Delhi Court March 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.
Meenakshi Asija & Anr. Vs.dharamjit & Ors.(the Royal Sundram Alliance ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 890/2016 MEENAKSHI ASIJA & ANR. .....Appellants Date of decision: March 22, 2017 Through: Ms. Neha Jain and Mr. Ankit Sharma, Advocates Versus DHARAMJIT & ORS (THR ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED) .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for respondent-Insurer CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % ORAL1 JUDGMENT Vide impugned Award of 13th May, 2016, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) has granted compensation of `16,46,488/- with interest @ 9% per annum to appellants-Claimants on account of death of Dinesh Asjia, aged 33 years, a proprietor of Blazeflash Courier Limited Franchise in a road accident on 30th November, 2013.2. In this appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought by appellants-Claimants. The facts as noticed in impugned Award need no reproduction. Suffice to note that apart from evidenc...
Ghanshyam Chand Sharma vs.delhi Power Company and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.3147/2003 21st March, 2017 ........ Petitioner Mr. S.C. Malhotra, Advocate. * + % GHANSHYAM CHAND SHARMA Through: versus DELHI POWER COMPANY AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates for BSES. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the relief of being granted pension.... Petitioners claim for pension has been denied by the respondents firstly on the ground that petitioner has not voluntarily retired but had sought and was allowed to resign, and the second ground is that even if petitioner is taken to have voluntarily retired, thus making him eligible for pension, yet petitioner did not have the qualifying period of 20 years of service for being granted pension. These are the two issues which have to be examined for deciding...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2017
$~48 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:21. 03.2017 W.P.(C) 2602/2017 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD . ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mayank Nagi, Adv. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J (Oral) W.P.(C) 2602/2017 & CM No.11239/2017 1. Issue notice.2. Mr. Rahul Chaudhary accepts notice for the respondent. With consent, the petition was heard finally. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 3. 15.03.2017, received by it the next day, purporting to curtail by exercising discretion under proviso to Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), the normal period for complying with demand for payment (income tax) from 30 days to 7 days. For AY201112 the assessee was subject to a determined penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ...
Avinash Chandra Arora vs.anita Arora & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:21. t March, 2017 1. CRL.REV.P. 153/2015 & Crl. M.A. 3729/2015 AVINASH CHANDRA ARORA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Amarjeet Sahni, Adv. with petitioner in person. versus ANITA ARORA & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Aditya Kala, Adv. + 2. CRL.REV.P. 250/2015 & Crl. M.A. 6485/2015 ANITA ARORA & ANR ........ Petitioners Through: Mr.Aditya Kala, Adv. versus AVINASH CHANDER ARORA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Amarjeet Sahni, Adv. with respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA JUDGMENT I.S. MEHTA, J.1. The instant revision petitions under Sections 397 Cr.P.C. are preferred by the husband-Avinash Chandra Arora against his wife- Crl.Rev. P. 153/2015 & Crl. Rev. P. 250/2015 Page 1 of 7 Anita Arora and his daughter-Kirti Arora and vice versa wherein the parties are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- 05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in C....
Aranya Hospitality Management Services Pvt Ltd vs.k.m. Dhoundiyal & An ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2017
$~20 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB. A. (COMM.) 6/2017 ARANYA HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr Rajat Aneja and Ms Chandrika Gupta, Advocates. versus K.M. DHOUNDIYAL & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr Manish Sharma, Mr Pranay Raj Singh, Ms Chandni Mehra and Mr Ninad Dogra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER2103.2017 VIBHU BAKHRU, J IA No.3610/2017 1.2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. ARB. A. (COMM.) 6/2017 & IA No.3609/2017 3. Aranya Hospitality Management Services Private Limited (hereafter the Lessee) has filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act') impugning an order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the sole arbitrator (hereafter 'the impugned order'). By the impugned order, the sole arbitrator has dismissed the Lessee's application under Section 17 of the Act for modification of the order dated ARB. A...
Rajinder Sachdeva vs.reserve Bank of India & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~34. * + W.P.(C) 2615/2017 and CM APPL. 11309-10/2017 RAJINDER SACHDEVA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Qayamuddin, Advocate with Mr. M.A. Jamal, Advocate and petitioner in person.1. versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. K.S. Parihar, Advocate with Mr. H.S. Parihar, Advocate for R-1 and R-2/RBI. Mr. Ateev Mathur, Advocate with Ms. Jagriti Ahuja and Mr. A.P.S. Sehgal, Advocates for R-3 and R-4/HDFC Bank. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter dated 17.02.2017, issued by ORDER2103.2017 the respondents No.3 and 4/HDFC Bank, requesting him to close his six saving bank/current accounts maintained with the Kirti Nagar Branch within 30 days, on the ground that it is difficult for the Bank to service the said accounts.2. Counsels for the respondents No.1 and 2/RBI and respondents No.3 and 4/HDFC Bank enter appearance. Counsel for the petitioner shall furnish a complete set of the...
Delhi Transport Corporation vs.shri Jagdish Chandra and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2017
$~13 & 14. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No.8173/2016 Date of decision:21. t March, 2017 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocates. versus SHRI JAGDISH CHANDRA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms.Asha Jain Madan, Advocate. Mr.Keshav Mohan & Mr.Deepak Pathak, Adv. for R-3 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.9949/2016 JAGDISH CHANDRA ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocates. versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms.Latika Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Anupam Srivastava ASC for GNCTD & Ms. Sharmistha Ghosh, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Keshav Mohan & Mr.Deepak Pathak, Advocates for respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): W.P. (C) Nos. 8173/2016 & 9949/2016 Page 1 of 19 This common order would dispose of the afore-stated cross writ petit...
Anita Arora & Anr vs.avinash Chander Arora
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:21. t March, 2017 1. CRL.REV.P. 153/2015 & Crl. M.A. 3729/2015 AVINASH CHANDRA ARORA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Amarjeet Sahni, Adv. with petitioner in person. versus ANITA ARORA & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Aditya Kala, Adv. + 2. CRL.REV.P. 250/2015 & Crl. M.A. 6485/2015 ANITA ARORA & ANR ........ Petitioners Through: Mr.Aditya Kala, Adv. versus AVINASH CHANDER ARORA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Amarjeet Sahni, Adv. with respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA JUDGMENT I.S. MEHTA, J.1. The instant revision petitions under Sections 397 Cr.P.C. are preferred by the husband-Avinash Chandra Arora against his wife- Crl.Rev. P. 153/2015 & Crl. Rev. P. 250/2015 Page 1 of 7 Anita Arora and his daughter-Kirti Arora and vice versa wherein the parties are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- 05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in C....
Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central) vs.m/s Marigold Merchan ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2017
$~21&22 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA1712016, CM APPL.7435/2016 ITA1722016, CM APPL.7436/2016 DECIDED ON:21. 03.2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advocate. versus M/S MARIGOLD MERCHANDISE (P) LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha and Ms. Roopali Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL) 1. The question of law which the Revenue urges in these two appeals is the true interpretation of Section 260A in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. Learned senior counsel for the assessee objects to the maintainability of the present appeals in the light of the judgment in CIT, Delhi (Central)-I v. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd., (2007) 294 ITR363(Delhi). ITA Nos.171 & 172/2016 Page 1 of 7 ...
Atikur Rahaman vs.union of India & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2017
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (Crl.) 3105/2016 % Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on:1. t February, 2017 21st March, 2017 ATIKUR RAHAMAN ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Jain, Mr.Shubhankar Jha, Mr.Tarun Chawla, Mr.Rahul Raheja, Mr.Ashish Bansal and Mr.Vikas Sarin, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr.Ajay Digpaul, Ms.Mohita, Ms.Karnika Singh and Mr.Vignaraj Pasayat, Advs. CGSC, CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL G.S.SISTANI, J.1. Pleadings in this matter are complete. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.2. Present petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the detention order bearing F. No.673/03/2016-CUS.VIII dated 20.05.2016 passed under Section 3(1)(ii) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »