Delhi Court February 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 25 of about 750 results (0.021 seconds)Omaxe Buildhome Limited vs.union of India and Anr
Court: Delhi
$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1722/2019 % OMAXE BUILDHOME LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Tanveer Ahmed Mir with Mr Vaibhav Suri, Advocates. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER1902.2019 VIBHU BAKHRU, J CM No.7927/2019 1.2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 1722/2019 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 14.11.2018 (hereafter the impugned order), passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (hereafter the Appellate Tribunal) in appeal No.153/DLI/2018.4. By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the petitioners appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the period as prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 68-O of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter the NDPS Act). Admittedly, W.P.(C) 1722 of 2019 Page 1 o...
Tag this Judgment!Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi - 2 vs.blue Scope Steel India Pvt ...
Court: Delhi
$~60, 61 & 64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 19, 2019 + ITA1692019, CM APPL. 7722-7723/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI - 2 + + versus BLUE SCOPE STEEL INDIA PVT. LTD. ITA1702019, CM APPL. 7726-7727/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI -2 versus BLUE SCOPE STEEL INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ITA1732019, CM APPL. 7747-7748/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI - 2 versus BLUE SCOPE STEEL INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant ..... Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel Counsel for the respondent: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN ITA No.169/2019, 170/2019 & 173/2019 Page 1 of 7 ORDER % S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL) CM APPL. 7722-7723/2019 CM APPL. 7726-7727/2019 & CM APPL. 7747-7748/2019 (condonation of delay) By these applications, the appellant seeks condonation of delay in filing/re-filing of the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Sharma vs.attar Singh
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.584/2018 + % LALIT SHARMA ATTAR SINGH19h February, 2019 Through: Mr. L.S. Solanki, Advocate. versus ..... Appellant Through: ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.29174/2018 (Extension of time to pay the balance court fees) 1. Deficiency in the court fees has been made good. CM stands disposed of. CM No.29172/2018 (delay in re-filing) 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RFA No.584/2018 Page 1 of 5 RFA No.584/2018 & CM No.29173/2018 3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 19.03.2018 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum on account of two loans o...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Laxmi Narayan Ayurvedic College & Hospital vs.union of India & O ...
Court: Delhi
$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1718/2019 & CM No.7915/2019 Date of decision:19. h February, 2019 SHREE LAXMI NARAYAN AYURVEDIC COLLEGE & HOSPITAL ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. D. Hasija and Mr. Anirudh Tyagi, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, Adv. for R-1/UOI Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv. for R-2/CCIM CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) The petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks extension of the cut % 1. off date fixed by the Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, for effecting admissions to the BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medical Sciences) Course, conducted by various institutions conferring the said degree.2. The facts required to be noted, for adjudicating the dispute, may be stated in brief thus. W.P.(C) 1718/2019 Page 1 of 7 3. The petitioner was granted permission, on 23rd August, 1976, to establish a new Ayurvedic Medical College with an initial...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chand Kathuria and Anr. Vs.union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI33 34 and 35 + W.P.(C) 5822/2018 & CMs 22631/2018, 37292/2018 and 53835/2018 ANUBHAV CHAND KATHURIA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Rajesh Yadav and Mr Ruchira, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms Padma Priya, Mr Mukesh Kumar and Ms Soumya Priyadarshni, Advocates for NHAI. Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B. Ms Tara Narula and Ms Nidhi Nagpal, Advocates of CA. + W.P.(C) 5831/2018 & CMs 22659/2018, 37294/2018 and 53837/2018 ANUBHAV CHAND KATHURIA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Rajesh Yadav and Mr Ruchira, Advocates. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS versus Through: Ms Padma Priya, Mr Mukesh Kumar and Ms Soumya Priyadarshni, Advocates for NHAI. Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B. + W.P.(C) 5846/2018 & CMs 22701/2018, 37293/2018 and 53833/2018 SUBHASH CHAND KATHURIA AND ANR. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr Rajesh Yadav and Mr Ruchira, W.P.(C) Nos. 582...
Tag this Judgment!Sushila Yadav vs.state of Nct (Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.REV.P. 274/2015 Judgment delivered on:19. 02.2019 SUSHILA YADAV versus STATE OF NCT (DELHI) & ANR ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the Respondent : Mr. Jugal Wadhwa and Mr. Raghav Goyal and Ms. Akanksha Gupta, Advs. Mr. Hirein Sharma, Addl. PP for the State with Inspr. Harendra Singh Mr. Syed Hasan Isfahani and Mr. Parveez Zaidi, Advs. for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ORDER SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner impugns judgment dated 13.03.2015 whereby the revisional court has set aside the order on charge dated 17.11.2014 whereby the charge was framed by the trial court against respondent No.2 under Section 420/467/468/471 of the IPC and the respondent No.2 was discharged.2.... Petitioner- Original Complainants have impugned the said order inter-alia on the ground that no notice under Section 401 Cr. P.C. was issued to them prior to t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahender Singh vs.land Acquisition Collector
Court: Delhi
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11415/2018 MAHENDER SINGH ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. S.S. Dahiya, Mr. J.S. Dahiya and Ms. Nisha Dahiya, Advocate. versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B. Ms. Gigi C. George for UOI. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA % ORDER1902.2019 Dr. S. Murlidhar, J.:1. The prayers in the present petition read as under: (i) A writ of Mandamus by declaring the Award No.20/2005 06/DC (NW)dated 18.11.2005 lapsed qua the Khasra No.7 of petitioner interms of section 24 (2) of Act 2013 as neither the compensation hasbeen paid to the petitioner nor possession has been takenover of the subject land; (ii) A writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order No.F. LAC (NW)/UER-11/2018/ 1020-1025 dated 10-09-2018 qua the Khasra No.7 total area comes to 13 Bighas 09 Biswa. W.P.(C) 11415/2018 Page 1 of 8 (iii) A writ of prohibition for restraining the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Engineer Cpwd vs.ghanshyam Singh and Ors
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:19. 02.2019 + W.P.(C) No.2934/2012 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CPWD Through Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Adv. ........ Petitioner versus GHANSHYAM SINGH AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Manoj Joshi, Adv. with Mr.Rahul Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL) 1. Vide the present petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/CPWD impugns the Award dated 21st June, 2011 passed by the learned Labour Court No.1, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in ID No.61 of 2011. By way of the impugned order, the Court has directed the petitioner/CPWD to pay gratuity to the twelve respondents at the time of their superannuation/death by including the period during which they had worked on muster roll.2. The undisputed facts which emerge from the record are that the respondents were initially engaged as Beldars on muster roll basis during the period from 1979 to 1984 and were subsequently reg...
Tag this Judgment!Manik Gupta and Ors. Vs.the Principal Aryabhatta College & Anr
Court: Delhi
$~20, 46, 48 and 53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h February, 2019 + W.P.(C) 8779/2018 & CM APPL. 33767/2018 W.P.(C) 8782/2018 & CM APPL. 33772/2018 W.P.(C) 12796/2018 & CM APPLs. 49667-49668/2018 W.P.(C) 9205/2018 & CM APPL. 8067/2019 MOHIT WADHWA AND ORS. MUSKAN GOEL AND ORS. MANIK GUPTA AND ORS. ADITYA KHURANA AND ANR .... Petitioners Through: Mr. Ratan K. Singh, Adv. with Ms. Sushila and Mr. M.P.Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashu Khurana, Adv. THE PRINCIPAL ARYABHATTA COLLEGE & ANR versus .... RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, Adv. with Mr. Akash Yadav, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. with Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. for University of Delhi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % W.P.(C) 8779/2018, W.P.(C) 12796/2018 & W.P.(C) 9205/2018 1. The petitioners in these cases are students pursuing various courses in the Aryabhatta College (Respondent No.1 herein and W.P.(C) 8779/2018 & connected matters Page 1 of 12 referred to, he...
Tag this Judgment!G M vs.p K M
Court: Delhi
$~27 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:19. 02.2019 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 47/2019 G M ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sumit Kumar, Mr. Ranjan & Mr.Rabindra Nanda, Advocates P K M versus Through: ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) CM APPL. 7817/2019 1.2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 47/2019 & CM APPL. 7816/2019 (delay of 916 days) 3. The appellant/husband is aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2016 passed by the Family Court on an application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as HMA) seeking maintenance for herself and two minor school going children. The appeal is accompanied with an application seeking condonation of 916 days delay in filing the present appeal. The condonation of delay is sought on the ground that after passing of the impugned order, the appel...
Tag this Judgment!