Delhi Court April 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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax vs.m. S. Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI INCOME TAX APPEAL No.169/2005 Reserved on :1st November, 2017 Date of decision:23rd April, 2018 + % THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ......Appellant Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Shahrukh Ejaz and Mr. Prashant Bhargava, Advocates for the Income Tax Department. Versus M. S. AGGARWAL .....Respondent Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh and Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocates. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.895/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ......Appellant Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Shahrukh Ejaz and Mr. Prashant Bhargava, Advocates for the Income Tax Department. Versus M. S. AGGARWAL .....Respondent Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh and Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ITA No.169/2005+connected appeal Page 1 of 77 SANJIV KHANN...
Ramesh Kumar Mehra vs.union of India & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2018
* + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: April 23, 2018 W.P.(C) 3988/2018 & CM157132018 RAMESH KUMAR MEHRA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Anurag Rawat and Ms. Meenakshi, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1 Ms. Monika Arora, Mr. Harsh Ahuja and Mr. Vibhu Tripathi, Advocates for respondents No.2 & 3 Mr.Apoorv Kurup and Ms. Isha Mital, Advocates for respondent-UGC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) For the relief sought in this petition, a Representation of 5th January, 2018 (Annexure P-11) has been already made by petitioner. The grievance of petitioner is that the said Representation has not been decided till date.2. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with permission to petitioner to make a fresh and concise Representation within two weeks to third respondent. It is made clear that upon receiving of such a conci...
Surender Sachdeva & Anr. Vs.amarpal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2018
$~R-5 to 7. * + + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM(M) 1617/2006 S.AMARPAL SINGH ........ Petitioner Through: None. versus SMT. SURINDER SACHDEVA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Leena Tuteja & Mr. Ishaan Chawla, Advs. for R-1 & 2. EFA112009 SURENDER SACHDEVA & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Leena Tuteja & Mr. Ishaan Chawla, Advs. versus AMARPAL SINGH Through: None. EFA122009 KIRAN SACHDEVA & ANR. Through: None. versus AMARPAL SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondent ..... Appellants ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Leena Tuteja & Mr. Ishaan Chawla, Advs. for R-2 & 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA CM(M) 1617/2006 & conn. Page 1 of 5 % The parties to the litigation from which these three matters have come ORDER2304.2018 1. up are related to each other. The summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for recovery of Rs. 11,60,000/- had been filed on the original side of this Court, it having been registered as CS (OS) 1188/1985. The suit...
V. B. Jadhav vs.ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * Date of Order: April 23, 2018 + W.P.(C) 4023/2018 & C.M. 15877-78-79/2018 1. V. B. JADHAV ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Mayank Sapre & Mr. Pulkit Prakash, Advocates Versus MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Dev. P. Bhardwaj,CGSC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR For the relief sought in this petition, a Representation of 8th March, ORDER (ORAL) 2018 (Annexure P-17) has been already made by petitioner to first respondent. According to petitioners counsel, the proof of receiving of said Representation is the Communication of 4th April, 2018, wherein the factum of receiving the letter / Representation of 8th March, 2018 (Annexure P-17) has been acknowledged and correspondence number on which petitioner has to communicate, has been indicated therein by the first respondent.2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no response to petitioners Representation of 8th March, 2018 (Annexur...
Mahendra Prasad Yadav vs.union of India & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~3 * + W.P.(C) 10278/2017 MAHENDRA PRASAD YADAV ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Rakesh Kumar Singh, Mr.Ashok Anand, Mr.Somanatha A Padhan & Mr.Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Arjun Mitra & Ms.Jaskaran Kaur, Advocates for R-1 & R-2 Mr.Indranil Ghosh, Mr.Kunal Singh & Mr.Palzer Moktan, Advs. for R-3 ORDER2304.2018 The present petition assails the order dated 23.05.2017, passed by the % 1. Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissing TA No.2/2014 wherein the petitioner had sought the following reliefs:-"(i) To quash the impugned order dated 23.05.2017 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in TA No.2/2014; (ii) To direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service of respondents herein.2. The challenge laid by the petitioner is primarily on the issue of his W.P.(C) ...
Balbir Singh & Company vs.mex Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2018
$~ 16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:-"23rd April, 2018 + C.R.P. 87/2018 and CM APPL.15858-15859/2018 BALBIR SINGH & COMPANY Through: Mr. Santosh Chaurihaa, Advocate ........ Petitioner versus MEX SWITCH GEARS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is the defendant in the civil suit (CS No.1438/2016) instituted by the respondent (the plaintiff) in January, 2016 in the court of District Judge, South-East District at Saket Court, New Delhi, it being a case for permanent injunction to restrain it from infringement and passing off of the trademark and copyright and for recovery of damages, delivery up, etc. The plaint describes the plaintiff as a private limited company having its office in Jalandhar, Punjab and another office at 36, Pocket B, Siddharth Extension, New Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of the district court where the suit has been filed. It describes the petitioner (the defendant) ...
National Small Industries Corp Ltd vs.m/s Maharana Electronics & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2018
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:23. d April, 2018 + RFA6032016 NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP LTD ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Manvi Gola, counsel on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Kr. Sharma, Advocate (M-9810767494). versus M/S MAHARANA ELECTRONICS & ANR ..... Defendants Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) 1. The Defendants, Respondent no.1 - is a sole proprietary concern of Respondent no.2, Mr. T.S. Rana (hereinafter referred to as Defendants) who had a factory manufacturing plastic items located in 27, New Wazirpur Industrial Complex, Delhi. In the aftermath of the 1984 riots, the factory was looted and burnt down. All the machinery in the factory was destroyed. The Defendants then approached the Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter, Plaintiff) for taking the machinery on hire-purchase. The machinery was supplied by the Plaintiff and payments were to be made in instalments. The Defendants paid most of the instalments but sough...
Country Inn Private Limited vs.country Inns and Suites by Carlson, Inc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) No.902/2016 + % COUNTRY INN PRIVATE LIMITED23d April, 2018 ..... Plaintiff Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate. Through: versus COUNTRY INNS AND SUITES BY CARLSON, INC. & ANR. Through: Mr. Prashant Gupta, Advocate ..... Defendants with Mr. Kanishk Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) I.A. No.5499/2018 (under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act by defendant no.1) 1. This application is filed by the defendant no.1 in the suit seeking permission of this Court to proceed ahead with the rectification petition filed for cancellation of the trademark registration of the plaintiff by the defendant no.1 against the plaintiff before the competent authority/Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and for stay of the trial in the present suit till the disposal of the CS(COMM) No.902/2016 Page 1 of 21 rectification/cancellation proceedings before the IPAB. The fo...
Abhay Gopal Bhatt and Ors. Vs.indian Statistical Institute and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2018
* + + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: April 23, 2018 W.P.(C) 3993/2018 & CM157212018 W.P.(C) 3997/2018 & CM157272018 ARUP KUMAR PAL AND ORS. ABHAY GOPAL BHATT AND ORS. Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Mr. H. Harshavardhan and Ms. Mansi Sood, Advocates ........ Petitioners versus INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE AND ANR. Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for respondent No.2 ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL)... Petitioners seek switch over from Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) to General Provident Fund (GPF) cum Pension Scheme.2. Since subject matter of both these petitions is identical, therefore, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the prayer made in these petitions has been already considered by second respondent, who vide order of 29th December, 2016, has declined it while relying upo...
Rita Agarwal vs.uday Medicare Pvt Ltd & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d April, 2018 CS(COMM) 786/2017 & IAs No.13397/2017 (u/O XXXIX R- 1 & 2 CPC), 13398/2017 (u/S151CPC) RITA AGARWAL ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sougat Sinha, Adv. Versus UDAY MEDICARE PVT LTD & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Arvind Sah, Adv. for D-2 &3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The suit is ripe for framing of issues but the counsel for the plaintiff states that replication/rejoinder remains to be filed and seeks an adjournment.2. While refusing adjournment, it is found that this suit is for recovery of Rs.1,42,00,000/- which is below the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court and was filed in this Court by labelling the same as a commercial suit and in which capacity the suit has been entertained.3. The counsel for the plaintiff, on enquiry as to how the suit qualifies as a commercial suit, first states that it qualifies as a commercial suit because it relates to a commercial matter.4. Howe...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »