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.
Summer Fields School Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of impugned order dated 08th March, 2011 passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (EPFAT) in Appeal bearing ATA No.6(16)2008whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.11.2007 passed by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was dismissed. 2. The facts germane for adjudication of the present petition are summarized below: - (i) The petitioner, Summer Fields School is covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 framed thereunder and is regularly paying contribution as per Section 6 of the Act. (ii) Vide notice dated 29.08.2006 the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act were initiated by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissione...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harjeev Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act ) impugning an order dated 23rd June, 2003 (hereafter the impugned order ) passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ITAT ) in IT(SS) No.68/Del/2002 filed by the Assessee. This appeal was directed against an order dated 13th February, 2002 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter the CIT(A) ] in an appeal preferred by the Assessee against the assessment order dated 27th February, 2001 passed by the Assessing Officer (hereafter the AO ) for the Block Period 1st April, 1988 to 25th February, 1999. 2. The controversy involved in the present appeal relates to an addition of Rs.74 lacs made by the AO as undisclosed income of the Assessee. Admittedly, the said payment of Rs.74 lacs was made in cash for purchasing a property. The ITAT, in its order, has held that the AO had not made out any valid case for treating the investment as the undis...
State Vs. Lal Babu Mahto
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
G.S. Sistani, J. CRL.MA.No. 15876 of 2015 1. By the present application, the petitioner seeks condonation of 100 days' delay in filing the present criminal leave to appeal petition. 2. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, present application is allowed. Delay in filing the present criminal leave to appeal petition is condoned. Let criminal leave to appeal petition be taken on record. 3. Application stands disposed of. CRL.L.P.No. 702 of 2015 4. Present leave to appeal petition has been filed by the State under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 13.04.2015 passed by Ms. Renu Bhatnagar, Additional Sessions Judge-01, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Session s Case No.75/12 whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charges framed under Section 376 (2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The brief facts of this case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court are as under: "On 11.08.2012 DD No. 10 A was received by SI ...
Gaurav Kumar and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Gaurav Kumar, Sh. Bindravan, Smt. Nirmala, Sh. Vikas @ Babloo, Smt. Rinku @ Renu and Sh. Darshan for quashing of FIR No. 871/2014 dated 24.08.2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Bindapur on the basis of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Neha Sharma on 03.03.2015. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for 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 ASI Manju Dhyani. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 29.04.2013. On the very next day of the marriage, the accused persons snatched away all the jewellery and cash brought...
Sanjay Kaushish and Another Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Cr.P.C. ) has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of charge sheet filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi under Sections 406/420/34 IPC in Criminal Case No.3095/2/2014 arising out of FIR No.27/2014, under Sections 420/406 IPC, Police Station Sarita Vihar and for quashing of order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the learned MM taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent No.2/complainant- Splendor Landbase Ltd. got lodged the FIR in question against the petitioner Sanjay Kaushish and his son Karan Kaushish with the allegations that both the accused persons approached the complainant company in January, 2013 and offered to sell plots of land bearing Nos.8601 to 8630 admeasuring 5444 sq. yards situated at Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Paharganj, New Delhi which was commonly k...
Asha Gupta Vs. Shri Mahender Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
Oral: 1. This suit for partition is filed by one plaintiff Smt. Asha Gupta. Smt. Asha Gupta is the daughter of late Sh. Siri Kishan Dass Mittal and Smt. Basanti Devi. There are five defendants in the suit. Defendant nos.1 and 2 are the brothers of the plaintiff and sons of Sh. Siri Kishan Dass Mittal and Smt. Basanti Devi. Defendants no. 3 to 5 are the legal heirs of the branch of Sh. Rajender Kumar and which Sh. Rajender Kumar is the deceased brother of defendant nos.1 and 2 and the plaintiff and the son of Sh. Siri Kishan Dass Mittal and Smt. Basanti Devi. 2. As per the plaint, plaintiff claims that the father Sh. Siri Kishan Dass Mittal was the sole owner of the suit property bearing no. M-291, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048 and since the father Sh. Siri Kishan Dass Mittal died intestate at Delhi on 18.11.2004 with the mother Smt. Basanti Devi having already expired, plaintiff has a 1/4th share in the suit property with 1/4th share falling to defendant no.1, 1/4th share fallin...
R. Sunder and Another Vs. Alok Mathur and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Suresh Kait, J. 1. Vide these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of the summoning order dated 26.06.2007 passed by learned Trial Court in Criminal Complaint Case No.343/1/2002. Consequently, the afore noted complaint case be also quashed against them. 2. Vide the impugned order learned Trial Court had issued the summons to accused Nos.1 to 15 including the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 499/500/501/502/34 of the IPC. However, summons were not issued against 16th accused, i.e., Times News Network. 3. Since the facts of all these three petitions are common and the same are directed against summoning order dated 26.06.2007 arising out of a complaint filed by respondent No.2, therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of these petitions by a common judgment. 4. The allegations in narrow compass as contained in the complaint filed before learned Trial Court against petitioners are that the responde...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jatan Lal Jatav and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Oral: 1. Mr. Jatan Lal Jatav then aged 40 years working as a mason, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at about 7.50 PM on 18.09.2008 on being hit by car bearing No.HR 26X 2002 (the offending vehicle), it concededly being insured against third party risk with the appellant company (insurer) for the period in question. He preferred a claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal) on 14.01.2009 whereupon it was registered as MACT case No.521/10/09 and inquired into. The tribunal granted compensation in the sum of Rs.10,72,629/- with interest in favour of the claimant also adding Rs.50,000/- as counsel fee and Rs.5,000/- as out of pocket expenses to the advocate representing the claimant. The compensation awarded by the tribunal has been calculated thus in the impugned judgment as under:- Pecuniarv damages (Special damages): 1. Loss of incomeRs.23,094/- 2.Medical expensesRs....
Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of show cause notice dated 26th July, 2004 and termination order dated 13th September, 2004 by virtue of which petitioner's LPG distributorship was terminated. 2. The show cause notice dated 26th July, 2004 mentioned fourteen irregularities observed during a surprise inspection of petitioner's distributorship by Indian Oil Corporation Limited officials. The show cause notice further stated that the said fourteen irregularities were in breach of various terms and conditions of the Distributorship Agreement and more particularly its Clauses 4,6,7,11,14(aandb),15 and 16. The petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him in terms of the distributorship agreement within seven days. 3. The above mentioned show cause notice was replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 4th August, 2004 taking various defences. On 29th April, 2004 the respondent no. 1 herein wrote a letter addressed to all In...
Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Limited (Now known as Vodafone Mobile S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. The common question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions concerns the validity of the action initiated by the Respondent Income Tax Department ('Department') against the Petitioners under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) for non-deduction of tax at source ( TDS ) for periods earlier than four years prior to 31st March, 2011. These petitions in turn involve the interpretation of the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 201 of the Act, which was inserted with effect from 1st April, 2010. 2. Although the facts of these cases are more or less similar, the facts pertaining to Tata Teleservices Limited ( TTSL ), the Petitioner in WP (C) No. 8642/2011, are first discussed. TTSL is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of providing telecommunication services across the country. TTSL has a central office in New Delhi. It provides post-paid and pre-paid telecommunication services for w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »