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.
Salora International Ltd., N. Delhi vs.commissioner of Income Tax New ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % 1. Reserved on:13. 02.2018 Pronounced on:20. 02.2018 ITA7992005 SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD., N. DELHI Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor and Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advs. ..... Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Standing Counsel for Revenue. ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT The question of law which arises for decision in this appeal is: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the true interpretation of the provisions contained in Section 275 (1) (a) read with Section 254 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the ITAT was right in law in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271 (1) (c) was within the period of limitation, prescribed in Section 275 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The facts are brief; the assessee is a limited company and for the relevant assessment y...
Rajesh Poddar vs.bar Council of Delhi and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment :20. h February, 2018 $~30 * % + W.P.(C) 1604/2018 and CM No.6564/2018 RAJESH PODDAR versus BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND ANR. T. Through Mr. ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Shams Khwaja, Adv. ........ RESPONDENTS Singhdev, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Mr. Tarun Verma, Michelle Biakthansangi, Ms. Puja Sarkar and Mr. Abhijeet Chakravarty, Adv. for R-1 Ms. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) Writ... Petitioner, an Advocate, has challenged constitutional vires of first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Advocate Act, 1961 which stipulates that as nearly possible 50% of the elected members of the State Bar Council should be Advocates on the State rolls for at least 10 years.2.... Petitioner has also prayed for striking down Chapter II of Part III of the Bar Council of India Rules and Notification No.Elect/100/31/2018 dated 24.01.2018 issued for election of the members of the Bar Council o...
Rajesh Mahajan vs.panav Mahajan & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY20 2018 CRL.REV.P. 241/2014 RAJESH MAHAJAN ........ Petitioner Through : Mr.Sudhir K.Makkar, Sr.Advocate, with Ms.Meenakshi Singh, Mr.Samir Tandon, Ms.Saumya Gupta and Ms.Ridhi Munjal, Advocates. versus PANAV MAHAJAN & ANR Through : Mr.Sunil Mittal, Sr.Advocate, with ........ RESPONDENTS Mr.Dhruv Grover, Advocate along with respondent No.2 present in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A.No.6607/2014 (Delay) 1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 38 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.2. The application stands disposed of. Crl.Rev.P.241/2014 Page 1 of 3 CRL.REV.P. 241/2014 & Crl.M.A.6606/2014 1. During the course of arguments it was informed that earlier the petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance @ `15,000/- p.m. along with payment of school/college fee of both the children in the custody of the respondent/wife from the date of filing of t...
Rajendra Prakash Trivedi vs.punjab National Bank and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2018
$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Order : February 20, 2018 W.P.(C) 1455/2018 & CM No.6004/2018 RAJENDRA PRAKASH TRIVEDI Through: Mr.N.C.Gupta, Advocate ........ Petitioner versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate and Mr.V.Govinda Ramanan, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR1 ORDER (ORAL)... Petitioner was compulsorily retired on 27th March, 2012 and he challenges impugned order of 9th November, 2012 (Annexure P-2) whereby two-third pension of `5,59,823/- was credited to his account.2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had made several Representations to respondents to seek full pension instead of 2/3rd pension and the said Representations have not been responded to, thereby compelling petitioner to serve a legal notice of 5th September, 2017 (Annexure P-7) upon respondents. It is further submitted that there is no response to the said legal notice also.3. Learned counsel for res...
Central Board of Direct Taxes vs.satya Narain Shukla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2018
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:19. 02.2018 + W.P.(C) 5547/2017 & CM No.23333/2017 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES versus SATYA NARAIN SHUKLA ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU : : Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Gurpreet Shah Singh, Dy. CIT (O&D), CBDT. Respondent in person. VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUDGMENT1 The petitioner (hereafter CBDT) impugns an order dated 29.05.2017 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter the CIC) in a second appeal preferred by the respondent under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the Act).2. By the impugned order, the CIC has, inter alia, directed disclosure of the information sought by the respondent and photocopies of responses received from Director Generals of Income Tax (DGs) to CBDTs letter dated 11.08.2015. According to CBD...
Arunendu Datta Majumdar & Ors vs.shankarendu Datta Majumdar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2018
$~32. * + 1.2018. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 2813/2012 & IA No.17120/2012 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC). ARUNENDU DATTA MAJUMDAR & ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Sumati Anand, Adv. versus ..... Defendant Through: Defendant in person. SHANKARENDU DATTA MAJUMDAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW % This order is in continuation of the earlier order dated 13th February, ORDER1902.2018 2. Today, one gentleman who claims himself to be Mr. S. Datta Majumdar i.e. defendant appears in person and states that he could not appear on 13th February, 2018 owing to illness and has in the past been appearing personally in the suit.3. The counsel for the three plaintiffs identifies the person present as defendant and the said person has also on asking handed over his Adhaar Card to the Court Master and the Court Master confirms that the person present is the person whose Adhaar Card is shown. A copy of the Adhaar Card is taken on record and the original Adhaar Card is returned...
Elephanta Oil Vanaspati Industries Ltd. Vs.the New India Assurance Co. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) No.922/2004 16th February, 2018 + % METRO EXPORTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Jayakar, Advocate with Mr. Ashwin Shete, Advocate, Mr. Javaid Muzaffar, Advocate, Mr. Harsh Moorjani, Advocate and Mr. Bharat Bagla, Advocate. Through: Mr. Mohan M. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ..... Defendant versus Through: Ms. Sunita Dutta, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This suit being CS(OS) No.922/2004 is filed by the plaintiff Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. The sole defendant in the suit is United India Insurance Co. Ltd. By the suit plaintiff seeks a money decree for a total amount of Rs.79,38,613.02/-, i.e principal amount of Rs.76,70,056/- with interest at 18%. The present suit was originally filed in the Mumbai High Court but was thereafter transferred to this Court in terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated 23.1.2004 in CS(OS) No.922/2004 a...
The State of Delhi vs.mukeem
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2018
$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :19. h FEBRUARY, 2018 + CRL.REV.P.No.137/2018 THE STATE OF DELHI ....... Petitioner Through : Mr.Amit Chadha, APP with ASI Puran Singh, PS Gokul Puri. versus MUKEEM ..... Respondent Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(Oral) CRL.M.A.No.3084/2018 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CRL.REV.P.No.137/2018 1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the State to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 09.11.2017 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in case FIR No.6/2017 PS Gokal Puri (SC No.122/2017) whereby it was held that the offence prescribed under Section 6 of POCSO Act was not attracted, the prosecutrix being major.2. I have heard the learned APP for the State and have examined the file. The prosecution did not collect any credible Crl.Rev.P.137/2018 Page 1 of 2 evidence during investigation to ascertain the age of the...
Lee Pharma Ltd. Vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2018
$~2 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:19. 02.2018 + W.P.(C) 1176/2017 LEE PHARMA LTD. ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Rupesh Kumar and Mr. Pravesh Bahuguna, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Adv. CORAM:-"HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER % RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) 1. This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade and the decision dated 31.5.2016 rendered by the Policy Relaxation Committee (hereafter referred to as PRC).2. Perusal of the order dated 14.9.2016 would show that it was based on an application dated 18.7.2016 addressed to the Chairperson of the Appellate Committee, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade (Appellate Committee).3. Even according to counsel for the petitioner, application dated 18.7.2016 was wrongly addre...
Vivekanand Bihari vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2018
$ ~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: December 16th, 2017 Judgment pronounced on: February 19th, 2018 + CRL.A. No.254/2014 VIVEKANAND BIHARI .... Appellant STATE Through: Mr. Deepak Anand and Mr. Aayushmaan Vatsayana, Advs. Versus Through: Ms. Aasha Tiwari, APP for ......Respondent State. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. P. GARG HONBLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR % C. HARI SHANKAR, J.1. (JUDGMENT) The appellant Vivekanand Bihari seeks, by means of the present appeal, to challenge the judgment, dated 25th September 2013, and the consequent order, dated 26th September 2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka (hereinafter referred to as the learned ASJ), whereby the appellant has been found guilty of having committed the murder of Prabhash, and of having thrown his dead body in the ganda nala (drain), thereby committing offences Crl Appeal 254/2014 Page 1 of 90 punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »