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.
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Another Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
1. The background to the present petitions by Larsen and Toubro Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution, aggrieved by the sealing by the Department of Trade and Taxes (DTandT) Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) of its three offices in Delhi in purported exercise of the powers under Section 60 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act 2004 ('DVAT Act'), is set out in the order passed on 19th March 2013, the relevant portion of which reads as under: "These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 16.03.2013 purportedly issued under Section 60 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 whereby the three separate premises of the petitioner at Nehru Place, Moti Nagar and Peera Garhi were sealed by the Value Added Tax Officer (Special Zone). It may be pointed out that the survey was conducted on 15.03.2013 (Friday) when the Value Added Tax Officer arrived at the said premises of the petitioner at about 5.30 p.m. in the evening and demanded important documents. The...
The Management of M/s. Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Puran Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
1. The present petitioner, i.e., Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-management') has preferred the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India whereby seeking the quashing of the impugned order dated 26.05.2003 passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator') in O.P. No. 109/94 being totally illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, perverse and unjustified order. 2. The brief facts stated are that the respondent-workman, i.e., Shri Puran Chand was in the employment of the petitioner-management and he was on duty in bus No. 9069 on route No.46. On 15.07.1993, while the respondent-workman was on duty in the aforesaid bus, the checking officials, i.e., Shri Ram Kishan, A.T.I, Shri Rajvir Singh, T.I and Shri Ram Phool, A.T.I of the petitioner-management intercepted the said bus at Paharganj and found the following...
Siti Energy Limited and Another Vs. Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulato ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
G. Rohini, CJ. C.M. 570/2016(stay) 1. The main writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of the Regulations 7 and 18 of the Petroleu0m and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorizing Entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations, 2008. 2. We have directed the respondents to file their response and the main petition now stands posted to 28.03.2016. 3. So far as the present miscellaneous application is concerned, the prayer is to stay encashment of bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners and further to restrain the respondent No.1 from implementation of the conditions stipulated in the authorization letter dated 30.11.2012 till the disposal of the writ petition. 4. We have heard Sh.Parag P.Tripathi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board. 5. For proper appreciation of the controversy involved, ...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Human Care Medical Charitable Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The brief factual matrix required to be noted for adjudication of present appeal is that Human Care Medical Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Society') is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 2. On June 11, 1996, a perpetual lease-deed was executed by the DDA in favour of society. By and under the said perpetual lease-deed, a plot of land ad-measuring 0.955 Hectares at Sector-6, Dwarka was demised in favour of the society with effect from April 23, 1996. Terms of the lease-deed required the society to construct a hospital on the land after obtaining sanction from the municipal authorities within a period of two years from April 23, 1996. 3. Being relevant, it would be apposite to note following clauses in the lease-deed dated June 11, 1996:- II. The Lessee for himself, successor and assignees covenants with the Lessor in the manner following that is to say; (4) The Lessee, shall within a period of two years from 23rd d...
Ram Naresh Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
Sunil Gaur, J. 1. Penalty of reduction of pay by two stages i.e. from Rs. 7860/- to Rs. 7290/- in the time scale of pay Rs. 5200-20200/- + Rs. 2000/- (Grade Pay) for a period of one year with the rider that petitioner will not earn increments of his pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay, is assailed in this petition by petitioner, who was working as Constable of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit, SSG, Greater Noida (U.P.) in the year 2010. 2. Vide Office Memorandum of 12th September, 2011, charge-sheet under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules-2001 was issued. The Article of Charge upon which petitioner was departmentally tried reads as under: - That No.014070042 Const. (GD) Ram Naresh, AdmGroup, CISF Unit, SSG, Greater Noida, (U.P.) while performing duty in MI Room of the unit involved himself in malpractice during the process of medical test of Anand Kumar for the post of C...
Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
CRL.M.C. 4763/2014 1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( ˜Cr.P.C.'), petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of FIR No.0139/2014 registered at Police Station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, for the offence punishable under Sections 406/417/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( ˜IPC'). 2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Agreement was signed on 03.06.1993 and the FIR in question was registered on 20.08.2014, i.e., after 21 years. The FIR was preceded by the communication dated 29.09.2011 sent by the petitioner No. 1 to the respondent No. 2, reflecting disinterest to enter into a new agreement with respondent No.2. The same is also reflected in the letter dated 28.05.2005, which clearly shows that prior meeting had taken place between petitioner No. 2 and respondent No.2, which had failed. The said prior meeting took place after property was transferred in the name of the pe...
M/s. Bharat Power Control Systems Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the decision taken by the respondents no. 1 to 3 on 16.10.2015 of disqualifying the petitioner from the bidding process and for a mandamus to respondents no. 1 to 3 to re-conduct the tender process by allowing the petitioner to take part in the bidding/tender process. 2. It is contended that the petitioner is a sole proprietorship concern of Shri Bharat Bhushan Bali. As per the petitioner, Shri Bharat Bhushan Bali along with the sole proprietor of respondent no. 4, Shri G.S. Bakshi, had entered into a partnership on 03.08.1991 and the partnership deed dated 01.04.1992 was executed between the two. The business of the partnership was carried on under the name and style of M/s Labotek. As per the said partnership deed, both the partners were working partners and had 50% share in the losses and profits. It is contended that as per the partnership deed both the partners were to contribute equally towar...
Vishal Vs. The State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) 1. Vide judgment dated February 26, 2000 the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and vide order on sentence dated February 29, 2000 he has been awarded the punishment to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs. 5,000/-; in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. At the outset we may notice that the other accused arrayed at the trial, namely - Nasir @ Zero and Babu Lal have been acquitted of the charge of murder but Madan @ Vikrant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by him in custody. Therefore we are to decide the fate of the appellant alone in this appeal. 3. Concerning the appellant, the finding of guilt has been arrived at by the learned Trial Judge in view of the evidence of being last seen in the company of Saleem (hereinafter referred as the deceased') emerging from the testimon...
Allen Diesels India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2016
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. A common question that arises in these writ petitions by Allen Diesels India Pvt. Ltd. is whether, in the garb of circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs ( ˜CBEC') New Delhi, the benefit granted under a notification issued in terms of Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 ( ˜Act') can be modified or amended. 2. The factual matrix in which the question arises is that under the Notification No. 102/2007-Customs dated 14th September 2007 issued in exercise of the powers of the Central Government under Section 25 (1) of the Act, the additional duty of customs, known as Special Additional Duty ( ˜SAD'), under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was exempted if the goods imported were meant for subsequent sale. If the SAD was already paid, the notification allowed exemption by way of refund. Para 2 of the notification specified the following conditions that were required to be fulfilled for availing the exemption: (a) th...
Brijesh Yadav @ Vijay Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2016
1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. appellant seeks directions thereby setting aside the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2014, whereby he was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 15/61/85 of NDPS Act. 2. Further seeks directions thereby setting aside the order on sentence dated 01.04.2014, whereby he was sentenced to undergo RI for four years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo SI for six months for the offence punishable under Section 15 of NDPS Act. 3. The aforesaid case was registered on the written complaint of Ct. Ravinder of PS-Kashmere Gate alleging therein that on 13.09.2012 at about 7.45 am when he was performing his duty at the out gate of ISBT, he saw the appellant coming from the side of foot-over Bridge having a Fauji Colour Bag on his left shoulder and on seeing the police constable he took u-turn and started taking fast steps. He was apprehended by the Constable...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »