT/08-09 for the Assessment Year ( ˜AY') 2004-05. 2. The Assessee is engaged in the business of executing pure labour contracts, under which the Assessee supplies skilled and unskilled labour for excavation work. The Assessee also executes contracts which involves transfer of property in goods and the same are exigible to tax under the provisions of The Delhi Sales Tax on Works Contract Act, 1999 ( ˜Act'). The Assessee is a registered dealer with the Department of Trade and Taxes. 3. The Assessee submitted its Sales Tax Return on 30th June, 2005 for the AY 2004-05 declaring a turnover of Rs. 3,49,99,618/-. Later the Assessee revised the said return declaring a gross turnover of Rs. 4,73,32,324/-. According to the Assessee the s...
Tag this Judgment!Angle Infrastructure P. Ltd. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another
Court: Delhi
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C. ?) has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 24.11.2015, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi vide which the application of the petitioner for leading evidence and summoning the witnesses was dismissed. 2. Factual matrix, emerges from the record, is that the petitioner is a company and is engaged in the business of developing real estate projects and deals with other allied activities. Respondent No.2- Ashok Manchanda is the sole proprietor of M/s Capital Builders. The respondent no.2 had filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner/accused. It was alleged in the complaint that a dispute arose between the respondent no.2-complainant and the petitioner/accused due to which the respondent no.2-complain...
Tag this Judgment!Yum Restaurants (India) Private Limited and Another Vs. Income Tax Off ...
Court: Delhi
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These are two appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜Act') against the order dated 12th December 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') in ITA No. 935/Del/2014 for the Assessment Year ( ˜AY') 2009-10. ITA No. 388/2015 is by the Revenue and ITA No. 349 of 2015 is by the Assessee. Background facts 2. The Assessee, Yum Restaurants (India) Private Limited ( ˜Yum India'), is part of the Yum Restaurants Group with its ultimate holding company being Yum! Brands Inc. USA (Yum USA). 99.99% of shares of Yum India were initially held by Yum Restaurants Asia Private Limited ( ˜Yum Asia'). After 28th November 2008, the shares were held by Yum! Asia Franchise Pte. Ltd. Singapore ('Yum Singapore') pursuant to a restructuring within the group. Yum India had a licence arrangement with Kentucky Fried Chicken International Holdings Inc. ( ˜KFC') and Pizza Hut International LLC ( ˜Pizza Hut') for ope...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. CBI and Others
Court: Delhi
1. By way of the present petitions Mr. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner') assails the orders granting sanction dated 21.06.2002 and 26.11.2002 passed by the Competent Authority, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India; the charge sheet in RC No. SI8 E0001 1999 submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the CBI') in the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, Delhi dated 28.06.2002; the order on charge dated 17.12.2005 in RC No.SI8 E 0001 1999 dated 29.01.1999 in CC No.26 of 2002 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Delhi; and the order of the Special Judge, CBI 03 (PC Act) dated 24.05.2014 in RC No. SI9 1999 E0006 dated 07.12.1999 in CC No. 55/02. The present petitions raise common issues and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. According to the petitioner, the genesis of the present litigation is the disagreement between him and his immediate superior qua the discharge of the former's official dut...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Today Hotels (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Intecture India Desig ...
Court: Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. The appellant/defendant has filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 21.07.2015 whereby IA No. 14371/2015 filed by the appellant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the appeal. It is contended that appeal is a creature of statute and since the order has been passed on an application filed under Section 8 of the Act and an appeal would lie only if the order is appealable under the Act. Reference is made to Section 37 of the Act to contend that it lays down that an appeal shall lie, only from the orders referred to in the said section and from no other and section 8 not being one of the provisions referred to in the said sections, no appeal would lie. It is further contended that even an appeal under the Letters Patent would not lie. 3. The learned counsel for the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!D.K.C. Vs. K.C. and Others
Court: Delhi
1. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 1st October, 2014 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court in G.S. 11/14. It is the case of the petitioner-mother that respondent no. 1- father in violation of the consensual parenting plan accepted by the Guardianship Court vide aforesaid order, had taken the minor child to Malaysia on 31st December, 2014 even though he had undertaken that he would not take the minor child abroad till such time the divorce decree is passed by way of second motion under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. On 2nd February, 2015, learned Predecessor of this Court had issued a notice to respondent no. 1 returnable for 17th July, 2015. On 17th July, 2015, this Court had passed the following order:- "Prima facie this is a case of child abduction by the respondent-father, who is stated to be residing in Malaysia. Since the service report is still awaited, the respondent-father is permitted to be served u...
Tag this Judgment!