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. RSPL Limited Vs. Mukesh Sharma and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.04.2016, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the application of the respondents/defendants under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC ). By virtue of theimpugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has held that the plaint filed by the appellant/plaintiff was liable to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC as, according to him, this Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit [CS(OS) 124/2015] which was filed by the appellant/plaintiff. 2. The suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as also the Copyright Act, 1957 seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of its trade mark and copyright. The suit was also one for injuncting the respondents/defendants, based upon a passing off action. Rendition of account etc. was also prayed for. It was claimed by th...
Commissioner of Income Tax-Ix Vs. Aman Khera and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These are five appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ). Three of them i.e. ITA Nos. 653 of 2012, 19 of 2015and 326 of 2015 pertain to quantum proceedings and two of them i.e. ITA Nos. 476 of 2014 and 21 of 2015 pertain to penalty proceedings. Background facts 2. The background facts are that an agreement was entered into on 31st October 2005 between Dr. B.L. Khera Charitable Trust (hereafter 'the Trust'), a society incorporated under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Heart Institute, Noida represented by Dr. Purshotam Lal, the Director of Metro Hospital and Heart Institute. 3. The agreement noted that the Trust was the owner of a hospital situated on a plot of approximately 1.5 acres in Pandav Nagar, Naraina Road, New Delhi with a building consisting of a basement, ground floor and four floors known as Khera Hospital. The agreement noted that the Khera Hospital had not been functioning except for an Out-Patient Departmen...
Parul Nahar Vs. Soumitra Kumar Nahar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act questions an order of the Family Court rejecting the wife s application for setting aside an order (dated 21.02.2015), setting her down ex parte in the husband s divorce petition. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant ( the wife hereafter) was arrayed as respondent/opposite party in HMA 821/2011 (subsequently re-numbered as HMA 1383/2014). The respondent herein, ( the husband hereafter) had preferred a petition seeking dissolution of marriage between the parties, which had been solemnized on 10.12.2000. The couple had two minor children - born on 24.05.2005 and 10.10.2008. Presently, they are in the custody of the appellant. During the pendency of proceedings various orders were made at the behest of one or the other parties. On 1.3.2013, a Division Bench of this Court determined Rs.60,000/- as pendente lite monthly maintenance payouts by the husband to the wife, inclusive of the children s educational ex...
Tanisha Rani Sharma Vs. State (The NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
1. The applicant has preferred the present bail application u/s 438 Cr PC apprehending arrest in case FIR No.229/2015 registered at PS Parliament Street u/s 419/410/120B IPC. A similar bail application moved by the applicant before the learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi has been dismissed on 05.12.2015. 2. The aforesaid case arises on the complaint of the complainant Ms. Indu Shukla. The case of the complainant is that in the month of October 2012, one Anil Kumar Bhadoria known to the family of the complainant (who is also one of the accused), came to her along with one K.K. Sharma also co-accused. The said persons induced and allured the complainant that the wife of K.K. Sharma, namely, Tanisha Rani Sharma the applicant/ accused is the daughter of a Minister of Uttarakhand and belongs to a royal family having good links with various ministers. The complainant was allured that if she arranges Rs.1 crore, she would be made a Director in the Food Corporation of India (FCI). She...
Teleworld Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. Issue notice to the Respondent in WP (C) Nos. 6746/2016 and 6747/2016. Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned Additional Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent. 2. This is yet another instance of the Department of Trade and Taxes ( DTandT), Government of NCT of Delhi acting in blatant violation of the statutory provisions of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ( DVAT Act )and the decisions of the Courts. 3. The background facts are that the Petitioner is engaged in the sale and purchase of mobile phones of brands like Samsung, Apple, HTC etc. The Petitioner, a registered dealer under the DVAT Act, states that it has been paying taxes at the time of purchase of the phones and claims the tax paid as input tax credit in terms of Section 9(1) of the DVAT Act. 4. It is stated that in the first three quarters of 2013-14 in the return filed by the Petitioner, the excess tax credit, which stood accrued was carried forward to the next tax period in terms of Sectio...
Tara Chand Vs. Kuldeep Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendants in the suit, impugning the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 29.11.2012 and the First Appellate Court dated 29.2.2016; by which the courts below have decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for possession of plot no.5, Village Chhatarpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi alongwith the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month from 1.10.1996 till vacation of the suit property. The courts below have held that the respondents/plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property having in their favour a Sanad executedby the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, and pursuant to which possession of the suit property was delivered by execution of the eviction warrants on 26.9.1970. Eviction warrants were executed against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant/defendant no.3 namely Sh. Mange R...
Din Cooperative Housing Society Ltd Vs. A.S. Rana and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This appeal is against an order made in the course of execution proceedings. The learned Single Judge held that the respondent/applicant, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was entitled to 50% unearned increase from the proceeds of sale of unallotted flats that belonged to the appellant. 2. The brief facts are that an arbitral award was made (dated 24th October 2005) in the dispute between one A.S. Rana, (the Decree Holder, hereafter "DH") and the appellant, Din Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereafter "the Society", the Judgment Debtor also "JD") in terms of which, the DH was entitled to recover from the JD Rs.75,19,230 together with interest @12% pa from 1st January 2000 till the date of payment along with costs of Rs.50,000. The society's challenge to the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 failed; equally unsuccessful was its appeal, FAO (OS) No.154/2007 which was dismissed by the Division Bench.The DH filed execu...
M/s Eos Capital Advisors Private Ltd Vs. NSL Nagapatnam Power and Infr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
1. The plaintiff has sued for recovery of principal amount of Rs.61,41,717/- together with interest and service tax i.e. for a total sum of Rs.1,00,10,570/- from the defendant. 2. The suit was entertained and pleadings have been completed. The suit is ripe for framing of issues, if any. 3. The plaintiff has filed IA No.8107/2016 under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for decree on admissions. 4. The counsels have been heard. 5. The claim of the plaintiff is on the basis of the agreement contained in letter dated 16th January, 2013 of the plaintiff to the defendant and duly acknowledged by the defendant and whereunder the defendant had appointed the plaintiff as advisor to achieve the financial closure for the debt component of the proposed thermal power project of the defendant at Angul, Odisha. The defendant under the said agreement had agreed to pay fee as under to the plaintiff: D. Fee The fee payable for the services rendered would be directly payable by the ...
Ram Phal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges the applicability of paragraph 5 of the Office Memorandum dated February 11, 2009 notified by the Department of Pension and Pensioner s Welfare, concerning revision of pension of pre- 2006 pensioners, wherein it has been stated that Therefore, the benefit of upgradation of post subsequent to their retirement would not be admissible to the pre-2006 pensioners in this regard. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated February 10, 2016 whereby his representation for revised pension has been rejected. Petitioner also prays for Mandamus directing the respondents to revise his pension to Rs.9375/- per month as given in the fitment table as given in Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Department of Pensioners Welfare Office Memorandum F.No. 38/40/12-PandPW (A) dated January 28, 2013. 2. Briefly noted, the facts germane for adjudication of the present case are that the petitioner joined ...
Geometric Limited Vs. HCL Technologies Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
Sudershan Kumar Misra, J. 1. This application has been filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 by the applicant/transferee company no. 1 seeking directions of this court to dispense with the requirement of convening the meeting of its secured creditors and for convening separate meetings of its equity shareholders and unsecured creditors to consider and approve, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme of Arrangement and Amalgamation between Geometric Limited (hereinafter referred to as the demerged/transferor company); HCL Technologies Limited (hereinafter referred to as the applicant/transferee company no. 1) and 3D PLM Software Solutions Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company no. 2). 2. The registered office of the applicant/transferee company no. 1 is situated at New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, the registered offices of the demerged/transferor comp...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »