Delhi Court February 2018 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.
Dunger Singh Tokas and Ors. Vs.uoi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2018
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment :22. d February, 2018 + W.P.(C) 9062/2016 DUNGER SINGH TOKAS & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. A. K. Singla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Khatri, Advocate. versus UOI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Mohit Bhardwaj, GP with Ms.Rashmi Pandey, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate with Ms. K Kaomudi Kiran, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. Kushal Raj, Advocates for LAC/L&B. Ms. Mrinalini Sen and Mr. Shatrajit Banerji, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G. S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra No.582/175 measuring 1 Bigha 1 Biswa situated in th...
Badal & Ors. Vs.m/s Niranjan Proptech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + + % RFA No.178/2018 BADAL & ORS. RFA No.178/2018 RFA No.179/2018 Reserved on:16. h February, 2018 Pronounced on:22. d February, 2018 Through: Mr. Praveen Suri, Advocate. ..... Appellants versus M/s NIRANJAN PROPTECH PVT. LTD. & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS RFA No.179/2018 BADAL & ORS. Through: Mr. Praveen Suri, Advocate. ..... Appellants versus M/s NIRANJAN PROPTECH PVT. LTD. & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J C.M. No.5970/2018 (for exemption) in RFA No.178/2018 C.M. No.6055/2018 (for exemption) in RFA No.179/2018 1. Exemptions allowed subject to just exceptions. C.Ms. stand disposed of. RFA Nos.178-179 /2018 Page 1 of 13 C.M. No.5971/2018 (for delay) in RFA No.178/2018 C.M. No.6056/2018 (for delay) in RFA No.179/2018 2. For the reasons stated in the applications the delays of 7 days in re-filing the appeal are condoned. C.Ms. stand disposed of. RFA No....
Fargo Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs.chief Controlling Revenue Authority Secreta ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:22. 2.2018 W.P.(C) 11586/2015, CM APPL.30690/2015, 25887/2017 FARGO ESTATES PVT. LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Ateev Mathur with Mr. Amol Sharma and Ms. Jagriti Ahuja, Advocates. versus $~14 * + CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY SECRETARY (REVENUE) & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. R.P. Pahwa with Ms. Akanksha Gupta, Advocate for R-3. Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC, GNCTD with Mr. R.A. Iyer and Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee. Ms. Palak Rohmetra, proxy for Ashok Popli, Advocate for R-2. CORAM:-"HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER % RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.6.2015 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (hereafter referred to as the appellate authority).2. The petitioner who is a builder by the name of Fargo Estates Pvt. Ltd (hereafter referred to as Fargo) is aggrieved by the impugned order on two broad counts. First, that Fa...
Cit-Iv vs.dlf Commercial Developers Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2018
$~11-13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + + + Decided on:22. 02.2018 ITA5072014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD. versus ITA5632015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD. versus ITA6102017, C.M. APPL.28227/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD versus ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ..... Appellant ..... Respondent Through : Sh. Amol Sinha and Sh. P. Roychaudhuri, Advocates, for respondent, in Item Nos.11 to 13. Sh. Ashok. K. Manchanda and Sh. Raghavendra Singh, Advocates, for Revenue, in Item Nos.11 and 12. Sh. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel, Revenue, in Item No.13. Sh. Balbir Singh, Sr. Advocate with Sh. P. Roychaudhuri and Sh. Anil Kumar, Advocates, for respondent, in Item Nos.11 to13. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The following questions of law arise for cons...
Amita Dua vs.gift Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2018
$~28-29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + GTA12007 Date of decision:22. 02.2018 AND GTA22007 AMITA DUA GIFT TAX OFFICER Through : Mr. K. Sampath, Adv. ..... Appellant versus Through : Mr. Deepak Anand, Adv. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL) % 1. The following question of law arises for consideration : Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that for the Assessment Years in question M/s Dua Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. of which the Assessee was the shareholder was an investment company within the meaning of Rule 2(6) of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957?. 2. The brief facts are that the assessee/appellant was allotted 1960 shares in M/s Dua Engineering Pvt. Ltd. She and her husband exclusively held all shares in the company (the assessees share holding was to the tune of 12%). The assessee sold 1100 shares bearing face valu...
Maya vs.shyam Sunder & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2018
$~27 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Decided on:-"22nd February, 2018 RC.REV. 323/2016 and CM APPL.22950/2016 (stay) MAYA Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate ........ Petitioner versus SHYAM SUNDER & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The revision petition at hand challenges judgment dated 21.03.2016 of the rent controller on the eviction petition (E. No.95/2013) which was instituted by the respondents against the petitioner on 31.05.2012 on the ground of bona fide need invoking the provision contained in Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the proceedings arising wherefrom are governed by the procedure envisaged in Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The eviction petition had sought relief in respect of the premises described as one room, kitchen and bath room comprised in total area of 62 sq. yds., forming part of the premises...
Master Tanmay vs.sanskriti School and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1372/2018 & CM No.5713/2018 (for stay) Date of Decision-21.02.2018 MASTER TANMAY ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Amit Sibal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Deep karan Dalala, Advocate versus SANSKRITI SCHOOL AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Udayan Verma and Mr.Subhashree, Advocates for Respondent No.1. Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, ASC with Ms.Urvi Mohan, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI REKHA PALLI, J(ORAL) Vide the present petition, the... Petitioner, Master Tanmay, has 1. sought a direction to the Respondent No.1-schoolo to allocate the requisite points to him as per its Point-Based system and consider his candidature for admission to class Nursery in the Respondent no.1/school.2. The case as set up in the petition is that the... Petitioner a three years old boy, had applied for admission to class nursery as a General W.P.(C) 1372-2018 Page 1 of 17 candidate in the Re...
Mahender Kumar vs.bses Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2018
$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Order : February 21, 2018 W.P.(C) 7215/2017 MAHENDER KUMAR Through: Mr.Vishwendra Verma, Advocate ........ Petitioner versus BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Sandeep Prabhakar, Advocate and Mr.Vikas Mehta, Advocate for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR1 ORDER (ORAL) In the first round of litigation, petitioner had filed a civil suit seeking the same very declaration as sought in this petition. The said suit was decreed and the first appeal against it was dismissed. However, in the second appeal, respondent had succeeded as petitioner has been relegated to raise an industrial dispute before the concerned Labour Court. It is matter of record that petitioner had sought review of order of 24th May, 2016 in RSA No.178/2013 BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mahender Kumar which has been dismissed vide order of 5th August, 2016.... Petitioner had then preferred Special Leave Petition which was with...
Huntsman International (India) Private Limited vs.abiss Textile Soluti ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:21. t February, 2018. CS(COMM) 619/2016 , IA No.6583/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC), IA No.8693/2016 (u/O VII R-11 CPC), IA No.8696/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-2A CPC) & IA No.13379/2016 (u/O XXXIX R- 2A CPC) HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shravan Sahay, Mr. Nakul Gandhi, Mr. Anupam Prakash Ms. Aditi Mohan , Mr. Toyesh, Mr. V.K. Rao and Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Versus ABISS TEXTILE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Soumya Kumar, Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Mr. Sanjeevi, Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Mr. Armaan Grover, Advs. for D-1 to 4. Mr. Roshan Santhalia, Adv. for D- 5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13 and 15. Mr. Siddharth Khattar, Mr. Adil Khan and Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advs. for D-13. Mr. Sachin Gupta and Ms. Surbhi Grover, Advs. for D-14. CS(COMM) No.619/2016 Page 1 of 21 CORAM...
Shiv Kumar Sharma vs.m/s Phool Chand Om Prakash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2018
$~8 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:21. t February, 2018 CM(M) 694/2016 and CM256822016, 32168/2016 and 4989/2017 SHIV KUMAR SHARMA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Porwal, Adv. versus M/S PHOOL CHAND OM PRAKASH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shakeel Sarwar Wani and Mr. Himanshu Garg, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) The petitioner is the first defendant in the civil suit (CS1 122/2016) instituted by the respondent in 2011 seeking recovery of Rs.16,80,705/- it statedly being the amount which was outstanding and not paid by him for the goods purchased from the plaintiff over a certain period. It appears that while contesting the suit, the petitioner (first defendant) has also submitted with his written statement a counter claim for recovery of Rs.15,34,383/- statedly the amount of over payment. The suit concededly had reached the stage of final adjudication when the plaintiff moved an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 and u...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »