Delhi Court May 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 7 of about 66 results (0.011 seconds)Amar Singh and Another Vs. The Traffic Manager and Others
Court: Delhi
Ved Prakash Vaish, J. C.M. Appl. No.15999/2016 in W.P.(C) No.3756/2016 C.M. Appl. No.16001/2016 in W.P.(C) No.3757/2016 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The applications stand disposed of. W.P. (C) No.3756/2016 W.P.(C) No.3757/2016 W.P.(C) Nos.3756/2016 and 3757/2016 1. By way of the present petitions, the petitioners apart from quashing and setting aside the charge sheet dated 16th July, 2012 also prays for stay of the departmental proceedings/inquiry till the conclusion of the criminal case pending against the petitioners on the same charges and allegations. 2. Since both the petitions involve similar question of law, therefore both the petitions are taken up together. For the sake of convenience the facts are being taken from W.P.(C) No.3576/2016. 3. The petitioner was employed with Haryana State Roadways as Car Driver at the office of Flying Squad Officer, Transport Department, Haryana State Roadways at ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. A raid was conducted on 27th March...
Tag this Judgment!TIM Delhi Airport Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Special Commissioner - II, ...
Court: Delhi
1. The Petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, impugning separate notices of default assessment dated 5th August, 2013 whereby the Petitioner's entire turnover for the period 2010-11 and 2011-12 has been assessed to Value Added Tax (VAT) and penalty and interest has also been levied in addition to the tax assessed. The Petitioner also impugns an order dated 7th February, 2014 as rectified by an order dated 13th February, 2014 passed by the Special Commissioner (VAT) directing a deposit of Rs.3,14,00,000/- - being 20% of the disputed demand of VAT and interest for the period 2011-12 - as a pre-condition for hearing the objections filed by the Petitioner in respect of demand raised for the financial year 2011-12. In addition, the Petitioner also impugns a ruling dated 6th April, 2011 made by the Commissioner (VAT) under Section 85 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Deepa Sharma
Court: Delhi
1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 22nd August, 2014 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi in PPA No.8/2014 whereby the Order dated 6th January 2014 passed by the Estate Officer of the petitioner was set aside. 2. Briefly recapitulating the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that late Cdr. S. K. Sharma, husband of the respondent herein, was allotted Ministry of Defence pool accommodation bearing No.D-II/274, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi while he was posted at Naval Headquarters w.e.f. 27th December, 1991. It is stated that on his posting out of Naval Headquarters to Mumbai w.e.f. 22nd June 1992 he was permitted to retain accommodation upto 31st March, 1993 on the ground of his children education. 3. It is stated that as per the Ministry of Defence Accommodation Rules the officer was required to vacate the accommodation by 31st March, 1993. The Officer unauthorisedly overstayed beyond the permissible period and hence was l...
Tag this Judgment!Burger King Corporation Vs. Shameek and Another
Court: Delhi
Open Court: 1. On the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present suit, learned counsel for the plaintiff points out that the plaintiff is an American corporation and, therefore, it does not have registered office in India. However, the plaintiff has several outlets within the jurisdiction of this Court in Delhi details whereof are set out in paragraph 38 of the plaint. These BURGER KING restaurants are operating at: (i) Select City Walk Mall, Saket, New Delhi (ii) E-8, Inner Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi (iii) Epicuria Food Mall, Nehru Place, New Delhi (iv) Ambience Mall, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi (v) M Block, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi (vi) DT City Center Mall, MG Road, New Delhi (vii) First Floor, Plot C 1, 2 and 3, PP Towers, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi (viii) Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 2. Consequently, it is evident that the plaintiff is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, in the facts of this case, the plaintiff i...
Tag this Judgment!Rishi Pal Singh Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Oral: CS(OS) No.1441/2008 and I.A. No. 10345/2010 (U/O VII Rule 11 CPC) 1. This suit for partition is filed by the plaintiff Sh. Rishi Pal Singh son of Sh. Padam Singh and Smt. Chanderkala Devi. The suit property is the property situated on a plot of land admeasuring 322 sq. yds. bearing no. T-14, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. Defendant no.1 in the suit is Sh. Harinder Pal Singh, one other son of late Sh. Padam Singh and Smt. Chanderkala Devi. Defendant nos. 2(i) to 2(iv) are the legal heirs of another son Sh. Rajendra Pal Singh of Sh. Padam Singh and Smt. Chanderkala Devi. During the pendency of the suit defendant no.1/Sh. Harinder Pal Singh expired, and he is now represented by his legal heirs. 2. The suit plaint is predicated on the cause of action that the suit property has to be equally divided 1/3rd each between the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 and defendant nos. 2(i) to 2(iv) jointly, inasmuch as though earlier there was a compromise of January, 1983 recorded between the par...
Tag this Judgment!Ashish Gosain Vs. Department of Transport and Another
Court: Delhi
Oral: The petitioner has challenged the suspension order whereby his driving licence has been suspended under Section 19(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Factual matrix 2.1 The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 18th January, 2016 to show cause why he should not be disqualified for holding a driving licence under Section 19(1)(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The relevant portion of the notice dated 18th January, 2016 is reproduced hereunder: "Show Cause Notice Whereas, it has been informed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Traffic) that you have been challaned for the violation of Section 112(1)/183(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and requested this office to suspend your driving license as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety. And, Whereas, the undersigned the licensing authority is empowered to disqualify you from holding a driving license for a specific period or rev...
Tag this Judgment!