Delhi Court August 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/s Jai Jute Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s State of West Bengal and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The State of West Bengal : respondent No.1 in the writ petition filed an appeal against an order dated August 05, 2013 passed by BIFR. The appeal was filed on April 28, 2015 and was registered as Appeal No.53/2015. Concededly, as per SICA, 1985 the appeal had to be filed within a period of 45 days and it is apparent that the appeal was filed much after the period of 45 days had expired. As per the proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 25 AAIFR can entertain an appeal filed after 45 days but not beyond 60 days and that too upon being satisfied that there was sufficient cause to do so. 2. The petitioner raised an objection to the maintainability of the appeal and questioned the same on the bar of limitation. 3. The respondent pleaded that it would be entitled to the benefit of either Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or application of its principles in the interest of justice and the State of West Bengal. 4. Vide impugned order dated November 09, 2015 AAIFR ha...
Sunder Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed by Sunder challenging the impugned judgment dated 23 rd April, 2015 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act ) in FIR No. 146/2013registered at PS Ashok Vihar and the order on sentence dated 1 st May, 2015 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act. 2. The prosecution case is that on 17th May, 2013 around 6:13 PM, DD No. 23A was received with respect to eve teasing at Jailorwala Bagh. The aforesaid DD entry was handed over to SI Ram Kumar PW-11. He along with Ct Amit PW-5 reached the spot and found Smt. Nisha PW-6 along with two girls i.e. victim children M and N . PW-11 brought them to the policestation and handed over the vict...
Union of India and Others Vs. Raj Bahadur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. The Union of India by this writ petition, impugns the order dated 21st August, 2014, passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby OA No.3815/2013 filed by Raj Bahadur, the respondent herein, has been partly allowed with the direction that the period of suspension of the respondent from 25th August, 2010 to 31st March, 2012, when the respondent retired, would be treated as spent on duty and would thus regulate consequential and terminal benefits payable to the respondent. 2. The respondent, an Income Tax Officer, was placed under deemed suspension by order dated 30th August, 2010 with effect from 25th August, 2010, passed in terms of sub-rule (2) to Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (Rules, for short). It is an accepted position that the respondent was arrested and detained for a period of more than 48 hours by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and is facing prosecut...
Carlsberg India Private Limited and Others Vs. Union of India and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These are three petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 ( FA 1994 ) read with 65B(40) and Section 66D of the FA 1994as amended by Clause (f) of Section 107 and Clause (2) of Section 109 of Finance Act, 2015 ( FA 2015 ) respectively, along with Notification No. 14/2015/-ST dated 19th May 2015, which levies service tax with effect from 1 st June 2015, on persons who manufacture alcoholic liquor for human consumption on job work basis. Also challenged is the constitutional validity of Section 113(A) (1) of the Finance Act, 2009 ( FA, 2009 ) bywhich Section 65(19) of the FA 1994 stood amended. 2. The central thrust of the Petitioners' argument is that Parliament lacks the legislative competence to enact the said amendments since the activity of manufacture of alcoholic liquor for consumption, whether for oneself or for another person, lies exclusively within the d...
Delhi Jal Board Vs. Dalbir Singh Rawat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
Sanjiv Khanna, J. C.M.No. 14901/2014 1. The Delhi Jal Board by this writ petition assails the order dated 4th March, 2011 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No. 521/2009 filed by Dalbir Singh Rawat, the respondent herein. The impugned order, in fact, disposed of several other TAs with which we are not concerned. 2. This writ petition was earlier allowed vide order dated 20th February, 2013 and the order passed by the Tribunal in T.A. No.521/2009 was set aside. A review petition was filed and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 12th March, 2013. The respondent had thereupon preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.24472-24473/2013 against the orders dated 20th February, 2013 and 12th March, 2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.7893/2012 and Review Petition No.154/2013, respectively. The Special Leave to Appeal was disposed of with the following directions:- Having regard to the nature of order we propose to pass, it is not necessary to recapitula...
Neena Gandhi Vs. UOI and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. Neena Gandhi, the petitioner in this writ petition, impugns the final order and judgment dated 26 th June, 2003 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby her OA No.1610/2003, seeking regular appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under Rule 5 of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (Group C and D posts) (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2002, has been dismissed. 2. The facts are not in dispute. They are: (i) On 13th March, 2001, a requisition was sent by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi to the Employment Exchange for employment of four LDCs on daily wages, for a period of 89 days. A list of 34 candidates, duly enrolled with the employment exchange was sent to the Debts Recovery Tribunal indicating that the said candidates were between the age of 20-25 years and were at least matriculate, having typing speed of minimum 30 words per minute in English. The list included the petitioner, who was enrolled with ...
Kritika Padode and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
G. Rohini, C.J. 1. These three petitions have been filed by way of Public Interest Litigation with a prayer to declare the action of the Central Government and Delhi Police in banning the telecast of the documentary titled "India's Daughter" as illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5602/2015 has also prayed for quashing the orders dated 3rd and 4th March, 2015 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 3. "India's Daughter" is a documentary film about the gang rape and brutal assault of a young woman on 16th December, 2012 in a moving bus in New Delhi. 4. The four accused in the said case, known as "Nirbhaya case", were convicted and were awarded death sentence by the Special Fast Track Court, Saket, New Delhi holding that it is a case falling under the category of "rarest of rare" and the same was confirmed by...
Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
G.S. Sistani, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to for short as the Tribunal ) in O.A. No.1864/2008 and the order dated 6.8.2010 passed bythe Tribunal in Review Application No.121/2010. By the impugned orders dated 22.2.2010 and 6.8.2010, O.A. No.1864/2008 and Review Application No.121/2010, respectively, filed by the petitioner herein stand dismissed. 2. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition as stated by the petitioner are that the petitioner was as an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court with almost 19 years of standing. He was appointed as a Deputy Government Advocate under the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India after being selected by the Union Public Service Commission(UPSC) on 03.06.1991. 3. During his tenure, the petitioner being eligible, was offered for appointment as a Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter ...
Amit Kumar and Another Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. Amit Kumar and Ashok Kumar, in this writ petition, impugn the order dated 14th August 2014 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (the tribunal, for short) in OA No.399/2013 and seek appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Delhi Jal Board. 2. The case has a chequered and long history with several rounds of litigation before the tribunal. The Delhi Jal Board ( DJB for short)had requisitioned the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board ( DSSSB for short) for recruitment of 160 Junior Engineer (Civil) which included 74 vacant posts reserved for Other Backward Classes ( OBC for short). The DSSSB had issued advertisement No.1/2009and the petitioners who are lohars, a recognized backward class, had applied for selection. Having secured more than 60 marks in the part-1 (preliminary examination), Amit Kumar and Ashok Kumar had appeared in the main examination and secured 85 and 80 marks, respectively. However, their names did not figur...
Council of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Deepak ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This judgment is upon a reference made to this Court under Section 21 of the un-amended Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, seeking imposition of penalty against the respondent. 2. The facts relating to the reference are that in a complaint, duly verified on 21st March, 2005, one Dharam Vir Yadav of M/s. Nirvan Services/Nirvan Travels (referred to hereafter as the "Complainant") leveled the following allegations against Chartered Accountant, Deepak Jain, M/s. Jain Deepak and Co. (the respondent, referred to as such, hereafter). The complainant had entrusted the job of depositing Service Tax to the Respondent for which he used to pay him the professional fees. The Respondent used to collect the amount of Service Tax in Cash/Pay Orders on behalf of the Complainant's Company i.e. Nirvan Services and Nirvan Travels to deposit in the Service Tax account for both the companies at Punjab National Bank, Lawrence Road, Delhi in the Service Tax Account No.DL-1/ST/MandR/35/NS...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »