Skip to content

Filter by :

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

Aug 12 2014

Rosa Power Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

  • Decided on : 12-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:12. h August, 2014 % + W.P.(C) No.3821/2014 ROSA POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. .. Petitioner Through: Mr. Sujit Ghosh with Mr. Nakul Mohta & Mr. Sashank, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .. Respondents Through: Mrs. Kiran Jai, CGSC & Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Adv. for R-1 to 5. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed in or about the second half of May, 2014, impugns the four orders, all dated 21st March, 2011 of the respondent no.3 Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, intimating to the petitioner the decision taken in the meeting of the Policy Interpretation Committee held on 15th March, 2011 under the Chairmanship of the Director General of Foreign Trade, of denying Deemed Export Benefits (DEB) if the Bill of Entry is in the name of the project authority as was in the case of the petitioner and accordingly denying the DEB to the petitioner. The petition of course also impugns the minutes of the said meeting dated 15th March, 2011 and seeks a direction to the respondents to give the DEB to the petitioner, which during the hearing was disclosed to be in the value of Rs.72 crores.2. Though the petition, as per the Roster of this Court, was listed before the learned Single Judge, but finding that the challenge is also to certain notifications and circulars of the Foreign Trade Policy on the basis of ...

Aug 12 2014

Bubay @ Maya Vs. State

  • Decided on : 12-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : July 07, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on : August 12, 2014 + CRL.A. 1172/2012 BUBAY @ MAYA Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Sidharth Agarwal Advocate with Mr.Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP SI Roshan Lal, PS Nangloi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Bubay @ Maya is a transgender. She was living with Ramu as his wife in a room at No.RZ-C-213, Ambika Enclave, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi. Ramu was earning his livelihood by plying a cycle rickshaw. On February 22, 2008 he died due to haemorrhagic shock occasioned by excessive bleeding. The place where he received the injury was the room in which he resided with Maya. The injury was caused with the knife Ex.P-5. Maya was present in the room when Ramu was stabbed.2. Post mortem report of the dead body of Ramu was conducted on February 23, 2008 by Dr.Manoj Dhingra at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. A solitary injury being an incised penetrating wound on front of chest, left side 8 cm below left nipple 4 cm lateral to mid-line was found. After piercing the intercostal muscle between the 8th and the 9th intercostal muscle, the knife entered the plura of the left lung and proceeding ahead cut the left ventricle. The post mortem report Ex.PW-7/A would evidence that the direction of the knife was inwards from the left side of the chest towards the ...

Aug 12 2014

the Commissioner of Income Tax Ii Vs. Kuldeep Singh

  • Decided on : 12-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No.117/2014 Reserved on:18. h July, 2014 Date of Decision:12. h August, 2014 % The Commissioner of Income Tax II ....Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. Versus Kuldeep Singh Through Respondent None CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi II, in this appeal which pertains to assessment year 2006-07 submits that the assessee, an individual has been wrongly granted benefit of Section 54 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short). The respondent assessee contrary to the statutory mandate, it is submitted had not purchased the second property within two years from the date of sale of the first property. The secondary issue raised pertains to whether Rs.5,00,000/- paid for cancellation of the earlier agreement for sale of the original property and Rs.2,50,000/- paid as brokerage, could be allowed to set off from the sale consideration received.2. The assessee in his return filed on 8th January, 2007 had declared a taxable income of Rs.47,88,579/-, but as noticed above he had claimed benefit of Section 54 of the Act on sale consideration of Rs.2 crores declared as income from capital gains on the sale of house property bearing No.B-383, New Friends Colony, New Delhi vide sale deed dated 3rd June, 2005 from the purchaser Bansi Lal Gupta. Under Section 54 of the Act, exemption of Rs.37,86,273/- had ...

Aug 12 2014

Darshna Vs. State of Delhi and Anr.

  • Decided on : 12-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:12th August, 2014 + W.P.(C) 5103/2013 DARSHNA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Hemant Gupta, Advocate. Versus STATE OF DELHI AND ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Sangeeta Sondhi, Mr.Ajay Sondhi and Mr.Sanjeev Narula, Advocates. Mr.Ravinder Narwal, Advocate for Intervener. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) W.P.(C) 5103/2013 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondents not to demolish and take forcible possession of any part of the property/land, measuring 3 Bighas 60 Biswas out of Khasra Nos.10/10 (2-10), 10/11/3(o-3) and 10/12/1 (o-13), situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Mohammadpur Mazri, Delhi, which was purchased from Sh. Satbir Singh after obtaining NOC from the office of the Deputy Commissioner concerned.2. Being aggrieved, petitioner made a representation on 10.08.2003 to the BDO (North-West), Kanjhawala, Delhi.3. Since in the impugned notice dated 05.08.2013 only two days time was given to the petitioner to remove the encroachment, therefore, filed the present petition.4. Vide order dated 14.08.2013, this Court directed not to take coercive action against the petitioner.5. I note, notice has not been issued in the instant petition.6. Admittedly, the representation dated 10.08.2013 has not been decided by the BDO.7. In view of the facts averred in the petition and the submissions made by the learned counsel for ...

Aug 12 2014

Surender Singh Dalal Vs. M/s Mother Dairy

  • Decided on : 12-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:12th August, 2014 + W.P.(C) 2855/2014 SURENDER SINGH DALAL ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Rakesh Mudgal and Mr. Dinesh Mudgal, Advs. versus M/S MOTHER DAIRY ..... Respondent Represented by: NEMO. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner has assailed the award dated 11.07.2011, whereby the termination of the petitioner has been held valid and legal.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the under Section 47 of persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, protection or rights and full participation) Act, 1995, it is mandatory that whenever a workman suffered from disability, he should be provided with work, which he is competent to do. Since the Management has not granted his legal right, its settlement with the Petitioner is bad in law. Consequently, the termination order dated 15.06.1995 has no bearing.3. It is admitted fact that the Demand Notice was sent by the petitioner on 16.10.2002, whereas his services were terminated on 15.06.1995.4. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver / Salesman on 13.12.1985. He received injuries on 25.04.1994 with 60% disability. Due to the said injury, one leg of the petitioner was amputated.5. The Labour Court (XVI), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi passed a detail judgment. For the sake of brevity, I am not repeating the same.6. The case of the Management before the Labour Court was that, after resignation ...

Aug 12 2014

Dalip Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi

  • Decided on : 12-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:12th August, 2014 + W.P.(C) No.2965/2014 DALIP SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Suraj Singh, Advocate. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Surya Nath Pandey, Advocate for Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the letter No.F.32(47)/25/89L&B/ALT13534dated 27.11.2013 issued by the respondent rejecting the case of the petitioner.2. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 12.05.2014, Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent on advance notice and sought time to verify the records for making his submissions on the issue whether the petitioners predecessor, i.e., Shri Hanumant, recorded owner had applied during his lifetime for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the acquired land.3. On instructions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submits that late Sh. Hanumant had applied for the alternative plot during his life time, however, this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner and he again applied for alternative plot on 28.04.1989.4. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, I set aside the order dated 27.11.2013 and the respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioners representation afresh.5. Before parting with the instant petition, I note, the petitioner made representation on 28. ...

Aug 12 2014

M/s Ai-Nafees Frozen Food Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. Principal Sercrtary (R ...

  • Decided on : 12-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:12. h August, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 4555/2014 M/S AI-NAFEES FROZEN FOOD EXPORTS (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Mohan Lal Saggar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jatinder Kumar and Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advs. versus PRINCIPAL SERCRTARY (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. V.K. Tandon and Mr. Yogesh Jain, Advs. with Mr. Ramesh Kumar, SDM, Rajouri Garden, Mr. Jitender Kumar, Inspector, District-Line, West and Sub-Inspector Ravi Shankar, New Delhi District. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present petition the petitioner is seeking directions to quash order dated 29.03.2014 passed by respondent No.3 i.e. Ramesh Kumar, SDM, Rajouri Garden, Government of NCT of Delhi whereby he directed the SHO, Tilak Nagar to demolish the unauthorised wall raised by the petitioner at Khasra No.15/17, village Titarpur near Pacific Mall, Delhi.2. By the even dated order the said SDM further directed the SHO, Tilak Nagar to maintain status quo with law and order till the final decision to be taken by him.3. Admittedly, during the pendency of the complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the SDM issued notice to the parties on 26.03.2014 for 15.04.2014 directing the parties to file written statements in support of their claims.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the matter was fixed on 15.04.2014 before the said SDM, where was the occasion ...

Aug 12 2014

Prem Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs. Chief Postmaster & Ors.

  • Decided on : 12-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:12th August, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 4087/2014 PREM CHAND GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Adv. versus CHIEF POSTMASTER & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. A.K. Gautam and Mr. M.P. Singh, Advs. for R1 and R2. Ms. Sana Ansari, Adv. for R3 with Mr. Parveen Kumar, O/O SDM, Kotwali. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 30.04.2014, whereby they were directed to deposit Rs.70,64,623/- by 15.05.2014 failing which action for the realization of the dues will be taken as per Section 67 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.2. On receipt of the aforesaid communication, the petitioners applied under RTI whether the recovery certificate has been issued by the respondent No.1. In response thereto, respondent no.1 replied as under: (i) No such certificate has been issued. (ii) No correspondence has been made for recovery certificate from SDM, Kotwali (iii) No enquiry has been made for recovery certificate (iv) No any official has been issued recovery certificate by the CPM, Delhi, GPO. (v) No any notice has been issued to the applicant and his family members in respect of recovery certificate.3. This communication has also been issued on behalf of the Chief Post Master/CPIO, Delhi, GPO.4. On specific enquiry, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 states that the communication dated 29.03.2013 addressed to ...

Aug 12 2014

Rukma Singh Vs. State & Anr

  • Decided on : 12-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :07.08.2014 Judgment delivered on :12.08.2014 + CRL.REV.P. 208/2011 & Crl .M.A.No.5206/2011 RUKMA SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Satender Sharma and Mr.Yudhvir Sharma, Advs. versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP for the State/R-1 along with Mr.Rajiv Ranjan, DCP and SI Vijay. Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Manu Sharma, Advocate for R-2. + W.P.(CRL) 25/2013 & Crl .M.A.No.117/2013 SUHAIB ILYASI ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manu Sharma, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP for the State/R-1 along with Mr.Rajiv Ranjan, DCP and SI Vijay Mr.Satender Sharma and Mr. Yudhvir Sharma, Advs. for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1. Criminal Revision Petition 208/2011 is directed against the impugned order dated 19.02.2011 wherein the application filed by the petitioner/complainant seeking framing of additional charge under Sections 302/468/471/201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused stood dismissed.2. Writ petition Crl.25/2013 has been preferred by the accused. He is aggrieved by the act of the Department of Health and Family Welfare who vide its letter dated 21.05.2012 had constituted a Medical Board of five doctors of the AIIMS Hospital pursuant to the letter of the Police dated 18.12.2011 requesting for constitution of such a Board.3. The facts as ...

Aug 12 2014

Manoj Kumar Yadav & Anr Vs. State & Anr

  • Decided on : 12-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3460/2014 MANOJ KUMAR YADAV & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Maroof Ahmed, Mr. B. U. Barqi, Advocates. versus STATE & ANR Through ..... Respondents Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor. ASI Gurcharan Singh, New Ashok Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. Nos.11958/2014 & 11959/2014 Exemptions, as prayed for, are allowed, subject to all just exceptions. These application are disposed off. Crl.M.C. No.3460/2014 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that FIR No.177/2011 dated 15.06.2011 registered under Section 363 IPC at police station New Ashok Nagar, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed since the parties have entered into a compromise.2. Issue notice.3. Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, accepts notice.4. Second respondent, who is the complainant, is also present in person.5. The Investigating Officer, ASI Gurcharan Singh, identifies the complainant as well as petitioners 1 and 2. It is also stated that no charge sheet has yet not been filed in the matter.6. To begin with, an FIR was lodged by the second respondent, Giri Raj Kishore on 15.06.2011 alleging that his daughter, Luxmi Sharma, who is arrayed as second respondent before this Court, was missing and appears to have been kidnapped by some unknown person. Ultimately, on 11.07.2013, Luxmi Sharma was recovered by the police. By that time, ...

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