Delhi Court July 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 3 of about 67 results (0.021 seconds)EX-HC Brij Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. On November 26, 2001 S.S.Chatrath was the Commandant of the 63rd Bn. BSF which was stationed at Kumarpur to guard the Indo-Bangladesh border. He took cognizance of an offence report alleging that on October 02, 2001, while performing the duties of Post Commander at the BoP Kumarpur the petitioner accepted Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification to facilitate smuggling of 16 cattle and that on the same date he gave Rs. 1,000/- to HC Balbir Singh as his share to facilitate the smuggling of the cattle. Hearing HC Balbir Singh the Commandant directed record of evidence to be prepared. 2. Assistant Commandant G.R.Singh was deputed to record the evidence. The charge pertaining to which evidence had to be recorded was drawn up, and suffice it to record that the charge was drawn up in terms of the offence report and was served upon the petitioner before the recording of evidence commenced before Asstt.Cmdt. G.R.Singh. 3. Only one witness: HC Balbir Singh was examined and ...
Tag this Judgment!Kolkata Glass and Ceramics Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Anot ...
Court: Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. In this writ petition, the following prayers have been made:- (a) That this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction of mandamus, or certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ directing the Respondents to include the name of the Petitioner in the List of Technically Qualified Bidders dated 8.08.2015; b) That this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction of mandamus, or certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ striking down the validity of Clause 5.13.1 of Tender Document dated 8.06.2015 in so far as the same is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as even in contractual matters, the State and its instrumentalities cannot act arbitrarily; (c) That this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or certiorari, or a Writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or ...
Tag this Judgment!Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Delhi
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These three writ petitions involve a common but interesting question of law regarding the procedure adopted by the Assessing Officer ('AO') while referring to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO') under Section 92 CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') the question of determination of the Arm's Length Price ('ALP') of the international transaction entered into by the Petitioner Assessee with its Associated Enterprise ('AE'). Background facts 2. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner is a widely held public limited company. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ('DCIT'), Circle 11 (1), [Respondent No. 2] is the AO of the Petitioner. During the previous year 2009-10 relevant to the Assessment Year ('AY') 2010-11, the Petitioner, Indorama Synthetics (India) Limited ['ISIL'], entered into transactions of import of raw material amounting to Rs. 196.48 crores from Indorama Petrochem Limited (IPL), a company incorporated in Thailand. For the AY 2010-11 the Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Akash Gill and Another Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Akash Gill and Sh. Vikas Gill for quashing of FIR No.252/2009 dated 28.08.2009, under Sections 498- A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Keshav Puram on the basis of the settlement arrived at between petitioners and respondent no.2, namely, Ms. Parul vide H.M.A. Petition no. 486/2013 dated 19.09.2013 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini. 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 her counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage was solemnized between petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 on 07.11.1997 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Arya Samaj Mandir. The dowry articles given in marriage, allegedly, seemed insufficient to the husband of the complainant and to her in-laws and...
Tag this Judgment!Sumitomo Corporation India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The Assessee has preferred these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'the Act') impugning the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'the Tribunal') in respect of Assessment Years (hereafter 'AYs') 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 2. The controversy in these appeals relates to the Transfer Pricing Adjustments directed by the Tribunal in respect of the commission earned by the Assessee with respect to certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (hereafter 'AEs') which are referred to as "indenting transactions". The Tribunal has directed that the Arms Length Price (hereafter 'ALP') in respect of such transactions be determined on the basis of the average rate of commission earned by the Assessee in respect of transactions with unrelated parties ('Non-AEs'). The Assessee claims that the said direction is patently erroneous as the indenting transactions with Non-AEs are not comparable wit...
Tag this Judgment!Ravinder P. Kumar Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Crl.M.A.No.10612/2013 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. Crl.M.A. Nos.10609/2013 and 9287/2014 (preponement of hearing) 1. Appellant states that as the matter had been heard he does not press these two applications. 2. Both the applications are dismissed for having become infructuous and as not pressed. Crl.M.A. No.10610/2013 1. The above captioned application has been filed by the appellant with the following prayer: to pass an appropriate order to the concerned police authority to take respondent No.2, 3 and 4 into custody by arresting them to uphold majesty of law, in the interest of justice. 2. In the instant application, the petitioner after giving the facts of the two criminal cases, has also made reference to the civil suit wherein a decree has been passed in his favour but not executed. 3. The ground on which direction to take respondents No.2 to 4 in custody has been sought is on their alleged wilful disobedience to furnis...
Tag this Judgment!Ravinder Kumar Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Pratibha Rani, J. CRL.M.A.Nos. 3646/2016, 5289/2016, 6981/2016, 6119/2016 1. These applications have been filed by the petitioner seeking exemption from filing certified copies. 2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 3. The applications stand disposed of. CRL.M.A.No. 4598/2016 1. This is an application seeking exemption from sending notice to respondents and their counsel. 2. Petitioner states that he does not press this application. 3. Accordingly the instant application which has already become infructuous is dismissed as not pressed. CRL.M.A.No. 5288/2016 1. By way of this application, the petitioner is seeking transfer of the writ petition to the Court of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 2. The petitioner does not press this application and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed. CRL.M.A.No. 6980/2016 1. By way of this application, the petitioner is seeking direction for passing necessary order with specific directions through counsel for appearance of respondent Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Indistock Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Liquidator, Petrofils Co-Op ...
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner, by these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks a direction for quashing the decision of the respondents cancelling its bid to purchase the Naldhari Plant, Valia, Dist. Bharuch, owned by the Petrofils Co-operative society, which was directed to be wound up. 2. The facts necessary to decide the case are that an order was passed by the Government of India (GoI) and Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 11.04.2001 under Section 77(1) read with sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Multi-State Cooperative Act, 1984 for winding up of Petrofils Co-operative Limited ("PCL") and appointing its Liquidator. Pursuant to the winding up of PCL, its assets were to be sold by the Liquidator; these assets included the Naldhari Plant, Valia, Dist. Bharuch. The Liquidator issued an advertisement published in the Indian Express, for the sale of the plant through tender. The total land area was 6,24,970 Sq Metres; the terms of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mcdonald s India Private Limited Vs. Vikram Bakshi and Others
Court: Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.12.2014 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in IA 6207/2014 which was an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the said application, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) had prayed for an ad interim injunction against the arbitration proceedings initiated by the appellant (defendant No.1) before the London Court of International Arbitration at London, U.K. The said application had been filed in CS (OS) 962/2014 in which the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) had sought, inter alia, a declaration that there is no arbitration agreement between the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) and the defendant No.1 (appellant) and an injunction restraining the appellant (defendant No.1) and the London Court of International Arbitration (defendant No.3) from proceeding with any arbitration. A declaration was also sought that the arbitration a...
Tag this Judgment!Harbans Singh and Others Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Oral: CM No. 25003/2016 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 6103/2016 and CM No. 25002/2016 (stay) 1. The petitioners impugn the Notice Inviting Tender bearing No. DTIDC/612/June/2016 dated June, 2016 inviting bids for licensing shops/kiosks at ISBTs Anand Vihar and Sarai Kale Khan. 2. It is contended that the petitioners were allotted their respective shops at the ISBTs at Anand Vihar and Sarai Kale Khan. In terms of the allotment the petitioners have been continuing from their respective dates of allotment and have been paying the licence fee every year. It is contended that the last extension was granted till 30.06.2015. Thereafter the renewal of the licences of the petitioners was done for a period of four months w.e.f. 01.07.2015 to 17.10.2015. It is contended that thereafter a renewal was done from 17.10.2015 till 31.03.2016. The petitioner contends that they have been regularly paying the licence fee in terms of the renewal. The petitioners contend that ...
Tag this Judgment!