Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:25. 10.2018 Pronounced on:14. 12.2018 versus versus ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS BGP PRODUCTS OPERATIONS GMBH AND ANR......... Petitioners UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS versus ALL INDIA DRUG ACTION NETWORK UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. + W.P.(C) 6084/2018, C.M. APPL.23517/2018 + W.P.(C) 8555/2018, C.M. APPL.32864/2018 & 34112/2018 + W.P.(C) 8666/2018, C.M. APPL.33281/2018 + W.P.(C) 9601/2018, C.M. APPL.37387/2018 & 37388/2018 CIRON DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. NEON LABORATORIES LTD. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ Petitioner versus Through : Sh. C.S. Vaidianathan, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Gayatri Roy, Ms. Soumili Das, Sh. Anirudh and Sh. Amit Panigrahi, Advocates, for petitioners, in W.P.(C) 6084/2018. Sh. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Olivia A.I. Bay, Sh. Deepak Kumar Singh and Ms. Harini Raghupathy, Advocates, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(25)ECC315
On merits of the cases, these appeals relate to a common issue, viz., interpretation of Notification No. 116/69-CE dated 3.5.69, as amended and determination whether the product "Iso Benzacyl Forte" falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 14-E, manufactured by M/s. Wander India Limited and by M/s. Aphali Pharmaceutical Limited on behalf of M/s. Wander India Limited, and the products (i) Reclor capsules, (ii) Resteclin capsules, (iii) Resteclin tablets, (iv) Resteclin I.M.Injection and (v) Steclin I.M. Injection manufactured by M/s. Sarabhai Chemicals were eligible for the benefit of the aforesaid notification, Hence, these four appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. There are other legal points which have been raised along with this main issue and the same are also dealt with and disposed of by this order.2. The facts of the case in Appeal No. ED/SB/1447/83-C are that M/s.Aphali Pharmaceutical Limited, Ahmedabad manufactured patent or proprie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Govt. of NCT of Delh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Shyam Sharma, Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on :22. d May, 2018 Date of decision :4. h August, 2018 + W.P.(C) 8125/2016 & CM No.3362/2016 FEDERATION OF OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION (REGD.) versus LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS ....... Petitioner + W.P.(C) 12088/2016 & CM Nos.9316/2017, 10386/2017 & 14678/2017 APEX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY OF NCT DELHI ........ Petitioner LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS versus versus DELHI FACTORY OWNERS' FEDERATION ....... Petitioner LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ANR. + W.P.(C) 2658/2017 & CM No.11560/2017 + W.P.(C) 3360/2017 & CM No.14703/2017 ....... RESPONDENTS AUTOMOBILE TRADERS ASSOCIATION OF DELHI LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner versus + W.P.(C) 3385/2017 & CM No.14800/2017 + W.P.(C) 3684/2017 & CM No.16236/2017 versus COLORWHEEL LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR & ANR ....... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner SEVEN SEAS HOSPITALITY PVT LTD ........ Petitioner versus WP(C) 521...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + DEATH SENTENCE REFERENCE NO.6/2013 STATE THROUGH REFERENCE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Swati Goswami and Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocates. versus RAM SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate for Akshay Kumar and Vinay Sharma. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for Mukesh and Pawan Kumar Gupta. + CRL. APP. NO.1398/2013 PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA Through: versus STATE Through: + ..... Appellant Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. ..... Respondent Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Swati Goswami and Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocates. CRL. APP. NO.1399/2013 MUKESH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Swati Goswami and Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocates. DEATH SENTENCE REFERENCE NO.6/2013, + CRL. APP. NO.1414/2013 VINAY SHARMA AND AN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
dev satya Digitally signed by dev satya DN: c=IN, o=delhi high court, ou=delhi high court, postalCode=110003, st=delhi, cn=dev satya Date:2013. 11.01 12:54:35 +05'30' $~17-18, 20-28, 30-85 & 125 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.No.338/2009 Date of decision :11. h October, 2013 % SATYA PRAKASH ..... Petitioner versus STATE ..... Respondent WITH Crl.Rev.P.Nos.289/2011, 457/2013, 286/2007, 585/2007, 692/2007, 740/2007, 744/2007, 67/2008, 613/2008, 646/2008, 678/2008, 20/2009, 83/2009, 348/2009, 373/2009, 412/2009, 440/2009, 442/2009, 355/2010, 432/2010, 695/2010, 14/2011, 281/2011, 395/2011, 430/2011, 513/2011, 35/2012, 63/2012, 69/2012, 96/2012, 108/2012, 121/2012, 137/2012, 185/2012, 200/2012, 236/2012, 313/2012, 387/2012, 424/2012, 463/2012, 492/2012, 556/2012, 590/2012, 608/2012, 651/2012, 669/2012, 684/2012, 279/2013, 407/2013, 414/2013, 454/2013, 470/2013 & 119/2012 Present :554. 2007, 581/2008, 321/2009, 257/2010, 339/2011, 67/2012, 155/2012, 402/2012, 606/2012...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)25ITD193(Delhi)
1. There being difference of opinion between Members on some of the points involved as per orders annexed, the Special Bench Tribunal order is as follows : 1. 80J Relief to be recomputed within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308, i.e., all liabilities are to be deducted for the purpose of computing capital employed, which shall have the effect of the Revenue's appeal on the point being allowed and the assessee's rejected (Unanimous view)-Ground No. 1 in both the appeals. 2. Coming to Section 35B dispute on which both the parties were in appeal, the revenue is ('s claim to be) rejected whereas the assessee partly succeeds inasmuch as, in respect of packing material expenses to the tune of Rs. 65,08,653, directions have been given that Section 35B deduction should be allowed in respect of bifurcated expenses on wrappers. The directions are similar to the one given in the assessee's own case in res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)53
1. Appeal in ITA No. 4545/Del/2000 is the appeal filed by the Revenue on 20th Nov., 2000, against the order of the CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi, dt.31st Aug., 2000, in the case of the assessee in relation to order of assessment under Section 143(3) for the asst. yr. 1997-98. In response, the assessee has filed on 12th Sept., 2002, a cross-objection numbered as CO No. 135/Del/2002. Appeal in ITA No. 2239/Del/2002 is the appeal filed by the assessee on 23 May, 2002, against the order of the CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, dt. 21st Feb., 2002, in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for the asst. yr.1998-99.2. As the common facts and disputes are involved in these appeals and the cross-objection, the same were argued together by the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative.We are disposing them by this consolidated order for convenience.3. The main dispute in these appeals pertains to the deduction claimed by the assessee-compa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: January 28, 2013 + CS(OS) No.1439/1991 TEXMACO LIMITED Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Sumit Sen, Adv. versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Defendants Through Mr.V.P.Dewan, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the abovementioned suit for the recovery of `46,62,917.81/- against the defendants, alleging that the said amount is due and payable to the plaintiff under a contract relating to the work which includes a sum of `32,96,972/- on account of reimbursement of sales tax illegally withheld by the defendants and a further amount of `13,65,945.81/is also payable by the defendants as per details mentioned in para 16 of the plaint.2. Before referring the facts made by the plaintiff in its plaint, there are certain admitted relevant facts and events which are admitted, the same are: (a) On 8th January, 1983, a Contract Agreement bearing not NH/CPG/MC/S-G/2 AGMT for design, f...
Tag this Judgment!