Delhi Court October 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 8 of about 298 results (0.018 seconds)Jayesh & Anr vs.delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
$~ * + W.P.(C) 9948/2016 & CM APPL. 39538/2016 JAYESH & ANR DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ........ Petitioners versus Through Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate #23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr. Harshit Manaktala with Ms. Isha Garg, Proxy Counsel for Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel for DDA. % Date of Decision :25. h October, 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent- DDA to approve the construction plan in courtyards of Flat Nos.35 and 36, DA Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 without insisting on an No Objection Certificate from other occupants.2. It has been averred in the petition that on 29th January, 2016, petitioners submitted the sanction plan for courtyards for approval without NOC from other co-owners.3. Mr. Hemant Singh, learned counsel for petitioners states that despite making number of representations to the respondent, no response has been...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mona & Ors. Vs.shri Shambhu Ram & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~9 * % + MAC.APP. 1035/2013 SMT. MONA & ORS. Versus SHRI SHAMBHU RAM & ORS. Through: Mr. Vijay Kumar Wadhwa, Advocate ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Lalit Kr. Dhingra, Advocate for Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:25. h October, 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) C.M. Appl. 17961/2013 The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. MAC.APP. 1035/2013 1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal, whereby compensation of Rs.7,93,240/- has been awarded to the appellants. The appellants seek enhancement of the award amount. The accident dated 04th May, 2008 resulted in the death of 2. Mukesh Kumar. The deceased was survived by his widow, two sons and one daughter who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was aged 44 years at the time of the accident and was running a general store in the name of M/s Mukesh Store. The income ...
Tag this Judgment!Saomya Saxena vs.university of Delhi & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~93 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P.(C) 9696/2016 & CM No.38822/2016 Judgment delivered on:25. 10.2016 SAOMYA SAXENA ........ Petitioner versus ........ RESPONDENTS UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the... RESPONDENTS : : Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. M.J.S. Rupal with Ms. Simran Jeet and Mr. Kirat Singh, Advocates for respondent No.1 CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2510.2016 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for directing the respondents to give relaxation to the petitioner and to promote her to 5th term (3rd year LLB) three year course in the Campus Law Centre and, further, to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to fill up the examination form for 5th term examination to be held in December 2016. The petitioner took admission in LLB three year course Page 1 of 11 2. W.P.(C) No.9696/2016 commencing from the Academic Session 2014-15. The c...
Tag this Judgment!Vivek Garg vs.state
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No.2713/2016 Date of Decision:25. h October, 2016 VIVEK GARG Through Mr.Puneet Goyal, Adv. ........ Petitioner STATE versus Through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J ..... Respondent 1. The present petition under Article 226 & 227 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 29th April, 2016, passed by the learned Special Judge-05, Anti-Corruption, Tis Hazari, Delhi in case titled as Vivek Garg Vs. Akhilesh Pati Tripathi, MLA & Others. vide Complaint Case No.14/2015.2. A thumbnail sketch of the facts of the case is that Mr.Akhilesh Pati Tripathi, (respondent no.1 before the Trial Court) contested 2013 & 2015 Delhi Legislative Assembly Elections from Aam Aadmi Party and became a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Model Town constituency Elections 2013 both times Crl.M.C. No.2713/2016 Page 1 of 13 while the unnamed officials of Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Magneti Marelli Powertrain India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.deputy Commissioner of I ...
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:03. 10.2016 Pronounced on:25. 10.2016 ITA3502014 MAGNETI MARELLI POWERTRAIN INDIA PVT. LTD. Appellant Through: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Neeraj Jain and Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocates. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..Respondent Through: Sh. P. Roychaudhri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Jr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The assessee appeals, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act (the Act hereafter) against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for AY200809 in respect of transfer pricing adjustments; more specifically, the remand by ITAT to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to segregate the payment of technical assessment fee and subject it to independent examination is under challenge. The following questions of law were framed:1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Limited vs.santosh & Ors.
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~29 * % + FAO3792014 & CMs 19553/2014, 19555/2014 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Date of Decision:25. h October, 2016 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Sanyam Tandon, Advocate for Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Advocate SANTOSH & ORS. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Babu Malayil, Ms.Binita Jaiswal, Advocates for Respondent No.2. Mr. Dipak K. Nag, Advocate for IRDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) The appellant has challenged the order dated 7th August, 2014 1. whereby the Commissioner, Employees Compensation has awarded compensation of Rs.8,31,920 to respondent no.1. On 3rd August, 2013, late Santosh was fitting the glass on the 2. windows of the second floor of property No.A-15, Pampose Enclave, G.K.-1, New Delhi when he fell down and suffered fatal injuries. Santosh was survived by his widow Shyama, aged 32 years, minor son Master Ajeet, aged 13 years, minor daughter Arpita, aged 8 years and mother Kailasha Devi, aged about 50 ...
Tag this Judgment!Kritika (Minor) Through: Her Aunt (Bua) vs.direcotrate of Education & ...
Court: Delhi
$~81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P.(C) 9600/2016 Judgment delivered on:25. 10.2016 KRITIKA (MINOR) THROUGH: HER AUNT (BUA) ........ Petitioner DIRECOTRATE OF EDUCATION & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS versus Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA : Ms. Sushila Narang, Adv. : Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC with Ms. Niharika, Advocate For GNCTD /R-1, 2 & 3 Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advs. for R-4 and 5 Dr. Mohd. Javed Qamar, representative of Directorate of Education JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) W.P.(C) 9600/2016 & CM No.38472/2016 (stay) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition contending that the assessment of grades given by the respondent school is incorrect. The petitioner had appeared in Class IX and on account of the academic performance the petitioner did not clear the mathematics paper. The petitioner even appeared in the compartment examination of the mathematic papers but wa...
Tag this Judgment!Pink Housing Keeping vs.centre for Development of Telematics & Anr.
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:28. 09.2016 Judgment delivered on:25. 10.2016 * % + W.P.(C) 7681/2016 PINK HOUSING KEEPING CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TELEMATICS & ANR. versus ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR : Mr Shaad Anwar with Ms Shabnam. : Mr J.C.Seth with Mr Udit Sethi. : Mr Balapara Maheshwari K. JUDGMENT ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J1 The petitioner, M/s Pink House Keeping, a contractor of manpower supply, housekeeping, sanitation, horticulture etc, had participated in the tender issued by Centre for Development of Telematics (hereinafter referred to as 'C-DOT' or respondent no.1), a registered scientific society set up by Government of India to carry out research and development works in the field of telecommunication, for biennial contract for house keeping and pest control servi...
Tag this Judgment!Avtar Goods Carriers vs.mcd and Ors
Court: Delhi
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :20. 10.2016 Judgment delivered on :25. 10.2016. + W.P.(C) 7100/2010 AVTAR GOODS CARRIERS ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Sachin Chopra and Mr. Ankit Malhotra, Advocates. versus MCD AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ajay Arora and Mr. Kapil Datta, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The petitioner M/s Avtar Good Carriers was a partnership firm carrying on its business of transportation. Gopal Singh had been allotted shop No.9 at New Qutab Road by the L & DO vide a lease deed dated 26.07.1962 for a period of 99 years. This firm was carrying on its transport business since the year 1975. The proposal was mooted in the year 1976. On 20.08.1986, a Scheme/Policy was framed by the respondent/Municipal Corporation of Delhi for allotments of plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport W.P. (C) No.7100/2010 Page 1 of 12 Nagar (hereinafter referred to as t...
Tag this Judgment!International Airport Authority of India vs.asian Computer Consultancy ...
Court: Delhi
$~R-202 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: October 25, 2016 + RFA7512005 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Through: Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta & Mr. Ayush Khanna, Advocates ..... Appellant Versus ASIAN COMPUTER CONSULTANCY SERVICE PVT. LTD. Through: Mr. Yogesh Malhotra, Advocate and Mr. Udit Grover, Advocates ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) Appellant is the bailee, who vide order of 20th April, 2005 has been saddled with the liability to pay the entire cost of first consignment containing 20 cartons and custom duty paid on it. The decree against appellant is of `3,67,003.20 payable with demurrage charges and interest @10% p.a.. The factual background of this case already stands noticed in the impugned order and needs no reproduction. Suffice to note that on 22nd April, 1987, a consignment of 20 cartons of electric components i.e. parts of switch mode power supply for computers were imported from Taiwan RFA7512005 Page 1 and...
Tag this Judgment!