Delhi Court April 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.
Ram Rani Dhingra Vs. Virender Bhatia and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2016
1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree dated 19th May, 2006 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi of dismissal of Suit No.445/2003 for recovery of Rs.3,60,000/- as compensation for damage caused to the immovable property. 2. The appeal was accompanied with an application for condonation of 23 days delay in filing thereof. Notice of the application for condonation of delay was issued and vide order dated 6th August, 2007, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal admitted for hearing. The counsels were heard on 26th August, 2015 and judgment reserved. The trial court record requisitioned has been perused. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has also filed written submissions. 3. The appellant on 1st July, 2003 instituted the suit from which this appeal arises pleading i) that the appellant/plaintiff is the owner in occupation of house No.324, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, New Delh...
Delhi Public School Society Vs. DPS World Foundation and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
IA 2920/2016 1. By this order, I shall decide IA 2920/2016, which is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, 1908 wherein the plaintiff has sought the following reliefs: a) pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants, their life trustees, term trustees, advisories, members, franchisees, officers, employees, servants, agents, delegates, representatives, assignees, associates and all others acting for and on their behalf from offering their services, advertising, offering franchisees, selling goods and stationary, adopting, using and / or dealing in any manner with the registered trade mark / name 'DPS' and logo IMAGE (Plaintiff s registered mark) of the plaintiff or any other trade mark identical or deceptively similar to the registered trade marks of the plaintiff amounting to infringement and passing off the plaintiffs registered trade marks; b) pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against defend...
Papender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
1. By this petition filed under Section 397/401 of Cr. P.C. read with Section 482 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of conviction dated 24.12.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 02 (West) whereby the Criminal Appeal No.273/4/2014, filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner also challenges the judgment and order on sentence dated 23.02.2013 and 25.02.2013 respectively, passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, West 01, Tis Hazari, Delhi, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304A and fine of Rs.300/- 2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that the Accused Papender was driving a blue line bus bearing Registration No. DL 1P 5412 in a rash and negligent manner on 16.05.1998 at about 8.30 AM on T Point Club Road, Ring Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and ...
Delhi Medical Association Vs. Principal Secretary (Health) and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2016
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), inter alia seeks directions for ensuring that no practitioner of Indian System of Medicine or of Homoeopathic Medicine practices in Allopathic System of Medicine including by prescribing Allopathic Medicines. The petition also impugns Section 2(h) of the Delhi Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad Act, 1998 (DBCP Act) and the Notification No.28-5/2004-Ay. (MM) dated 19th May, 2004 of the respondent no.8 Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) on the basis whereof the practitioners of Indian System of Medicine are said to be claiming to have a right to practise in the Allopathic System of Medicine. 2. The petition was entertained and admitted for hearing and ordered to be heard on an early date. Counter affidavits/replies have been filed by the respondent no.4 Director, Health Services (DHS) of the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and responden...
PGS Exploration (Norway) AS Vs. Additional Director of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2016
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. PGS Exploration (Norway) AS (now known as 'PGS Geophysical AS'), a company incorporated under the laws of Norway (hereafter 'the Assessee'), has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act') impugning the order dated 20.04.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 4056/Del/2011. The said appeal was directed against the assessment order dated 29.07.2011 passed under Section 144C read with Section 143(3) of the Act pursuant to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereafter 'DRP') issued on 18th July, 2011. 2. The principal controversy involved in the present appeal relates to whether the consideration received by the Assessee for services rendered by the Assessee to entities resident in India is "fees for technical services" within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act; and, whether the same is taxable under section 115A or Section 44BB of the A...
H.K. Madhia Vs. Financial Commissioner and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2016
Deepa Sharma, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a valid member of the second respondent (Subhash Cooperative Housing Society, "the society") impugns an order dated 17.02.2012 of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS) and order dated 23.12.2014 of Financial Commissioner (FC). These had declared cessation of his membership of the society from the date of enrolment, i.e., 03.03.1996 and he was required to vacate flat No.58 as well as a plot admeasuring 300-400 square feet on the rear side of the flat, and hand it over to the Society. He also seeks a declaration that the order of RCS dated 27.03.1996 whereby expulsion of Mr. S.G. Vaswani was confirmed should be declared valid order and made final and absolute. 2. The petitioner's claim is that he was a fresh member of the society and was not made a member against any vacancy. And, he paid all the dues in terms of the demands raised from time to time and that the total amount paid by him was Rs. 8,50,000/-. He also says that his name h...
MC-ROTEM-MELCO Consrotium Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (referred to as DMRC hereinafter) issued a notice inviting tenders for design, manufacture, supply, testing and commissioning of passenger rolling stock including consumables, spares etc. for 240 cars (60 trains) with an option of additional 40 cars. For benefit of the tenderers the scope of work as also terms and conditions for executing the works was made known through the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) and the Special Conditions of Contract (SCC). Instructions to the tenderers required an offer to be made quoting the lump sum price for the works. 2. Being found technically eligible, the appellant MC-Rotem-Melcon Consortium comprising Rotem Company, Mitsubishi Corporation and Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (referred to as MC-Rotem hereinafter) quoted the price with conditions concerning custom duty rate for the imported component and variation of taxes and duties in view of Clause 13.1 of the GCC, which reads as under:...
The State Govt of Nct of Delhi and Another Vs. Tanjeer Alam @ Raja and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2016
G.S. Sistani, J. Crl. M. A. No. 3828/2016 (Delay) in Crl. A. No. 227/2016 1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the State seeking condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the present appeal. 2. Having regard to the submissions made and in the interest of justice the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3. Application stands disposed of. Crl. M.A. Nos. 56/2016 and 226/2016 4. Appeal No. 56/2016 has been filed by Tanjeer Alam @ Raja for setting aside the judgment on conviction dated 18.11.2015 and order on sentence dated 20.11.2015. The State has filed Appeal No. 227/2016 with the prayer that the sentence awarded to the accused be enhanced. 5. Present appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 18.11.2015 and order on sentence dated 20.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Session's Case No. 01/2012 whereby the accused had been sentenced to undergo rigorous ...
Beena Sharma and Another Vs. Sarla Paul and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2016
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral) IA 17395/2013 1. By this order, I would decide the application i.e. IA 17395/2013 filed by the original plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint. 2. I may note here that vide order dated May 29, 2014 the defendant No.3 has been transposed as plaintiff in the suit. The amended memo of parties has been filed which reveals Beena Sharma and Vinay Paul as the plaintiffs. I may also note here the order dated May 29, 2014 has been challenged by the defendants No.1 and 2 in O.A. No.137/2014 which is pending consideration. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff No.1 before the order dated May 29, 2014 was passed and shall be referred as plaintiff in this order. 3. The plaintiff, by this application, is seeking to add paragraphs 18(a), 18(b) , 18(c) and 18(d) to 18(h), then, para 20A, para 21A and prayer clauses (g) to (j) to the plaint. 4. The reply has been filed to this application by the defendant No...
Anirudh Mishra Vs. Indu Mishra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2016
Gita Mittal, J. Oral: 1. The appellant has assailed the order dated 26th February, 2016 passed by the Family Court, Rohini Courts, North-West granting the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent-wife seeking interim maintenance. The parties to the instant case were married on 14th February, 2013 and there is no issue from the wedlock. It was urged that the respondent was unemployed. The petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA was filed by the appellant-husband in August, 2014. The application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act came to be filed on 27th October, 2014 inter alia on the allegations that the respondent-wife had no source of income and that the appellant-husband was giving tuitions and earning more than Rs.1 lakh per month. The respondent had claimed maintenance @ Rs.40,000/- per month and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The appellant had disputed the respondent s claim of his income and claimed that he...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »