Delhi Court January 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 8 of about 92 results (0.018 seconds)AGSON Global Pvt Ltd. and Others Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission ...
Court: Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The only issue which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the income tax settlement commission has the power to direct a special audit under section 142 (2A) in exercise of its power vested in section 245F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said act ?)? 2. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 filed a settlement application before the income tax settlement commission, New Delhi under the provisions of chapter XIX-A of the said act on 12.12.2011. Thereafter, on 22.12.2011 petitioner nos. 8 to 10 filed their settlement application before the said income tax settlement commission. On 22.12.2011, the principal bench of the said settlement commission passed an order under section 245D (1) of the said act admitting the application made by petitioner nos. 1 to 7 for settlement before it. Similarly, on 28.12.2011, the principal bench of the income tax settlement commission passed an order under section 245D (1) of the said act admitting ...
Tag this Judgment!Sonam Chaudhary and Others Vs. The State (Govt of NCT Delhi) and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of the FIRs bearing Nos. 31/2012 (Crl. M.C. No.471/2015), 251/2013 (Crl. M.C. No.3172 /2015), 39/2014 (Crl. M.C. No.4221/2015), 99/2014 (Crl. M.C. No.4493/2015) and 464/2015 (Crl. M.C. No.4786/2015). 2. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to narrate the facts of each petition in brief. Crl.M.C. No. 471/2015:- 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.08.2012, a complaint was received at P.S. Yamuna Bank, New Delhi, from Constable Ganesh Mandal, CISF No.0946400083 that while performing duty at Anand Vihar Metro Station at X-Ray Machine from 2.00 PM to 10.00 PM, during the scanning of petitioner's hand bag, one live cartridge of 8mm/315 calibre was detected. On physically checking the handbag, one live cartridge was found inside the handbag and on questioning, since the petitioner could not give any satisfactory reply...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by their placement in the seniority list. They were promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant [hereafter referred to as "AC"] on various dates beginning from August 2005. Their complaint is that their assignment of seniority, below the Direct Recruits [hereafter "DRs"], who entered the cadre, is contrary to law and in as much as it is violates the relevant rules and prevailing executive instructions. 2. The Central Reserve Police Force [hereafter "CRPF"], a para-military organization, governed by the provisions of the CRPF Act, 1949 [hereafter "the Act"] and Rules framed there under, classified various cadres. One of these is the post of AC. The cadre is to be filled by direct recruitment to the extent of 50% - 30% by promotion on the basis of seniority in the feeder cadre, i.e. Inspector and 17% by the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination [hereafter "LDCE"]. According to the Rules and instructions, the LDCE appointees ar...
Tag this Judgment!Jagtar Singh and Others Vs. Chande Lal and Others
Court: Delhi
1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 impugns the ex parte judgment and decree dated 12th April, 2001 of the Court of Shri Prithvi Raj, Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi of dismissal of Suit No.170/2000 filed by the appellant on 21st December, 2000 for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale of immovable property. 2. The appeal was admitted for hearing and while issuing notice, vide ex parte ad interim order dated 24th July, 2001 the respondent was restrained from alienating or transferring in any manner or creating any third party interest in the suit property. The respondent failed to appear despite service of notice of the appeal also and was vide order dated 6th March, 2002 proceeded against ex parte and the interim order was confirmed. Both, the appellant as well as the respondent died during the pendency of appeal and upon notice of the application for substitution being issued to the legal representatives of the respondent, Ad...
Tag this Judgment!Churchill Brothers Sports Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anothe ...
Court: Delhi
1. The petition impugns the communication dated 13th July, 2015 of the respondent no.2 All India Football Federation (AIFF) informing the petitioner that the petitioner is not eligible to apply for the grant of licence to participate in the I-League Season 2015-16. 2. Notice of the petition was issued on the contention of the senior counsel for the petitioner that though under the Indian Club Licensing Regulations framed by the respondent no.2 AIFF the decision, to whom to license for participation in the I-League is to be given, is to be taken by the Club Licensing Committee and against the order whereof remedy of appeal is available to the Club Licensing Appeal Body but the application of the petitioner for licence for the I-League Season 2015-16 had been rejected not by the Club Licensing Committee but by the Manager, Club Licensing. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents and rejoinders whereto have been filed by the petitioner. The counsels have been heard. 4. The...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Aries Plaschem India Pvt Ltd. (Thr Its Director Subhash Gupta) Vs ...
Court: Delhi
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 6th August, 2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Cental-03, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in RCA No.20/2013 titled M/s. DIC India Ltd. v. Aries Plaschem Industries Pvt. Ltd. by virtue of which the judgment and decree dated 01.05.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Central Delhi was set aside and the case was remanded back to the learned trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the record. 3. The only substantial question of law which arises in the instant matter is whether the finding which has been returned by the learned First Appellate Court setting aside the judgment and decree with regard to the fixation of mesne profits @ Rs.16/- per sq. ft./per month is erroneous/perverse or not. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the present appellant is the landlord of the suit premises consisting of basement and ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kishore @ Raj Kumar Vs. The State (GNCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
1. Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 07.11.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.18/2012 arising out of FIR No.53/2012 PS Shalimar Bagh by which the appellant “ Raj Kishore @ Raj Kumar was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 342/354 and 376 IPC read with Section 511 IPC. By an order dated 17.11.2012, he was awarded RI for one year under Section 342 IPC; RI for two years under Section 354 IPC and RI for five years with fine Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. All the sentences were to operate concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that on 29.02.2012 at around 01.30 p.m. at Jhuggi No.150, Dharna Camp, Haiderpur, Delhi, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix X(assumed name) aged around 14 years after wrongfully confining her there. Xmade statement (Ex.PW-11/A) and the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report on 01.03.2012 at arou...
Tag this Judgment!Sadhu Ram Vs. MCD and Others
Court: Delhi
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order passed by respondent No.1 vide letter No.F.1/21/TC/LO/05/D222 dated 01.07.2008 whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of leasehold rights in respect of quarter bearing No.10830/3, Balmiki Colony, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was rejected. Further, the petitioner prays for cancelling the lease deed dated 01.09.2008 executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of the aforesaid property and direction to respondent No.1 to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in the light of declared policy of the Government of India. 2. Briefly recapitulating the facts as averred in the writ petition are that the petitioner had been in possession of a portion of the premises bearing No.10830/3, Balmiki Colony, Karol Bagh, New Delhi for the last about 40 years. The premises in question was initially allotted to one late Shri Bhagwan Sahai and after his death, his legal heirs handed over ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. National Telecom of India Ltd. and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Oral: 1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') is filed by the petitioner/objector Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited impugning the Award passed by the Arbitrator dated 10.7.2007. By the impugned Award, the Arbitrator has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein in the arbitration proceedings and has awarded in favour of the respondent no.1 a sum of Rs.1.09 crores alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 1.4.1997 till payment besides a sum of Rs.3,46,580/- towards costs. The amount awarded of Rs.1.09 crores is the cost of 266 numbers of 6/15 lines of Subscriber Line Concentrators (SLCs) which were manufactured by the respondent no.1 as per the contract awarded to it by the petitioner but which 266 numbers of SLCs were not taken supply of by the petitioner. On the petitioner making the payment of the aforesaid amount to the respondent no.1, respondent no.1 was directed to deliver to the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh Vs. UOI and Others
Court: Delhi
W.P.(C) 5594/2007 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned order be not quashed by a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction. (ii) To direct the respondent No.2 to produce the relevant records pertaining to the present case at the time of hearing of the petition. (iii) Upon return of the notice and after hearing the parties to the present proceeding and upon perusal of the relevant records, may be pleased to allow the present writ petition. (iv) Promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director in the respondent federation with effect from 09.01.2003. (v) Quash the impugned order of promotion dated 08.06.2006 and promote the petitioner to the post of Director in the respondent federation with effect from 01.06.2006. (vi) Quash any document which in terms or otherwise appoints or purports to appoint respondent No.3 as Managing Director or autho...
Tag this Judgment!