Delhi Court February 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Workmen of DDA Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
I.S. Mehta, J. 1. The present petitioners, i.e., Workmen, DDA (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-workmen ) have preferred the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate Writ, order or direction to set aside the impugned Award dated 01.05.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. III, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator ) in I.D. No. 20/1997. 2. The brief facts stated are that the petitioner-workmen, i.e., Shri Ramgopal Singh, Shri Adil Singh, Shri Rajinder Prasad, Shri Kartar Singh, Shri Kamal Kishore, Shri Hoshiar Singh, Shri Nepal Singh, Shri Virender Singh, Shri Anil Kumar, Shri Prem Chand, Shri Amrinder Kumar Singh, Shri Bhim Singh, Shri Yogender Kumar, Shri Ashok Kumar, Shri Rakesh Kushwaha, Shri Babu Ram, Mohd. Sarfarajuddin and Shri Ashok Kumar, whose cause of action has been exposed through the D.D.A Mazdoor Union wherein the petitioner-workme...
Qarshi Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Mueed and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Having registration of the trademark (word mark) 'JAM-ESHIRIN' in Pakistan, and pending an application for registration thereof in India, Qarshi Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Qarshi) instituted an action in this Court for passing off against Abdul Mueed, Hamdard Laboratories India and Hamdard National Foundation (hereinafter referred to as Hamdard), pleading that by selling its product under the trademark 'HAMDARD JAM-E-SHIRIN', Hamdard was guilty of passing off its product as that of Qarshi. The product is a herbal beverage decocted from pure herbs and natural ingredients and sweeten with sugar. As per Qarshi, it has been selling the beverage since the year 1980 and has its presence in India through sale of its product in the physical market as also on the net, evidenced by invoices filed by Qarshi. Relying upon broadcast of commercial serials sponsored by Qarshi to popularise its trademark and relying upon awesome sales; informing that Qars...
Denso India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. These two appeals by the assessee require resolution of common questions of law and arise from identical or closely similar circumstances. The questions of law framed in these appeals, on 17.10.2014, are as follows: "1. Whether the Transactional Net Margin Method adopted by the assessee is the most appropriate method envisaged under Section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 10C of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in directing the Assessing Officer to apply Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method? 2. Whether there is a contradiction in the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as it has directed that the Transfer Pricing Officer should apply Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method?" 2. The appellant assessee is engaged in manufacturing and sale of auto electrical products such as Starters, Alternators, Wiper Motors, CDI, Magnetos etc., for four wheel and two wheel vehicles. Its promoters include two...
International Tractors Ltd. and Others Vs. Punjab Tractors Limited and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Punjab Tractors Limited (in short PTL) filed a suit being CS(OS) No. 470/2004 alleging infringement of the copyright in certain engineering drawings against the International Tractors Ltd. (in short ITL) also impleading Deepak Mittal and L.D. Mittal, Joint Managing Director and Chairman of ITL as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. During the pendency of the suit, PTL merged with Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (in short MML) under the scheme of amalgamation in terms of section 394 (3) of the Companies Act. The scheme became effective on February 16, 2009, when certified copy of the scheme sanctioned by the High Courts at Bombay and Punjab and Haryana was filed with the Registrar of Companies, Jalandhar, Punjab. Though, scheme became effective from February 16, 2009, MML filed an application of substitution in place of PTL being I.A. No. 6733/2011 under Order I Rule 10 CPC, Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, Order 22, Rule 9 CPC, Order 22, Rule 10 CPC and under section 151 CPC. I....
Cellular Operators Association of India and Others Vs. Telecom Regulat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. The petitioners are Telecom operators/Associations of telecom operators who offer telecommunication services. 2. This petition is filed challenging the validity of the Telecom Consumer Protection (Ninth Amendment) Regulations, 2015 notified on 16.10.2015 by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (for short TRAI ) in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 36 read with Section 11(1)(b)(v)(i) of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. 3. By the said Amendment dated 16.10.2015 which has come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2016, every originating service provider providing cellular mobile telephone service is made liable to credit the calling consumer i.e. a consumer who initiates a voice call, by one rupee for each call drop within its network for a maximum of three call drops per day. Further the service provider shall also provide the details of the amount credited to the calling consumer within 4 hours of the occurrence of call drop through SMS/USSD message. ...
Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd.Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. CM No.7257/2016 (exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. WP (C) 1697/2016 and CM No. 7256/2016 (Stay) 3. Notice. Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice for the Respondent. 4. Since the point involved is a short one, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 5. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 17th February 2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Adjudication) ICD Import Thuglakabad [hereafter the 'Adjudicating Authority' (AA)] declining the Petitioner's request for cross-examination of two persons, whose statements have been relied upon in the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner issue concerns the denial by the Commissioner of Customs. 6. The facts are not in dispute. A show cause notice (SCN) dated 1st November 2014 was issued to M/s Spreet International (hereafter 'importer') as well as the Petitioner and four others by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intellige...
Commissioner of Income Tax, C-I Vs. Vatika Landbase Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 8th March 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No. 162/Del/2006 for the Assessment Year ( AY ) Block Period 1st April 1997 to 8th May 2003. 2. At the outset it requires to be noticed that the impugned order dated 8th March 2013 was common to the appeals filed by both the Revenue [IT (S.S.) A. No. 162/Del/2006] as well as by the Assessee [IT (S.S.) A. No. 117/Del/2006]. Against the said common impugned order, the Assessee had also filed an appeal in this Court bearing ITA No. 2 of 2014 [Vatika Limited (formerly Vatika Land Base Private Limited) v. Commissioner of Income Tax] and that appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 6th April 2015. Search and Seizure operation 3. The background facts are that the Respondent-Assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development and was incorporated o...
Commissioner of Income-tax, C-I Vs. Vatika Landbase (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 8th March 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No. 162/Del/2006 for the Assessment Year ('AY') Block Period 1st April 1997 to 8th May 2003. 2. At the outset it requires to be noticed that the impugned order dated 8th March 2013 was common to the appeals filed by both the Revenue [IT (S.S.) A. No. 162/Del/2006] as well as by the Assessee [IT (S.S.) A. No. 117/Del/2006]. Against the said common impugned order, the Assessee had also filed an appeal in this Court bearing ITA No. 2 of 2014[Vatika Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 60 taxmann.com 216 (Delhi)and that appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 6th April 2015. Search and Seizure operation 3. The background facts are that the Respondent-Assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development and was incorporated on 2nd July 1998 under the Companies Act, 19...
Batasho Devi Vs. Rekha and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
Oral: Pramod Singh, a constable in Delhi Police, then aged 25 years, died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at about 07:15 PM on 06.01.2007 at Akbar Road upon being hit by ambassador car bearing registration no.DL-9CK-0004 (the offending vehicle) statedly driven by the second respondent herein (impleaded in the claim petition as second respondent), it being a motor vehicle of the Department of Tourism of the Government of India for which reason Union of India, the third respondent herein, was also impleaded as a party respondent (second respondent before tribunal). Rekha, the widow of Pramod Singh brought a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act) before the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) on 21.05.2007 which was registered as suit no.1320/2007. In the said case she impleaded as Batasho Devi (the appellant herein) as third respondent (proforma party), she being the mother of the deceased Pramo...
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Murgan and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
Oral: 1. Virthambal aged 22 years died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred at about 06:30 AM on 15.03.2014 involving car (i-20) bearing registration no.HR-06P-7575 (the offending vehicle) concededly insured with the appellant herein against third party risk for the period in question, it having hit a motorcycle bearing registration no.DL-3SAE-3592 (motorcycle) driven by her husband Murgan she travelling as pillion rider. Murgan and Master Madhwan, husband and son of the deceased became the claimants in the proceedings registered as suit no.133/2014 on the basis of detailed accident report (DAR) submitted by the police in the context of first information report (FIR) no.112/2014 that was registered with police station Hazarat Nizamuddin respecting the fatal accident. The appellant/insurance company was impleaded as second respondent in addition to Sanjay Arora (driver-cum-owner). 2. The tribunal held inquiry and on its basis awarded compensat...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »