Delhi Court November 2017 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.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)- 1 vs.manoj Hora
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2017
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:27. 11.2017 ITA10452017 & CM No.42537/2017 PRINCIPAL CORNMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1 ..... Appellant versus MANOJ HORA ..... Respondent And connected matters: + + + ITA10462017 & CM No.42538/2017 ITA10472017 & CM No.42539/2017 ITA10482017 Present: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel for appellant. Dr. Shashwat Bajpai with Mr. Sharad Agarwal, Advs. for respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL) The appeals are dismissed. For detailed judgment, the decision in ITA No.1045/2017 dated 27.11.2017 may be referred to. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NOVEMBER27 2017/kks SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J...
Mehuddin Ansari & Anr. Vs.ramesh Chandra Sharma & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2017
$~R-572 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC APPEAL9042012 Decided on:27. h November, 2017 MEHUDDIN ANSARI & ANR. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sharique Hussain, Advocate versus RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. After some hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits, on instructions, that he may be allowed to withdraw the present appeal though without prejudice to the defence of both the appellants before the criminal court in the corresponding criminal case.2. 3. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn in above terms. By order dated 21.07.2015, the appellants had been directed to deposit fifty percent (50%) of the awarded amount with the Registrar of this court within a period of four weeks. The said amount with accrued interest thereupon shall be released to the claimants in terms of the judgment of the tribunal. The appellants shall satisfy the award MAC Appeal No.904/2...
M/S r.r.b. Consultants and Engineers (P) Limited vs.dcit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2017
$~R-4A. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No.57/2005 Date of decision:27. h November, 2017 M/S R.R.B. CONSULTANTS AND ENGINEERS (P) LIMITED DCIT Through Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate. ..... Appellant versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate & Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): The present appeal by the assessee-M/s RRB Consultants and Engineers Private Limited relates to Assessment Year 1996-97 and arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) dated 6th August, 2004 in ITA No.913/Del/2000. The present appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 23rd January, 2006 on the following substantial question of law:-"Whether the ITAT was, in the facts and circumstances of the case, right in holding that the appellant was not ITA No.57 /2005 Page 1 of 11 entitled to the deduction under Se...
Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited. Vs.sushila Devi & O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2017
$~R-573 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC APPEAL9082012 Decided on:27. h November, 2017 UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. ..... Appellant Through: None versus SUSHILA DEVI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv. for R-5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. By judgment dated 05.06.2012, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) decided accident claim case (suit no.328/2010) which was instituted by first to fourth respondents (collectively, the claimants) on 16.11.2010, seeking compensation on account of death of Vidya Prasad, in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 18.09.2010, due to negligent driving of a motor vehicle described as Maruti Van bearing registration no.DL-3C-AD-3358 (Van). The tribunal returned a finding on the basis of evidence led during inquiry that the accident had indeed been caused due to negligent driving of the van by the fifth respondent (Hansraj) who is also the registered owner ...
A.k. Singla vs.madhu Garg & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2017
$~33 * % + A.K. SINGLA IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:27. 11.2017 CRL. REV. P. 173/2014 ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Anita Gupta, Advocate. Versus MADHU GARG & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Maninder Aacharya, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S. Mukerjee, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.(Oral) 1. This petition impugns the order and judgment dated 09.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Court, setting aside the summoning order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and also dismissing the complaint under section 156(3) read with section 200 Cr.P.C dated 14.05.2007 filed by the petitioner for offences punishable under sections 468/469/471/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner are that a civil dispute arose between one Ms. Pooja Agarwal and respondent no.2 over ownership of property bearing House No.141, Pocket No.21, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi CRL. RE...
M/S Rspl Limited vs.m/s S K Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2017
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 492/2016 ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Sanjeev Singh with Mr.Sudhir Balyan and Mr. D.K.Yadav, Advocates. versus M/S RSPL LIMITED % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN M/S S K ENTERPRISES Through None ..... Defendant Date of Decision:27. h November, 2017 MANMOHAN, J (Oral): JUDGMENT1 Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, delivery up and rendition of accounts, damages etc. against the defendant. The prayer clause in the suit is reproduced hereinbelow:-""47 That the Plaintiff, therefore, prays:-"(A) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant by themselves as also through their individual partners/proprietors, directors, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, stockiest etc., and all others acting for and on behalf of the Defendant from manufacturing, CS(COMM) 492/2016 Page 1 of 11 using, selling, advertising, importing/exporting or ...
Gopal Saini vs.union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2017
$~49 and 50. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10507/2017 and CM APPL. 43005-43006/2017 W.P.(C) 10509/2017 and CM APPL. 43011-43012/2017 1. GOPAL SAINI MAHESH Through: Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Mr. Pallav Kumar, Mr. Dibya Nishant and Mr. Gautam Mann, Advocates ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Ms. Ridhima Gaur and Mr. Anil Dabas, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI % ORDER2711.2017 The petitioners have filed the present petitions praying inter alia for issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents/BSF to conduct a re-examination of the typing test that they had undertaken during the second phase of the recruitment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in BSF201617 and thereafter, declare them as successful.2. The brief facts of the case are that in November, 2016, the respondent No.2/BSF had issued an advertisement inviting applications for r...
Prem Chand Khemka vs.sushma Khemka
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2017
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:27. h November, 2017 CM(M) 1177/2017 and CM No.38092/2017 (stay) PREM CHAND KHEMKA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Saurabh Banerjee, Adv. with Mr. Bikram Singh & Mr. Dhruv Bose, Advocates versus SUSHMA KHEMKA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) + 1. The petitioner is the defendant in Civil Suit (CS No.59130/2016) instituted by the respondent against him seeking recovery of Rs.17,18,155/-. Concededly, the summons of the suit were served and the petitioner appeared before the court of Additional District Judge on 19.12.2015. Admittedly, pleadings in the nature of written statement came on record on 01.03.2016. Though at one stage, the respondent (plaintiff of the suit) had also taken the position that the filing of the written statement was belated and unauthorized, there being no prayer made for enlargement of the time for such purpose, the matter stood resolved by...
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.pritam Singh & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2017
$~R-570-571 (common order) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:27. h November, 2017 + MAC.APP. 892/2012 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD...... Appellant Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya, Advocate Versus PRITAM SINGH & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate for R-1 & R-2. + MAC.APP. 882/2016 PRITAM SINGH & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate Versus SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ......... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. By judgment dated 27.02.2012, the motor accident claims Tribunal (tribunal) decided accident claim case (Suit No.511/11) which had been instituted on 02.09.2009 by the parents of deceased Vijender Singh (appellants in MAC APP.882/2016), they being first & MAC App. No.892/2012 etc. Page 1 of 4 second respondents in MAC APP.892/2012 (collectively, the claimants), the death having occurred in a motor vehicular accident that had...
Shyama Pahwa vs.narender Pratap Bhalla & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2017
$~31 * + % 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 499/2009, Counter Claim No.81/2009 & Counter Claim No.40/2010. SHYAMA PAHWA Through: Mr. Shailender Dahiya, Advocate ..... Plaintiff versus NARENDER PRATAP BHALLA & ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW Through: Mr. Sajan Narain, Adv. for D1&D2 Mr. Deepak, Proxy counsel for D3 Ms. Suruchi Suri, Adv. for LRs of D4 ..... Defendants ORDER2711.2017 IA No.17283/2013 (of the defendants no.1&2 under Order VII Rule 11 and also invoking several other provisions of the CPC but all for rejection/dismissal of the plaint/suit) and IA No.2432/2015 (of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC) are for consideration.2. Before proceeding further, I may record that on 17th August, 2017, these applications were adjourned to 9th September, 2017. However, 9th September, 2017 was declared a holiday and all cases listed on the said date were ordered to be taken up on 24th November, 2017 which was a Saturday and as such the case ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »