Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)108; 1998(1)Crimes774; 68(1997)DLT649; 1997(43)DRJ315
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 363, 366A, 376 and 343, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has placed on the record certain photographs of the petitioner with the prosecutrix. The Investigating Officer who is present in Court admits that these are the photographs of the petitioner with the prosecutrix. Even a cursory look at the photographs would show both of them in a state of bliss and happiness. It also appears from the statement of the prosecutrix that she had been moving around with him from place to place, city to city and yet without making any effort to escape. I feel the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. In the circumstances which have been noticed above the petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VAD(Delhi)631; 68(1997)DLT783
Arun Kumar, J. (1) The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the acquisition proceedings with respect to his land measuring 5 Bighas and 17 bids was comprised in Khasra Nos. 3987/186 to 191 (C-4), 2988/186 to 191 (C-4), 3989/186 to 191 (C-3), 3990/186 to 191 (C-4), 3991 /186 to 191 (C-1) and 3992/186 to 191 (5- 1) situated in Village Karkardooma, Delhi. The petitioner has challenged the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 13.11.1959 and the declaration under Section 6 dated 7.11.1968 and the award bearing No. 21/70-71 dated 28.7.1970. (2) The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that on account of long lapse of time since the date of the award the acquisition proceedings have lapsed and, thereforee, they are liable to be quashed in toto. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings being on the sole ground of delay in taking possession, the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(75)LC236Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revenue appeal arising from Order-in-Original No. 50/86 dated 21.11.1986 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) discharging the show cause notice issued to the present respondent and another respondent, namely, M/s. Advance Dynamics. The Revenue has filed a common appeal against both these respondents. The second respondent, Advance Dynamics, is not present and the notice of hearing has come back undelivered with postal endorsement "Left".2. We have heard both sides in the matter. Ld. DR submits that the Respondent No. 1 is a private limited company and Respondent No. 2 is a partnership firm. Among them two persons were common. Both the respondents had filed their respective classification list and had also taken the approval and are clearing the goods accordingly. Later, on investigations, it was found that the private limited company has advanced interest free loan to the partnership firm. They are also paying the bills towards telephone charges. However, both ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VAD(Delhi)101; 71(1998)DLT187
K.S. Gupta, J.(1) This or derwill govern the disposal of l.As.3951-52/97filed,by defendants 1 & 3. By filing I.A. 3951/97 defendants 1 & 3 seek to take the plea by way of preliminary objection 2A in their joint written statement as under: 'That the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary & proper party inasmuch as the defendant No. 2 Sh. Mehtab Singh Jain is the Karta of undivided H.U.F. & the fact that no partition of the suit property has been made, the entire suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary & proper party.'Following additional issue No. 3A is sought to be framed by filing I.A. 3952/97By defendants 1 & 2. 'Whether the suit is bad for deletion/non-joinder of necessary and proper party to the suit If so, to what effect ?' (2) Only a few facts are necessary for deciding both the said I.As. (3) Surindra Kumar Jain and his wife Saroj Jain filed suit, inter alia, on the allegation that being owners they are in possession of ground, first, second, third and top floors of property ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Smt. Shakuntala Malhotra, complainant for short, placed an order with M/s. Devaashish for an Enfield Portable Generator Model TP-1100 on 28.5.93. The price stated was Rs. 15,995/- and according to Sale Promotion Scheme, in force, at that time, a discount of Rs. 1,250/- was given on the said price. In addition to the price, the complainant had to pay Rs. 800/- for an automatic change-over switch and Rs. 105/- on account of installation. The complainant paid on 8.6.93 Rs. 15,000/- for which the opposite party issued a receipt in writing. He had earlier paid Rs. 545/- for which no receipt had been issued. According to the complainant, the generator was brought to the complainant premises on 14.6.93 but the mechanic failed to start the same. Since it had become late on that day, the generator was left with the complainant who returned the same to the opposite party on the next following date i.e., 15.6.93. The complainant's husband made an entry regarding the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IIAD(Delhi)578; (1998)148CTR(Del)345; 71(1998)DLT772; 1998(44)DRJ87; [1998]230ITR912(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 filed on 30.11.1993 seeking mandamus to the ITAT New Delhi to draw up a statement of case and refer the questions stated in the petition for the opinion of the High Court.2. It is not necessary to state the questions of law on which the reference is being sought for looking at the nature of preliminary objection raised by the respondent to the maintainability of the petition, which is being disposed of by this order. The relevant facts only need be noticed in brief. 3. The petitioner-assessee was a firm engaged in the business of production of motion pictures a Bombay. During the assessment year 1980-81 the firm had produced a film by the name of SUHAAG. The 'muharat' was rformed on 12.1.1996. The production of the film was completed in or about October, 1979.The film was released on 16.11.1979. A search and seizure action conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement was carried out at the business pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VAD(Delhi)446; AIR1997Delhi395; 68(1997)DLT686; 1997(43)DRJ236
A.P. Misra, J. (1) This Petition is filed as a public interest litigation to secure the accountability of some of the respondents, who are presently or in the past controlled the medical establishment of the Government of India and Government of Nct, Delhi for their alleged acts of willful abuse of public office. The petitioner is the Delhi State Branch of the People's Union for Civil Liberties. (2) According to this petition, the respondents are involved in serious irregularities relating to the purchase of Iv fluids for the hospitals and for deliberately keeping vital medical and diagnostic equipment non-functional in the hospital for months and years. This petition is filed in respect of three specific cases where the respondents being fully aware of acts of fraud and abuse leading to deaths, injury, inconvenience and financial losses to the Government and to the patients, and yet they have not done anything to bring erring officials to book. The three cases are:- (I)The purchase of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VAD(Delhi)671; 69(1997)DLT302; 1997(43)DRJ331
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) The appellants through the present appeal have taken exception to a judgment and order dated November 20, 1996 passed by an Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby he allowed the application moved by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent No. 1 for the sake of convenience) for the grant of mandatory injunction directing the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants in order to facilitate the reference) to hand over possession over the property bearing No. 3443(1/2), Gali Lallu Missar, Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the disputed property for the sake of brevity). (2) Brief facts which gave rise to the present appeal are as under: that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against the appellants herein with the allegations that the respondent No. 1 is the owner/landlord of the property bearing Municipal No. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1998]234ITR447(Delhi)
1. This common order shall govern the disposal of IT Ref. No. 19 of 1980 and IT Ref. No. 222 of 1980. The two references are between the same parties though arising out of different assessment years. IT Ref. No. 19 of 1980 is at the instance of the assessee. It arises out of the asst. yrs. 1969-70 and 1970-71 seeking the opinion of the High Court on the following common question : 'Whether, on the correct interpretation of law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the disallowance of Rs. 59,842 paid to Shri K. L. Sahni as guarantee commission and in interpreting the circular of the Reserve Bank of India as a condemnation of the practice of the banks asking personal guarantee in the case of public limited companies holding large assets ?' 2. The assessed is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of crystal sugar. It was amalgamated with Triveni Engineering Works by an order of the High Court of Del...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(105)ELT42TriDel
1. In the captioned 8 appeals, the issue is same, therefore, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants in this case are manufacturers of aerated water and fruit drink packed in glass bottles and sent in plastic crates shells. A dispute, arose whether Modvat credit will be admissible on glass bottles and plastic crates used for packing aerated water. Before 1-3-1994, duty on aerated water was specific. With effect from 1-3-1994, duty on aerated water became ad valorem. Glass Bottles and crates are packaging material of durable nature and are returnable. Explanation (iii) under Rule 57A provides that inputs do not include packaging materials, the cost of which is not included or had not been included during the preceding financial year in the assessable value of the final products under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4(4)(d)(i) provides that value in relation to any excisable goods where the ...
Tag this Judgment!