Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Jan-29-2014
1. This Application is filed under Section 18 (1) read with Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. M/s Riverside Resort Pvt. Ltd., the Applicant, herein, is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The Applicant, for the purpose of brevity, will be hereafter referred to as œM/s Riverside Resort?. 2. The Application is mainly filed against the construction of a crematorium activities of Respondent No.1, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC). Respondent No.2, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), and Respondent No.4, Collector, Pune are the formal parties. Respondent No.3- M/s Yashak Associates, is a building contractor, in whose favour tender work is allegedly given by the PCMC for construction of the crematorium in question. The Respondent No.5, Irrigation Department, is also a formal party, but seems to have been joined, because it is supervisory authority over flood line areas of the rivers. 3. From the pleadings of the Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided On :20. 03.2014 + W.P.(C) 6224/2013 M/S GLYPH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. J.K. Mittal, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Mukesh Anand, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The petitioner challenges the decision of the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) whereby it ruled that an appeal in respect of refund and rebate claims is not maintainable before it in view of Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act since it finds specific mention in Section 83 after its amendment in 2011.2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner is a service tax assessee. It made a refund claim in respect of service tax export turn-over. Aggrieved by an order refusing the refund, it preferred an appeal to the CESTAT under Section 86. The Tribunal by the order impugned in this case accepted the revenues cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-22-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :9. h September, 2014 Judgment pronounced on:22. d September, 2014 % + I.A. No.14725/2014 & I.A. No.16523/2014 in CS(OS) No.2357/2014 V2 CORP & ANR. Through Plaintiffs Mr.Sudhir Chandra Sr. Adv. with Mr. Chetan Chadha & Mr. Sharabh Srivastava, Advs. versus INNOVATIVE TECHPACK LIMITED Through Defendant Mr. C.M.Lall, Adv. with Ms. Nancy Roy, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present suit for permanent injunction, infringement of designs, damages and delivery etc. has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant in respect of design No.221746 registered as of 17th March, 2009 and design No.253936 registered as of 17th May, 2013. Alongwith the suit, plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC being I.A. 14725/2014.2. The suit alongwith said interim application was listed before Court on 8th August, 2014. After hearing, detailed ex-parte ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-05-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: December 02, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 05, 2014 % + CRL.A. 1048/2014 RAJU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.K.Singhal, Adv. with appellant in person. Versus STATE Represented by: .... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Insp.Rajesh Kumar, PS Swaroop Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Raju was charged for committing the murder of Smt.Shashi Rai and firing upon Ajay thus causing bullet injuries on his person in furtherance of common intention with one A a juvenile. Vide impugned judgment dated July 16, 2014 the learned Trial Court has convicted Raju for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, 307/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine in sum of `50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine in sum of `50,000/- for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-08-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:08. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 6387/2012 & CM No.17030/2012 MALIK TANNING INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 4754/2014 & CM94672014 M/S. KAVISH IMPEX PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Ms Shikha Sapra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. Mr Naveen Malhotra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. For the Respondents : Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr Amrit Singh for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioners impugn policy circular No.42 (RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 21.10.2011 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereafter referred to as impugned circular) inasmuch as it curtails the benefit available under Focus Product Scheme in respect of Techn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-08-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:08. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 6387/2012 & CM No.17030/2012 MALIK TANNING INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 4754/2014 & CM94672014 M/S. KAVISH IMPEX PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Ms Shikha Sapra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. Mr Naveen Malhotra for petitioner in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. For the Respondents : Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI in W.P.(C) 6387/2012. Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr Amrit Singh for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) 4754/2014. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioners impugn policy circular No.42 (RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 21.10.2011 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereafter referred to as impugned circular) inasmuch as it curtails the benefit available under Focus Product Scheme in respect of Techn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:23. d December, 2014 % + CS(OS) 4039/2014 MAKE MY TRIP(INDIA) PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Prashant Gupta, Adv. with Mr.Kanishk Kumar, Adv. versus MAKE MY TOURS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Through None. ..... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.26297/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing true typed copies of documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to said documents being produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents. The application is disposed of. CS(OS) No.4039/2014 Let the plaint be registered as a suit. Issue summons to the defendants through all modes of service including e-mail in addition, returnable on 13th February, 2015. I.A. No.26296/2014 (u/o XXXIX R.1 & 2 CPC) 1. Issue notice to the defendants, returnable on 13th February, 2015.2. Plaintiff has filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:23. d December, 2014 % + CS(OS) 4037/2014 M/S INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE PVT. LTD. (INDIA TV) ..... Plaintiff Through Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Ms. Jaya Mandela, Mr. Karan Bajaj and Ms. Rukma George, Advs. versus CRAZI MOBAPPS & ORS Through ..... Defendants None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.26291/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing original documents and to file dim documents with insufficient left side margin. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to the same being produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents. The application is disposed of. I.A. No.26292/2014 (U/s 149 CPC) Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff states that she would be filing the Court fee within one week. In view of the statement made by the learned Senior co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:23. d December, 2014 % + CS(OS) 4039/2014 MAKE MY TRIP(INDIA) PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Prashant Gupta, Adv. with Mr.Kanishk Kumar, Adv. versus MAKE MY TOURS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Through None. ..... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.26297/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing true typed copies of documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to said documents being produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents. The application is disposed of. CS(OS) No.4039/2014 Let the plaint be registered as a suit. Issue summons to the defendants through all modes of service including e-mail in addition, returnable on 13th February, 2015. I.A. No.26296/2014 (u/o XXXIX R.1 & 2 CPC) 1. Issue notice to the defendants, returnable on 13th February, 2015.2. Plaintiff has filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:23. d December, 2014 % + CS(OS) 4037/2014 M/S INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE PVT. LTD. (INDIA TV) ..... Plaintiff Through Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Ms. Jaya Mandela, Mr. Karan Bajaj and Ms. Rukma George, Advs. versus CRAZI MOBAPPS & ORS Through ..... Defendants None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.26291/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing original documents and to file dim documents with insufficient left side margin. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to the same being produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents. The application is disposed of. I.A. No.26292/2014 (U/s 149 CPC) Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff states that she would be filing the Court fee within one week. In view of the statement made by the learned Senior co...
Tag this Judgment!