Court : Delhi
$~ * + W.P.(C) 2697/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:27. 10.2017 Pronounced on:08. 12.2017 SC JOHNSON PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED Through: Mr. C.S.Aggarwal, Senior ........ Petitioner Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate + W.P.(C) 10904/2016 & CM No.42721/2016 (stay) SC JOHNSON PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. C.S.Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Advocate with Mr. Dhanesh Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA W.P.(C) Nos.2697/2015 & 10904/2016 Page 1 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. In both these writ petitions, by the assessee, the relief claimed is a direction to quash the reassessment notices issued by the income tax depa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~18 * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 9674/2017 Date of Decision:1. t November, 2017 ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD. ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Rajashekhar Rao, Ms.Meghna Mishra, Mr. M.S. Bdhanwalla, Mr. Dheeraj P. Deo, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI/R1 with Mr. Satya Prakash Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) CM APPL. 39391/2017 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application accordingly stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 9674/2017 & CM APPL. 39390/2017 (STAY) for Learned counsel the petitioner/Ashapura Minichem Limited (hereafter Ashapura) has given up the prayer challenging constitutional validity of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 (Repeal Act, for short) and restricts his challenge to the amended W.P.(C) 9674/2017 Page 1 of 37 provisions of Section 4(b) an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5312/2017 & CM No.22512/2017 (stay) + W.P.(C) 5550/2017 & CM No.23336/2017 (stay) Reserved on:26. 07.2017 Pronounced on:28. 08.2017 CONSORTIUM OF ALSTOM TRANSPORT INDIA LTD. & ALSTOM TRANSPORT S.A. & ANR ........ Petitioners versus DEDICATED FREIGHT CORRIDOR CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Present: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Dinesh Pardasani, Mr. Milanka Chaudhry and Ms. Ashly Cherian, Advocates for petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rishi Manchanda, Mr. Kartik Rai, Ms. Adrija Thakur, Mr. Vidur Mohan and Mr. Arun Kumar, Advs. for respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % Facts:1. The... Petitioners are a Joint-Venture Consortium bidding for both the subject tenders. The respondents are the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. (DFCC) a Central Government PSU, and the Ministry of Railways. The DFCC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * + Date of Decision:17. h August, 2017 % W.P.(C.) No.7367/2012 PAWAN KR. KALRA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Ashwin Vaish & Mr.Vinod Pandey, Advocates. versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, ASC for DHC. Mr.Arun K. Sharma, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI REKHA PALLI, J.(ORAL) 1. The... Petitioner who is presently a Joint Registrar in the Delhi High Court has, by way of the present writ petition, challenged the decision dated 04.08.2008 of the Selection Committee, vide which the... Petitioner was superseded for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar by the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. W.P.(C.) No.7367/2012 Page 1 of 21 2. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present petition are, that the... Petitioner joined services of this Court as a Senior Stenographer in the year 1994 and was promoted as an Administrative...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON:10. 04.2017 PRONOUNCED ON:30. 05.2017 W.P.(C) 1712/2017 M/S PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PVT. LTD. ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Mr. Amit Verma and Mr. Jaideep Singh, Advocates. Versus M/S BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sameer Agrawal, Advocate for respondent no.1/BSNL. Mr. Amir Singh Pasrich and Mr. Kalyan Arambam, Advocates for Intervener in CM No.12180/2017. Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocates for AST Telecom/Intervener. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. The petitioner complains of arbitrariness against the respondent, the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, (BSNL hereafter) for the rejection of its tender. BSNL had invited on 29.10.2015, tenders for outsourcing of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) activities of passive infrastructure along with Sales and Marketing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: April 12,2017 + W.P.(C) 2924/2014 SARIN MEMORIAL LEGAL AID FOUNDATION ........ Petitioner Present: Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. with Mr. P.S. Bindra, Mr. Ashok Kr.Mahajan, Mr.Archit Upadhyay, Advs. for the petitioners. Ms. Anjana Gosain, Adv. with Mr. Vishu Agrawal, Adv. for Union of India. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manu Nair, Mr. Anuj Berry, Mr. Siddhanth Kochhar, Adv. for R-8. Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Manmeet Arora, Ms. Princy Ponnan, Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Advs. for the U.T. of Chandigarh. Mr.Puneet Bali, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Ajay Bansal, Mr.Gaurav Yadav, Mr.S.Bhalla and Mr.Y.Bhalla, Advs. for State of Punjab. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. with Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Adv. for ASI. W.P.(C) Nos.2924/2014 & 2999/2014 Page 1 of 169 Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. + W.P.(C) 2999/2014 & CM No.9439/2014 AALOK JAGGA Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS :1. CORAM: HON'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: April 12,2017 + W.P.(C) 2924/2014 SARIN MEMORIAL LEGAL AID FOUNDATION ........ Petitioner Present: Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. with Mr. P.S. Bindra, Mr. Ashok Kr.Mahajan, Mr.Archit Upadhyay, Advs. for the petitioners. Ms. Anjana Gosain, Adv. with Mr. Vishu Agrawal, Adv. for Union of India. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manu Nair, Mr. Anuj Berry, Mr. Siddhanth Kochhar, Adv. for R-8. Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Manmeet Arora, Ms. Princy Ponnan, Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Advs. for the U.T. of Chandigarh. Mr.Puneet Bali, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Ajay Bansal, Mr.Gaurav Yadav, Mr.S.Bhalla and Mr.Y.Bhalla, Advs. for State of Punjab. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. with Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Adv. for ASI. W.P.(C) Nos.2924/2014 & 2999/2014 Page 1 of 169 Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. + W.P.(C) 2999/2014 & CM No.9439/2014 AALOK JAGGA Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS :1. CORAM: HON'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
G. Rohini, C.J. 1. Though based on different set of facts, the controversy in all the petitions centers on common issues relating to the exercise of legislative power and executive control in the administration of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD). 2. The parties to the writ petitions and the orders impugned have been set out in the following Table so as to get a glimpse of the controversy involved in each writ petition. Sl.No.Writ PetitionPartiesImpugned order/action1.W.P.(C) No.5888/2015GNCTD vs. UOINotifications dated 21.05.2015 and 23.07.2014 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs empowering the Lt. Governor to exercise the powers in respect of matters connected with 'Services' and directing the ACB Police Station not to take cognizance of offences against officials of Central Government.2.W.P.(C) No.7887/2015Rajender Prashad vs. GNCTD and Ors.Notification dated 11.08.2015 issued by the Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 05.09.2012 of a Learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby CS(OS) No. 812/1997 (hereafter the suit ) filed by Exide India/ the first plaintiff (hereafter called the plaintiff or Exide India ) against the Appellants, - (hereafter referred to as the defendant or Exide US ), was decreed and Exide US s counterclaim wasdismissed. The impugned judgment held: a) Exide India is the registered proprietor of the trademark EXIDE ; b) Exide India is also the prior user of the trademark in India and, therefore, owner of the trademark EXIDE in India inasmuch asExide US failed to plead and prove existence of special circumstances. c) Exide US- the first two defendants were injuncted from selling their goods using their trade name with the trademark EXIDE of ExideIndia or any other name/mark deceptively similar thereto. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the first defendant, Exide Technologies (earlier known as Exide Corporatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.12.2014 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in IA 6207/2014 which was an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the said application, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) had prayed for an ad interim injunction against the arbitration proceedings initiated by the appellant (defendant No.1) before the London Court of International Arbitration at London, U.K. The said application had been filed in CS (OS) 962/2014 in which the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) had sought, inter alia, a declaration that there is no arbitration agreement between the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) and the defendant No.1 (appellant) and an injunction restraining the appellant (defendant No.1) and the London Court of International Arbitration (defendant No.3) from proceeding with any arbitration. A declaration was also sought that the arbitration a...
Tag this Judgment!