Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.41/2014 3rd February, 2014 % NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate. Versus SMT. SARITA MISHRA AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.2207/2014 (condonation of delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of one day in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.2208/2014 (condonation of delay) 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 42 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. + FAO No.41/2014 and C.M. No.2206/2014 (stay) 3. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the insurance company, which was respondent no.3 before the Commissioner. Respondent no.3 was originally proceeded exparte. Thereafter it appeared through authorized r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)2GLR923
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner, by this petition, has challenged the order of respondent No. 1, at Annexure-B dated 7th February. 1983 wherein the sale of the land in dispute made in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat and approved by the Collector has been set aside.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that land admeasuring 46.82 sq.mt. situated adjacent to the petitioner's temple at Gomti Road belongs to the Panchayat. As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner made application on 22-6-1980 to respondent No. 4 to give the said land to the petitioner so that it can be put to use for religious purpose. It has been given out by the petitioner that the said land which is situated on the western side of the Gomti Road and on the eastern side of the temple was of no use to anybody and that the land is absolutely 'padtar'. The land is said to be used by the children of the neighbours as an open latrine which created nuisance and lot of dirt. The said application of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(2)ShimLC220
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This case brings out the deplorable state of affairs in the State of Himachal Pradesh with regard to the manner in which schools are being run and affiliation granted to them.2. The facts necessary for decision of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 Society is running a school under the name and style of Divya Jyoti Senior Secondary School at Sanouran Chowk, Gaggal, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. This school is affiliated to the respondent No. 1 H.P. Board of School Education. The respondent No. 1 has framed regulations regulating the affiliation of educational institutions affiliated to the Board. These regulations are called the H.P. Board of School Education Affiliation Regulations, 1992.3. According to the petitioners they had applied to the Board for affiliation of classes 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 for the academic session 2004-2005. The respondent Board granted provisional affiliation to the petitioners for the session 2004-2005 vide order dated 18.1.2005 for 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:12. h November, 2014 + LA.APP. 74/2014 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate versus P N ARORA & ANR. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. D.P. Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.2-DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (Oral) Impugned judgment grants compensation for A category of land @ `16,74,500/- per acre with consequential benefits to respondent in respect of his land situated in village Holambi Kalan, Delhi, which was acquired vide Notification of 22nd August, 2001, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned counsel for appellant fairly concedes that costs imposed vide order of 17th February, 2014 have not yet been paid and undertakes on behalf of appellant that cost of `500/- would be deposited with the Advocates Welfare Fund within six weeks. Let it be so done. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment which relies upon a decision ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:12. h November, 2014 + LA.APP. 74/2014 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate versus P N ARORA & ANR. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. D.P. Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.2-DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (Oral) Impugned judgment grants compensation for A category of land @ `16,74,500/- per acre with consequential benefits to respondent in respect of his land situated in village Holambi Kalan, Delhi, which was acquired vide Notification of 22nd August, 2001, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned counsel for appellant fairly concedes that costs imposed vide order of 17th February, 2014 have not yet been paid and undertakes on behalf of appellant that cost of `500/- would be deposited with the Advocates Welfare Fund within six weeks. Let it be so done. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment which relies upon a decision ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1992]193ITR600(All)
Under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, two identical questions are referred in I. T. R. No. 165 of 1979 and I. T. R. No. 194 of 1979. They read as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the income from sale of forms and other miscellaneous receipts was not taxable under section 10(23A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was material on record justifying the Tribunals finding in allowing expenses at the rate of 25% of the interest income which is being brought to tax in view of the provisions contained in sections 10 and 17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'In I. T. R. No. 198 of 1979, the following five questions are referred under the same provision :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the income from (1) sale of forms, (ii) sale of rules, (iii) examinations, (iv) miscella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(100)DRJ728
T.S. Thakur, J.1. Mr. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since M/s Gobind Narayan and Arun Sharma, advocates have already appeared on behalf of the petitioner and filed their vakalatnama also, he may be permitted to retire from the case. The petitioner who is present in person with Mr. Gobind Narayan submits that he does not wish to pursue the petition and has to that effect filed CM 17791/2007 for permission to withdraw the petition. A reading of the application for withdrawal shows that the petitioner now has no grievance against anybody and is satisfied with the inspection carried out by a team of experts of Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Delhi Development Authority and Archaeological Survey of India. Mr. Gobind Narayan and the petitioner further submit that the petitioner was only a name lender to the public interest petition which he was inspired to file by one Sh. Sukhinder Singh, S/o Sh. Subhash Singh of Village Mohamadpur. Mr. Gobind Narayan a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR2000J& K73
ORDERG.D. Sharma, J.1. Through the medium of this revision petition, order dated 8-4-1999 passed by the learned IVth Addl. District Judge, Srinagar (in Civil Misc. appeal title 'Director Food and Supplies Deptt. v. Qazi Nazir Ahmad, against the order dated 9-10-1998 passed by Sub Judge (CJM) Srinagar) is prayed to be set aside. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Judge.2. The factual matrix of the case is that on25-5-1998, petitionerNo. 2 (predecessora) invited the tenders for the supply of empty gunny bags of the year 1998-99. In terms of the notice of tender, only the registered firms/ contractors could take part of in the sale of empty bags which numbered 43,43,001. They were of different categories and lying in various godowns of the Food and Supplies Department. An approved tenders had to lift the bags from respective places. Earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten lakhs) in the shape of FDR, CDR drawn on any scheduled bank pledged to petitioner No. 2 had to accompany the te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH201Civil Writ Petition No.2841 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.07.2014 M/s Suave Automotive Corporation .....Petitioner Versus HSIIDC LTD.and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL Present: Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms.Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana. **** SURYA KANT, J. C.M.No.7726 of 2014 Documents taken on record. Application disposed of. CWP No.2841 of 2013 (O&M) The petitioner was allotted an industrial plot at Bawal District Rewari in the year 2006. With a view to provide residential accommodation to its workmen, the respondents also allotted Group Housing plots to the petitioner by draw of lots. Plot No.GH-11 was decided to be allotted to the petitioner subject to the terms and Sharma Ritu 2014.07.31 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.2841 of 201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3362/2014 SHRI NIWAS & ETC Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Ram Bir Chauhan, Advocate versus STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. P.K. Mishra, APP with SI Arun Verma, EOW CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) CRL.M.A. No.11657/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off. CRL.M.C. 3362/2014 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No.247/2011 registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing under Sections 420/423/467/468/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC primarily on the ground that the parties have since arrived at a settlement in terms of a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the petitioner and the second respondent/complainant on 27.11.2012 which was thereafter followed by a settlement agreement executed before the Delhi High Court Mediation a...
Tag this Judgment!