Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: March 07, 2013 + OMP.No.197/2013 RAVI MITTAL Through .....Petitioner Mr.Ashish Mohan Adv. with Mr. Chetan Rai Wahi Adv. versus PANKAJ AGRAWAL Through .....Respondent Mr.Sanat Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed objections under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the award dated 6th November, 2012 passed by the independent sole Arbitrator who is former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.2. Brief facts are that the petitioner who is one of the promoters of Shree Acids and Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SACL) a public Ltd. Company approached the respondent, a businessman and a director in a number of companies, and represented that the proceedings for settlement of disputes with his brother Sh. Sandeep Mittal a co-promoter are pending and further SACL...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: October 28, 2013 Judgment Delivered on: November 01, 2013 + W.P.(C) 2915/2013 CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate versus SATISH KUMAR & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Rashmi Chopra, Advocate W.P.(C) 5259/2013 SATISH KUMAR & OTHERS ..... Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Rashmi Chopra, Advocate versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Judgment and order dated August 09, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal disposing of Original Application No.2538/2011, in so far direction has been issued to the respondents therein i.e. the writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.2915/2013, to grant Earned Leave, Medical Leave, Child Care Leave, Paternity Leave, Health Card Facility, Transport...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: October 28, 2013 Judgment Delivered on: November 01, 2013 + W.P.(C) 2915/2013 CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate versus SATISH KUMAR & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Rashmi Chopra, Advocate W.P.(C) 5259/2013 SATISH KUMAR & OTHERS ..... Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Rashmi Chopra, Advocate versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Judgment and order dated August 09, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal disposing of Original Application No.2538/2011, in so far direction has been issued to the respondents therein i.e. the writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.2915/2013, to grant Earned Leave, Medical Leave, Child Care Leave, Paternity Leave, Health Card Facility, Transport...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 37(1989)DLT278
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The appellant herein was defendant in the suit, (S N. 108/80), instituted by the respondent in respect to a plot of land bearing No. E-2, Bali Nagar, New Delhi, which was alleged to have been let out to him under an agreement dated 22nd May, 1971 initially for a period of 11 months and extended from time to lime up to 22nd February, 1976. The suit was for recovery of possession on the plea that the tenancy of the defendant (appellant herein), had come to an end by efflux of time, having not been renewed after 22nd of February, 1976 but nevertheless as a measure of abundant caution, the plaintiff also served a notice of termination of tenancy on the defendant with effect from 22nd March, 1977, by means of notice dated 28th February, 1977. duly served upon him, and that since the defendant.had refused to surrender possession despite this notice, the suit was necessitated. (2) The suit was contested on a number of pleas, including denial of status of the plaintiff a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2002Delhi509; 100(2002)DLT259
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Constitutionality of a part of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called for the sake of brevity 'the said Act' for short) is in question in these writ petitions. BACKGROUND FACTS :-2. The petitioners are owners of the premises in question. The said premises had originally been leased out to Delhi Improvement Trust by an Indenture dated 18th August 1953. The said leasehold rights were purchased by the petitioner in 1973.Clause 4(c) of the said Indenture reads thus:'4(c) The lessee shall not use the said land and building that may be erected thereon during the said terms for any other purpose than for purpose of a residential house, without the consent in writing of the Lesser.'3. The petitioner asserted that the second respondent/tenant had not been using the premises for residential purposes and the user had been permitted by the lesser in terms of the lease deed. She filed an application for eviction of the respondent No.2 from the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the SSFC proceedings, findings and sentence dated 25th September, 2010 and order dated 11th August, 2011 rejecting the statutory petition dated 21st March, 2011 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought his reinstatement with full back wages. 2. Relevant facts for comprehending the controversies are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable (GD) on 15th January, 2003 after which he had undergone training at STC BSF, Kharkan Camp (Punjab). After the completion of his training, the petitioner was posted to 193 Bn., BSF w.e.f. 11th December, 2003. The petitioner was thereafter sent to SHQ BSF CI (Ops) Manipur for his permanent posting. The petitioner again joined 193 Bn on 24th March, 2009 and served at various locations. 3. During his posting, the petitioner was granted 23 days Earned Leave from 7th May, 2009 to 29th May, 2009 with permission to avail three days JP w.e.f. 30th May, 2009 to 1st June, 2009 from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A.452/1999 SAGIR & OTHERS Through: .....Appellants Mr.Naveen Gaur, Advocate for Appellant Sagir, Mr.Adarsh Ganesh, Adv. for Appellant Nissar, Mr.Bhupinder Mehtani & Ms.Neha Maggu, Advs. for Appellant Rahees and Mr.M.K.Thakur, Adv. for Appellants Abdul Malik and Khurshid Ahmed. versus STATE (GNCT GOVT. OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. AND + CRL.A.477/1999 GULAM NABI Through: .....Appellant Mr.Khalil A.Ansari and Mr.Sunil Sagar, Advs. versus STATE (GNCT GOVT. OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. AND + CRL.A.565/1999 JUBAIR AHMED Through: .....Appellant Mr.R.M.Tuffail and Mr.Vishal Raj Sehijpal, Advs. versus STATE (GNCT GOVT. OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. % Pronounced on : December 17, 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J1 By filing these three appeals, the Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:27. h February, 2015 % + LPA4442012 & CM No.10451/2012 (for stay) PREM LATA CPIO TRADE MARKS REGISTRY, DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. with Mr. P. Buttan, Mr. Fahad Imtiaz, Ms. Ritika Gambhir &Ms. Vithika Garg Advs. Versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS. ... Respondents Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj & Ms. Aditi Bhati, Advs. for UOI. Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv. for R-2. Mr. Gaurav Arora & Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advs. for R-3, 6 to 9. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 26th April, 2012 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.2458/2012 preferred by the appellant.2. The writ petition from which this appeal arises, was filed impugning the order dated 24th November, 2011 (the said order, on the first page bears the date of decision as 25th October, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)72ITD514(Delhi)
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 15-1-1998 recorded by CIT(A) XIV, New Delhi, deciding the appeal of assessee for assessment year 1994-95.2. Grounds No. 1 to 11 relate to common issue about deduction claimed by assessee under section 80-IA of IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Facts giving rise to this issue are that facts as available on record are that assessee-company was granted industrial licence by Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development, Govt. of India vide No. SIA/EIR/915(90) dated 16-10-1990 for manufacture of coated metal electrodes (anodes and cathodes) at Kundain Industrial Area, North Goa, Goa State. It is also the case of the assessee that the assessee-company obtained necessary registration certificate from Excise Department vide letter No. M/PNJ/3/93 dated 23-6-1993 and entered into an agreement dated 26-2-1993 with U.H.D.E.India Ltd. for coating of titanium sub-strates numbering 1212 and started prod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1989Delhi173; 1989RLR186
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The appellant herein was defendant in the suit (S. No. 108(80), instituted by the respondent in respect to a plot of land bearing No. E-2, Bali Nagar, New Delhi, which was alleged to have been let out to him under an agreement dated 22nd May, 1971 initially for a period of 11 months and extended from time to tims up to 22nd February, 1976. The suit was for recovery of possession on the plea that she tenancy of the defendant (appellant herein), had come to an end by efflux of time, having nut been renewed after 22nd of February, 1976 but nevertheless as a measure of abundant caution, the plaintiff also served a notice of termination of tenancy on the defendant with effect from 22nd March, 1977, by means of notice dated 28th February, 1977 duly served upon him, and that since the defendant had refused to surrender possession despite this notice, the suit was necessitated. (2) The suit was contested on a number of pleas, including denial of status of the plaintiff a...
Tag this Judgment!