Delhi Court January 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 7 of about 92 results (0.008 seconds)Hari Mohan Sharma Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. The appellant “ Hari Mohan Sharma has preferred the instant appeal to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 25.11.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.33/2013 arising out of FIR No.197/2011 PS New Friends Colony by which he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. By an order dated 13.12.2013, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000/-. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that in December, 2010 or January, 2011 at House No.102, Bharat Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix X(assumed name) during night time. The complainant lodged complaint (Ex.PW-4/A) dated 25.07.2011 before Chairperson SC / ST Commission, Khan Market implicating the accused for commission of rape upon her. She further informed that thereafter the accused established physical relations with her several times on the promise to marry as a r...
Tag this Judgment!T.T. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. The petitioner in these two petitions is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Aggrieved by the action of the Director General of Foreign Trade in rejecting the petitioner's requests for grant of Duty Credit Scripsfor the value of Rs.79,83,885.11 and Rs.4,59.94,671 under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2009-14, these two writ petitions are filed. 3. The petitioner company is in the business of trading in textiles both in domestic and international markets. It is also an Importer - Exporter Card (IEC) Holder. 4. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5 of Foreign Trade (Development And Regulation) Act, 1992 (For Short the Act'), the Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, by Notification No. 1/2009-2014 dated 27th August, 2009 issued the Foreign Trade Policy 2009 - 2014 which came into force with immediate effect. 5. By the Notification dated 28.12.2012 the Government of India has formulated a scheme ca...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Bhim Sen Singh Vs. The University of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Oral: 1. In view of the order dated May 15, 2015, the only relief that survives for consideration in this writ petition is the following: (a) Allow the present writ petition by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order/direction to reinstate the petitioner who vide suspension order dated 01.08.2012 had been placed under suspension declaring that such suspension order has not been reviewed and is invalid ?. 2. It is the submission of Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that even though, the ordinance XII of the University does not prescribe reviewing of the suspension, on expiry of certain period, the respondent No. 2-College has adopted the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 ( ˜Rules of 1965in short) to govern the departmental proceedings and the same is clear from page 510 of the paper book wherein it was noted by the learned Enquiry Officer, on an issue of applicability of Rules of 1965, on the statement made by Mr. Mittal, learned couns...
Tag this Judgment!Haryana Shakti College of Education Vs. Directorate of Higher Educatio ...
Court: Delhi
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. The present appeal as well as the writ petition are filed by Haryana Shakti College of Education, a college established by Haryana Shakti Education Society. 2. While LPA No.707/2013 has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.09.2013 in W.P.(C) No.4009/2013, the subsequent order dated 10.09.2013 passed by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University in terms of the directions of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4009/2013 has been assailed in W.P.(C) No.6365/2013. 3. Since parties are common and common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in both the matters, we have heard the matters together and decided by this common order. 4. The facts of the case which are not in dispute are as under: (i) Haryana Shakti Education Society (for short the Society') has been running a school under the name of Haryana Shakti Secondary School from the year 1945 in its own land situated in Kanjhawala village, North West District, Delhi. Since...
Tag this Judgment!Ministry of Labour and Employment Vs. Indian Medical Association and A ...
Court: Delhi
1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.12.2015 in W.P.(C) No.7080/2013. 2. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent No.1 herein “ Indian Medical Association with a prayer to quash the notification dated 13.06.2013 issued by the appellant herein/Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment under Section 3(1) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 thereby constituting the Employees State Insurance Corporationto the extent of including the respondent No.2 herein “ Dr.Purshottam Lal as a Member of the Corporation. 3. By the order under appeal, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned notification dated 13.06.2013 insofar as it relates to appointment of the respondent No.2 as a constituent member of ESIC was set aside. Hence the present appeal by the Union of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As per Section 3 of the Act, a Corporation known...
Tag this Judgment!Prashant Bhushan Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. The petitioner was issued a passport on 03.05.2006 under the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') valid for a period of ten years. 2. The petitioner made an application on 26.06.2014 for re-issuance of the passport since leaves in his passport booklet had exhausted. In the said application the petitioner had mentioned the details of the cases that were registered against him for the alleged violation of Section 144 of Cr.PC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 which are pending in Patiala House Court namely FIR No. 71/2012 and 72/2012 on the file of PS Tughlak Road and FIR No.130/2012 on the file of PS Parliament Street. The petitioner was informed that in view of the pendency of the criminal cases, it is necessary for him to obtain No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Court where the criminal cases are pending. Accordingly the petitioner moved the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House Courts, seeking N...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dharampal Satyapal
Court: Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'Act') impugning an order dated 29th October, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'ITAT') whereby the Assessee's appeal against an order dated 1st October, 2004 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter CIT(A)'], was allowed. By the aforesaid order dated 1st October, 2004, the CIT(A) rejected the Assessee's appeal against an assessment order dated 30th January, 2004 in respect of the assessment year (hereafter AY') 2001-02. 2. The controversy involved in the present appeal relates to the computation of the net worth of the business transferred by the Assessee by way of a slump sale. The Assessee transferred its entire business by way of a slump sale to M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. on 12th February, 2001 (during the previous year relevant to the AY 2001-02) at a net consideration of Rs. 2.75 crores. The Assessee had established th...
Tag this Judgment!Fairdeal Polychem LLP and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This judgment will decide three writ petitions “ WPC 2310/2015, WPC 2311/2015 and WPC 3454/2015. The first two writ petitions are concerned with the imposition of anti-dumping duty on Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) imported from Korea RP. The third writ petition is concerned with the issue of anti-dumping duty on imports of Phenol. 2. In the first two writ petitions concerning NBR, the challenge, inter alia, is to the Office Memorandum No. 354/179/2002-TRU (Pt.V) dated 24.12.2014 issued by the respondent No. 1. There is also a prayer seeking the quashing of proceedings conducted after the end of 12 months from the date of initiation of the review initiated by notice bearing F.No. 15/29/2013 dated 31.12.2013. In the third writ petition, concerning Phenol, inter alia, quashing of the proceedings conducted after the end of 12 months from the date of initiation of the review initiated by the notice No. 15/21/2013-DGAD dated 28.10.2013 has been sought. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. Vs. Binu Anand Khanna and Others
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The unsuccessful first defendant in a pending suit (claiming damages) has appealed to this court claiming to be aggrieved by an order of the learned single judge, whereby its application (I.A. No. 3607/2012 under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 16 of CPC for deletion of another defendant from the array of parties) was rejected. 2. The plaintiff is a former employee of the seventh defendant, (hereafter Indian Hotels ?). The said defendant is owner of, and manages the Taj group of companies. The defendant no. 8, (Taj Trade and Transport Co. Ltd.- Taj Trade ?), is a wholly owned subsidiary of Indian Hotels. Taj Trade also owns and operates a reputed chain of exclusive variety stores known as Khazana ?. The first six defendants are officials of the seventh and eighth defendants. The first defendant was (at the relevant time) Chairman of the Tata Group; the second defendant (R.K. Krishna) at the relevant time was Managing Director of Kumar Indian Hotels; the third ...
Tag this Judgment!Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Another Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
CRL.M.C. No. 4026/2014 1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( ˜Cr.P.C.'), the petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 04.06.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court in case bearing FIR No.10/2006 registered at Police Station Special Cell for the offences punishable under Sections 121/121A/122/123/120-B of the Indian Penal Code ( ˜IPC'), Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in essence, present case is of a person who had been working as an informer for the Intelligence Bureau ( ˜IB') and Special Cell of the Delhi Police branch since the year 2000, which fact has been conclusively established by the Central Bureau of Investigation ( ˜CBI') during its in-depth investigation conducted pursuant to the directions of this Court, whereby CBI submitted the Call Detail Records (CDR's) o...
Tag this Judgment!