Delhi Court March 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.
Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. The Delhi Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Store ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
1. The present petitioner, i.e., Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-workman ) has preferred the present Writ Petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned Award dated 01.10.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. V, Karkardooma, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator ) in I.D. No. 320/1991. 2. The brief facts stated are that the petitioner-workman, i.e., Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, was working under the respondent-management, i.e., Delhi Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Store Ltd., w.e.f. 05.07.1985 as a senior salesman, posted at liquor shop at I.N.A market, New Delhi and was assisted by other employees, i.e., Shri Dalip Singh, Shri Kamleshwar, Shri Sunil Bhagat and Shri Nam Singh (helper). Shri J.K. Kaushik was the Manager at the shop. On 09.06.1989, while the petitioner-workman was on duty at the shop, Shri J.K. Kaushik found that the petitio...
Kunal Chauhan Vs. National Commissioner for Women and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks mandamus to the respondent No.1 National Commission for Women (NCW) to recall its advisory dated 14th June, 2013 and seeks compensation in the sum of Rs.75,49,958/- jointly and severally from the respondent No.1 NCW and respondent No.2 Ms. Devika Singh. 2. The petition was filed pleading: (i) that the respondent No.2 Ms. Devika Singh is the wife of the petitioner; (ii) that the petitioner is a Marine Engineer and was, at the time of his marriage and thereafter employed with Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Maritime (Indian) Pvt. Ltd.; (iii) that disputes and differences arose between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 Ms. Devika Singh and the respondent No.2 Ms. Devika Singh filed a complaint against the petitioner with the Special Unit of Women and Child of Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell of Delhi Police which issued notice to the petitioner; (iv) that the respondent No.2 Ms. Devika Singh also filed a petition in the District...
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
Oral: Amit Kumar, a student of second year of a professional course of Bachelor of Business Administration, then 17 years old, died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 29.11.2011 involving a motor vehicle described as bus bearing No. DL 1PB 0426 (the offending vehicle) which was admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance company (insurer). Upon the claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 brought by his parents (first and second respondents herein), registered as Suit No. 340/12, inter alia, on the basis of detailed accident report (DAR), the motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal), by judgment dated 06.03.2013, notionally assessed his income on the basis of minimum wages payable to a matriculate (L8112) after adding 30% of future prospects of increase and on the multiplier of 15 on the basis of age of the mother (38 years), computed the loss of dependency at Rs.9,49,104/- and further after addingL25,000/- towards ...
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Competition Commission of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. These petitions have been filed by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), a company incorporated under the Laws of Sweden (hereafter also referred to as 'Ericsson'), inter alia, impugning orders dated 12th November, 2013 and 16th January, 2014 (hereafter referred to as the 'impugned order' or 'impugned orders') passed by the Competition Commission of India (hereafter 'CCI') under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter referred to as 'the Competition Act'). The impugned order dated 12th November, 2013 was passed pursuant to an information filed by Micromax Informatics Ltd. (hereafter 'Micromax') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act and the same is the subject matter of W.P.(C) No. 464/2014 (hereafter also referred to as the 'Micromax Petition') and the impugned order dated 16th January, 2014 was passed pursuant to an information filed by Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. (hereafter 'Intex') and is the subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 1006 of 2014...
Vijay Singh Vs. Chanchal Chaudhary
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
Oral: 1. Notice in the petition which was issued vide order dated 16th October, 2015 was duly served upon the respondent, who entered appearance through counsel on 03rd December, 2015. The respondent has also filed reply in the matter, to which the appellant has filed rejoinder. 2. None appears for the respondent despite the matter having been passed over once. 3. A very narrow issue has been raised in the present appeal. We have gone through the record, which includes the reply of the respondent as well as the record of the lower court, which has been placed by the appellant before us and the impugned order. We have also considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 4. A petition for dissolution of marriage dated 27th April, 2000 solemnized at Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P was filed by the appellant on or around 28th March, 2009, which was registered as HMA No. 463/2009 (renumbered as HMA No. 688/2011). This petition was filed under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1A)(ii...
Harjeet Singh Vs. Sanjay and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
Oral: The appellant (the claimant) suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at about 8.30 PM on 22.07.1996 involving two wheeler scooter bearing registration No.DL 4SN 9967 (scooter) being driven by him in a collision between it and a truck bearing registration No. DEG 1156 (the truck) admittedly driven by the first respondent (R1W1). He got the claim petition registered under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) before the motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) on 21.08.1996 whereupon it was registered as petition No. 157/06. In the said case, besides the driver of the truck (first respondent), its registered owner (Brahm Dutt) and the insurer (New India Insurance Co. Ltd.) were also impleaded as party respondents. Brahm Dutt, the registered owner of the truck having died, by subsequent application his legal heirs were substituted in his place. The appellant had alleged in the claim case that the accident had occurred due to rash driving of...
Twenty First Century Media Private Limited Vs. New India Assurance Com ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
The petition impugns (i) Endorsement Schedule dated 17th October, 2010 issued by the respondent New India Assurance Company Limited qua the insurance policy taken by the petitioner; (ii) letters dated 27th October, 2010 and 4th October, 2011 of the respondent repudiating the claim of the petitioner under the insurance policy obtained from the respondent and seeks mandamus directing the respondent to settle the claim of the petitioner by remitting to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1.60 crore along with interest at 18% per annum from the date on which the payment became due until the date of settlement of the claim. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and pleadings completed though interim relief claimed of directing the respondent to deposit the amount of Rs. 1.60 crore in this Court not granted. The counsels were heard on 8th September, 2015 and judgment reserved. 3. It is the case of the petitioner (i) that one M/s. Prerana International was the successful bidder for the instadia advert...
Vijay Saluja Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
Ashutosh Kumar, J. 1. CM Appln. 4619/2016 (under Order 41, Rule 19 CPC) and CM Appln. 4620/2016 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the restoration appeal) and CM Appln. 4621/2016 (condonation of delay in re-filing the restoration appeal) Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, learned advocate appearing for UOI, files reply to the aforesaid applications today in the Court. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard counsels for the parties. 3. CM Appln. No. 4619/2016 is an application for restoration of the LA.APP.No. 585/2011 which stood dismissed on 16.05.2012, though for non-prosecution but the order also disclosed that since the case of the appellant/applicant would be governed by the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in Land Acquisition Appeal no. 115/2011 (Jai Prakash v. Union of India and Anr.), which was dismissed, the appeal of the applicant is also required to be dismissed. 4. The land of the applicant in village-Bamnoli was acquired vide award no. 01/200...
ITD-ITD CEM JV Vs. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition by the Petitioner, ITD-ITD CEM, a joint venture group, which is engaged in executing the works contract for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation ( DMRC ) and has been registered with Ward No. 107 (Special Zone) with the Department of Trade and Taxes ( DTandT ), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ( GNCTD ), is to the notice dated 9th February 2016 issued under Section 59 (2) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ( DVAT Act ) along with the letter dated 24th February 2016 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (VAT Audit). 2. The Petitioner states that it has been filing its returns regularly with the DTandT and also making other statutory compliances in terms of the provisions of the DVAT Act and Delhi Value Added Tax Rules 2005 ( DVAT Rules ). It is stated that during the year 2009-10, the Petitioner filed monthly returns in form DVAT 16, which returns were taken to be notice of assessment under Section 31 of the DVAT A...
Roshan Lal Vohra and Sons and Another Vs. East Municipal Corporation o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
1. The petition (i) impugns the Circular dated 6th February, 2013 of the respondent East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) notifying all concerned of Rs.6.63 lacs being due from the petitioner and calling upon all concerned to recover the said amount from the payments if any due to the petitioner; and, (ii) seeks a mandamus to the respondent EDMC to make payment of Rs.6.63 lacs which had been illegally deducted from the amounts due to the petitioner under the other running contracts/agreements, along with interest at 18% per annum. 2. The petition was entertained and pleadings have been completed On 9th July, 2015, when the matter came up for hearing, attention of the counsel for the petitioners was invited to Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 2 SCC 439 holding that money recovery in writ jurisdiction can be done only when accompanied with a challenge to vires of a tax or statute under which recovery has been effected and which was not the position here. On the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »