Delhi Court December 2016 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.
Mr. P K S Shrivastava vs.union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
* + % W.P.(C) No.10392/2015 Reserved on:28. h November, 2016 Pronounced on:1. t December, 2016 ........ Petitioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MR. P K S SHRIVASTAVA Through: Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Shekhar Gupta, Advocate. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner questioning the termination of his contractual services with the respondent no.2/Goa Shipyard Ltd. as a Director (Corporate, Planning, Projects & Business Development). The orders of termination of the contractual services in the present case are dated 27.10.2015 and 28.10.2015 and which letters read as under:-"Letter dated 27.10.2015 W.P.(C) No.10392/2015 Page 1 of 13 To Confide...
Pinky Jain & Anr. Vs.m/s Ameya Universal Project Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~ * % Decided on :01. 12.2016 + CS (OS) 624/2013 & I.A.9608/2015 & O.A.181/2015 PINKY JAIN & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Mr.Vidit Gupta, Advocates M/S AMEYA UNIVERSAL PROJECT PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Vikas Dhawan, Mr.S.P.Das and versus Mr.S.Panda, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT1 The plaintiff had filed an O.A.181/2015 against the order of the Joint Registrar dated 17.04.2015 whereby the plaintiffs' request for directions to the defendant to permit the inspection of its documents was rejected. When the case was fixed for arguments on this O.A., the defendant raised the issue about maintainability of suit on the ground that the suit relates to an unregistered partnership agreement and in view of Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') it is barred and is to be rejected. It is argued that one of the reliefs the plaintiffs have sought is for dis...
Commissioner of Central Excise vs.m/s u.k. Paints (I) P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
$~3 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:01. 12.2016 CEAC112005 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Kr. Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S U.K.PAINTS (I) P.LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Naveeen Mullick and Mr. Parth Mullick, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J (Oral) The following questions of law were framed on 27.01.2011 in 1. this appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise: (1) Whether the adjudicating authority is not required to call the DEEC and other related documents for quantification of correct amount of refund?. (2) Whether the CESTAT has the jurisdiction to decide the appeal in respect of any order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with sub-section 1(b) of Section 35B of the Act ibid and proviso thereto in the cases wherein g...
G P Sharma vs.m/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
$~115 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:01. t December, 2016 + MAC.APP. 445/2013 G P SHARMA ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Aekta Vats, Mr. Karan Mehta, Advs. Versus M/S JAIPUR GEMS PALACE & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.Fazal, proxy counsel for R- 1 and R-2. Mr. Pavan Kumar, Adv. for Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv. as amicus curiae. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 7th March, 2012 whereby compensation of Rs.85,446/- has been awarded to the appellant. The appellant seeks enhancement of the award amount.2. On 26th July, 2000 at about 12.10 pm, the appellant, who was a practicing lawyer by profession, was going in Maruti gypsy bearing registration No.DNU11towards Sunder Nagar along with his housekeeper. The left tyre of the gypsy got punctured at the flyover of the Oberoi Hotel whereupon the appellant and his housekeeper got down for replacing the tyre when they were hit by a Maruti Zen bearing reg...
Ms. Uma Ghate vs.mr. Umesh Phalpher
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~ * % Decided on :01. 12.2016 + CS (OS) 579/2016 MS. UMA GHATE ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms.Manmeet Arora, Mr.Tarang Gupta and Mr.Devashish Chauhan, Advocates versus MR. UMESH PHALPHER ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Hrishipal Barvah, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT1 The present suit has been filed by the sister of the defendant seeking partition of the estate of their late mother Ms.Kamal Phalpher. In the plaint it is submitted that the plaintiff and defendant are Class I legal heirs of their late mother. Their father died on 23.04.1991 and the mother expired on 09.09.2016 leaving behind the properties (movable and immovable) as enumerated in para 5 of the plaint. It is submitted that the mother of the plaintiff used to reside on the ground floor of the property bearing number 185, Jor Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Jor Bagh Property) CS (OS) No.579/2016 Page 1. before her demise and the plaintiff grew up in th...
Ishtiyak & Ors vs.state (Govt of Nct of Delhi) & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 1508/2016 Date of Decision: December 1st, 2016 ISHTIYAK & ORS ........ Petitioners STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.K.S. Sharma, Adv. versus Through Mr.Izhar Ahmad, APP. Respondent no.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by 1. the petitioners, namely, Sh. Ishtiyak, Sh. Mohd. Yusuf, Sh. Mohd. Yaqub, Sh. Mohd. Mustaq, Ms. Imrana @ Munshiyan for quashing of FIR No.907/2013 dated 11.12.2013, under Sections 498-A/4IPC registered at Police Station Govind Puri on the basis of a Settlement Deed between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Muskaan @ Shama Parveen on 30.03.2016.2. respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by SI Jitendra Singh. The factual matrix, in brief, of the present case is that t...
Canara Bank vs.angna Ram & Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.302/2014 CANARA BANK Reserved on:17. h October, 2016 Date of Decision:1. t December, 2016 ....Petitioner Through Mr. Prashant Kumar Mittal, Advocate. Versus ANGNA RAM & ANOTHER ..Respondents Through Mr. Mahesh Verma, Advocate alongwith respondent No.1 in person. Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC & Mr. Harsh Ahuja, Advocate for UOI. % CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA SANJIV KHANNA, J.1. The petitioner Canara Bank in this writ petition impugns the order dated 25th July, 2013 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) whereby OA No.153/2013 filed by Angna Ram, the first respondent before us, has been allowed with the direction that the petitioner bank would repay the entire amount deducted from the pension paid to the said respondent. The Union of India through the Ministry of Finance is the second respondent before us.2. Angna Ram is a pensione...
Pfizer Limited & Anr vs.union of India & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:1. t December, 2016. W.P.(C) No.2212/2016 PFIZER LIMITED & ANR Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR AND ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS 453 OTHER PETITIONS AS PER SCHEDULE Counsels for the petitioners:-"Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. P. Chidambaram, Mr. Ashok Desai, Mr. C.S. Vaidynathan, Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Mr. S. Ganesh, Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Mr. Arvind K. Nigam, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Mr. Gopal Jain, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, , Mr. Rajiv Virmani, Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Mr. Abhinav Vashisht, Mr. Ashwini Mata, Mr. Suddhanshu Batra, Mr. J.P. Sengh, Mr. Amit Sibal, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Ms. Rekha Palli, Senior Advocates. Assisted By Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Mr. Rahul Dwarkadas, Mr. Kunal Dwarkadas, Mr. J.Diwan, Ms. Aayushi Sharma, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Yuvraj Chobey, Mrs. Aayushi S. Khazanchi, Mr. Chander M. Lall, Ms. Kripa Pandit, Mr. Ritesh, Mr. Honey, Mr. Dheeraj Nair, Mr. Manish Jha, Mr. Mohit Bakshi, Mr. Kunal Mimani, Mr. Kuna...
Gagan Dua vs.state (Nct of Delhi) & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 1338/2016 Date of Decision: December 1st, 2016 ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Ankit Mathur, Adv. GAGAN DUA versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the State. ASI Balraj Singh, PS Punjabi Bagh. Respondent no.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Gagan Dua for quashing of FIR No.192/2014 dated 13.03.2014, under Sections 498-A/4IPC registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh on the basis of mediation report of Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi settlement arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Anju Dua @ Anju Sehgal on 20.09.2014.2. respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by her counsel.3. The factual matrix, in b...
Aravali Infrapower Ltd. Vs.deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:01. 12.2016 + W.P.(C) 2385/2015 ARAVALI INFRAPOWER LTD. Petitioner Through: Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Shaubhagya Aggarwal, Sh. Deepak Shukla and Sh. Alok Singh, Advocates. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Respondent Through: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by a notice issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Sectionsof the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter the Act].. The Reasons to Believe were later furnished in the form of a document to the assessee/petitioner; they appear to have been recorded on 19.11.2013. The relevant part of the said document outlining why reassessment was proposed reads as follows: XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX A survey was conducted on the corporate office of M/s Aravali lnfrapower Ltd. at G-29, 3rd floor, Vardhman Towers, Near PVR So...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »