Skip to content

Filter by :

Latest Judgments Judgments > Court:Delhi Page:3 Sorted by:recent

Sep 10 2014

Dushyant Kumar Vs. M.C.D. of Delhi and Anr

  • Decided on : 10-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:10. h September, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 5512/2011 DUSHYANT KUMAR ..... Petitioner Represented by:Mr. Rajiv Agarwal and Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advs. versus M.C.D. OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Represented by:Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma and Mr. Amitabh Verma, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner seeks direction for setting aside the impugned award dated 08.08.2008 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator in ID No.183/95.2. Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the terms of reference vide notification No.F-24 (1022)/95/Lab- 19558-63 dated 07.07.95 are as under:Whether the services of Sh. Dushyant Kumar have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?.3. Accordingly, the learned Presiding Officer framed the issues as under:(i) Whether the dispute has been espoused?. If not, to what effect?. (ii) Whether the demand notice was served?. If not, to what effect?. (iii) Whether the claimant was employee of the management?. (iv) Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management?. (v) Relief. 4. The issue Nos.1 to 3 as noted above have been decided in favour of the petitioner whereas issue No.4 is decided against the petitioner.5. Learned counsel further submits that the ...

Sep 10 2014

Satish Kumar Gupta Vs. State

  • Decided on : 10-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :03. 09.2014 Judgment delivered on :10. 09.2014 CRL.A. 126/2006 SATISH KUMAR GUPTA Through versus ..... Appellant Mr. Karunesh Tandon, Adv. STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 27.01.2006 and 28.01.2006 respectively wherein he was convicted under Section 13 (2) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act?). He was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months for the offence under Section 13 (2) of the said Act; for the offence under Section 7 of the said Act, he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for two months. 2 The version of the prosecution is that a complaint was made by Babu Lal (PW-7) which was to the effect that on 10.02.1997 the appellant who was working as a Superintendent in the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) at Shalimar Bagh had demanded bribe of Rs.400/- from the complainant for the purpose of passing his electricity bill. The complainant in his complaint had explained that the electricity bill of their factory used to be deposited under a Court order for which they had to get ...

Sep 10 2014

Siddarth Singh (Minor) Thru Avatar Singh Rawat Vs. The Vice Chancello ...

  • Decided on : 10-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

33 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4794/2014 & CM APPL. 9552/2014 SIDDARTH SINGH (MINOR) THRU AVATAR SINGH RAWAT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Avtaar Singh Rawat in person with Mr. Virendra Rawat and Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Advocates. versus THE VICE CHANCELLOR, DELHI UNIVERSITY & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Saurabh Banerjee, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Amit Khemka, Advocate with Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.4. Date of Decision :10. h September, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:a) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the admission to the petitioner in B.Com (Hons.) for 2014 under the sports quota; b) direct the respondents to relax the provisions where the Mathematics is one of the subject for getting admission in B.Com (Hons.) c) direct the respondent No.4 to give provisional admission in B.Com (Hons.) till the representation decided by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3; and d) pass such other and further orders, as this Hon?ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that petitioner has passed 12th Class from ISC Board from Sherwood College, Nainital with 86, 86 and 83 marks in Commerce, Economics and Accountancy respectively.3. Petitioner claims to be an outstanding Basketball player having played at State ...

Sep 10 2014

Commissioner of Income Tax -X Vs. Smt. Achila Sabharwal

  • Decided on : 10-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: September 10, 2014 + ITA5012014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -X ..... Appellant Through Mr.N.P.Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr.Nitin Gultai, Advocate versus SMT. ACHILA SABHARWAL ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) 1. The present appeal by the revenue pertains to assessment year 2010-11. The respondent assessee had filed return declaring income of Rs.44,65,471 on 14.10.2010 and subsequently the return was taken up for scrutiny assessment. The assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.1.20 Crores on cinematographic films @ 100%. The assessment order records that the assessee was required to file evidence in the form of copies of agreement entered into with the parties. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee did not purchase any cinematographic films for consumption but what was purchased were broadcasting/exhibition rights, satellite rights etc. and, therefore, in terms of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, depreciation should be allowed @ 25% instead of 100% depreciation as claimed. There is no other discussion in the assessment order, though the assessee had relied upon Rule 9B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and had stated that the rights in the feature films were sold to different parties like National Film Development Corporation, Doordarshan at Mumbai, Srinagar, Shimla and Lucknow and the film rights were ...

Sep 10 2014

Smt. Kusum Tyagi Vs. Sh. Satish Gupta

  • Decided on : 10-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % R.C.Rev. No.520/2012 10th September , 2014 SMT. KUSUM TYAGI Through: ......Petitioner Mr. C.Mohan Rao and Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates. VERSUS SH. SATISH GUPTA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. K.N.Popli and Mr. Rohit Mehra, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition is filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the Act) impugning the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 26.5.2012 by which the leave to defend application has been granted to the respondent/tenant.2. One surprising fact is that today we are in September 2014 ie more than two years and three months after passing of the impugned order, but the petitioner has not even commenced leading her evidence. I may note that in Delhi eviction petitions are decided in about one and a half years or so and if the petitioner was sincere by now the main eviction petition itself would have been decided after completion of evidence.3. The only aspect with respect to the issue of grant of leave to defend is that the petitioner/landlady claimed the suit/tenanted shop for carrying on business, however, respondent/tenant pleaded that an adjoining shop in November 2011 was let out to one Mr. Pawan Radhey. The Additional Rent Controller in para-4 of the impugned order notes that the respondent/tenant has placed on record the photographs as well as visiting ...

Sep 10 2014

Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs. Smt. Asha Devi and Ors.

  • Decided on : 10-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.833 /2014 10th September, 2014 % VINOD KUMAR AND ANR. Through: ......Petitioners Mr. N.M. Popli, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. ASHA DEVI 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.14965/2014(exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.14967/2014 (condonation of delay) 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of two days in re-filing the petition is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. + C.M.(M) No.833/2014 and C.M. No.14966/2014 (stay) 3. The present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the trial court dated 15.7.2014 which has rejected the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for production of documents during the course of evidence. No doubt, the impugned order is a short order however the impugned order does state that documents are not taken on record because they are not relevant for the disposal of the suit.4. The subject suit is a suit for partition, possession and injunction with respect to the property bearing no.29/3, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi wherein the plaintiffs/petitioners claim their rights through their father Sh. Om Parkash who is said to have been given 40% ownership in the suit property. With respect to the ...

Sep 10 2014

Rakesh Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

  • Decided on : 10-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:02. d September, 2014 Date of Decision:10th September, 2014 % + CRL. M.C. 2067/2013 RAKESH KUMAR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Mukul Sharma, Advocate. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Special PP for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH JUDGMENT1 By this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter after referred to as ?Cr.P.C.) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order dated 08.03.2013 passed by learned Special Judge (CBI), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby the application dated 15.01.2013 filed on behalf of petitioner was dismissed.2. Shorn off unnecessary details, it is suffice to mention that the petitioner is a former member of the Indian Foreign Services, having retired on superannuation. At the relevant time, the petitioner was on deputation with the Indian Council of Cultural Relations (in short ?ICCR), as its Director General. The allegations against the petitioner, inter-alia, are that the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar along with Mr. Madhup Mohta, Ms. Kehkeshan Tyagi and Mohd. Khaliq have been indulged in number of activities by misusing their official position. They were indulged in human trafficking and for that the petitioner has misused the official position, cheated the government and thus, misconducted himself for extraneous consideration. ...

Sep 10 2014

Shri Prem Chand Vs. Smt. Madhu Rani and Ors.

  • Decided on : 10-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC. REV. No.255/2013 10th September, 2014 % SHRI PREM CHAND Through: ......Petitioner Mr. K.K. Malhotra, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. MADHU RANI AND ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Ms. Karuna Chhatwal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is filed impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 24.1.2013 which has dismissed the leave to defend application and decreed the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for bonafide necessity with respect to the tenanted shop bearing no.94/2, Shankar Market, Railway Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 as shown in red colour in the site plan.2. Counsel for the petitioner argues the following aspects which according to him not only show that leave to defend should be granted, but, in fact, the eviction petition should be dismissed:(i) The ownership with respect to the tenanted shop of the respondents is pursuant to the two sale deeds dated 27.11.1996 and 6.7.2007 and therefore eviction petition for bonafide necessity as per Section 14(6) of the Act could only be filed after five years of purchasing the interest in the property i.e on and after 6.7.2012, but the eviction petition has been filed in April, 2012. (ii) The petitioner/tenant has specifically shown ...

Sep 10 2014

State of Nct of Delhi Vs. Manas Kumar Pati

  • Decided on : 10-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 436/2014 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for the State. versus MANAS KUMAR PATI Represented by: ..... Respondent None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER1009.2014 % 1. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgement dated May 13, 2014 acquitting Manas Kumar Pati for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.2. The investigation was set into motion on June 30, 2012 when HC Amar Pal was patrolling in the area of his beat and found one person lying in injured condition below the statue of Asaf Ali. Lot of blood had oozed out. He reported the matter to PS Darya Ganj which was recorded vide DD No.30A, Ex.PW-6/A. ASI Virender Kumar, PW-16 along with Constable Mohit and Constable Jai Ram reached the spot. ASI Virender Kumar inspected the body and found an injury mark on the left eyebrow of the deceased. The deceased was found in drunken condition. A big stone which was blood stained, half bottle of liquor and one packet of namkeen were also found lying there.3. As per the post mortem report Ex.PW-19/A Dr.Suresh Chand Ex.PW-19 noticed the following injuries:External examination: i. Contused lacerated wound, 5.5 cm x 4.5 cm x bone deep, present at left side of forehead, just above left eyebrow, 2 cm away from midline. ii. Contusion, 2.5 cm x 2 cm, reddish, present over the right side of occipital region, 5.5 cm above and behind ...

Sep 10 2014

C & S Electric Mv Pvt Limited Vs. ...........

  • Decided on : 10-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

$~28 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET. 379/2014 IN THE MATTER OF C & S ELECTRIC MV PVT LIMITED ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Arun Kathpalia and Mr. Dhrupad Das, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr P.K Malik, Deputy Registrar of Companies for the Regional Director. Mr. Rajiv Behl, Advocate for the Official Liquidator. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ORDER % 10.09.2014 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL) CA No.1944/2014 This is an application by the Official Liquidator seeking condonation of delay in filing the report. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the report is condoned. The report is directed to be taken on record. ============================================= CO.PET. 379/2014 1 CO.PET. 379/2014 1. This second motion petition has been filed under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act?) seeking sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation (Scheme) of C&S Electric MV Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Transferor Company) between C&S Electric Limited (hereinafter referred to as C&S/ Company) Non-Petitioner (hereinafter all Company/ Transferee Companies collectively referred to as Petitioner Companies). A copy of the Scheme has been enclosed with the Petition.2. The registered offices of the Petitioner Companies are situated at New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Hon?ble High Court.3. The details of the respective dates of incorporation of the Petitioner Companies, their ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //