Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments

Manmohan Lal Sachdev and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)925; 79(1999)DLT734

N.G.Nandi, J.1. In this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (for the short 'Code') petitioners/accused have been challenging the order dated 4.12.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, allowing the Counsel for the complainant to address arguments at the instruction from A.P.P., in charge of the case. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that under Sub-section (2) of Section 301 of the Code, Counsel engaged by a private party may, with the permission of the Court submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case. Referring to section 225 of the Code, it has been Submitted that in every trial before a Court of Sessions, the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor. 3. Mr. Butalia, learned APP, does not dispute the proposition of law that the private Counsel engaged by a complaint cannot address arguments before the Court, but has to assist the Public Prosecutor in-charge of the trial and at the most can submit wri...

K.K. Chug Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 84(2000)DLT563; 2000(56)DRJ135

S.N. Kapoor, J.1. Heard. In this case, only one short question arises for consideration: 'Whether the petitioner, Sh. K.K. Chug, simply being Director of M/s. K.K. Overseas (Pvt.) Ltd. could be prosecuted?'2. The allegations made in para-2 of the complaint for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the 'Act' for short) read as under:'2. That the accused persons were in need of money in the month of July, 1995 and requested the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs. two Lacs for a period of three months and accordingly a cheque drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Darya Ganj, Delhi for Rs. 2 lacs was issued by the complainant which was duly received and encased by the accused persons.'3. The entire complaint does not indicate anywhere that the petitioner being Director at the time of commission of offence was in-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. It is also not the case of the complainant that the...

Mohamed Abdul Hafeez Zahoori Vs. Additional Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Nahar, Member - This appeal is directed against Adjudication Order No. ADE/MAS/46/96 (KMN), dated 16-7-1996 under which a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs is imposed on the appellant for contravention of the provisions of section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) along with an order of confiscation of the seized amount of Rs. 5,50,000, recovered during search, in terms of section 63 of the Act. 2. The appellant was permitted waiver of penalty deposit subject to a pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000 for hearing appeal per order dated 17-10-1997 passed by the FERA Board on the waiver application against which a Civil Writ Petition No. 2849 of 1998 was preferred before the Honble High Court of Madras. The Honble High Court disposed of this civil writ petition per order and judgment dated 28-8-1998 confirming the order dated 17-10-1997 of the FERA Board but granted 30 days from the date of the judgment for depositing the money. The appellant deposited Rs. 10,000 within...

Shakti Kapoor Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal has arisen from the Adjudication Order No. ADJ/203/B/DD/RAJ/93 dated 4-10-1993 under which a penalty of Rs. 15,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) and a further penalty of Rs. 75,000 has been imposed for contravention of section 14 of the Act. The appellant has already deposited, by way of pre-deposit, a sum of Rs. 90,000 being the total amount of the penalties imposed on him. This order disposes of the appeal on merits. 2. The allegations on which the adjudication proceedings were initiated against the appellant are that during August 1989, one Dhimant Doshi of New York visited India to negotiate with various artists in India for performing in six shows in America that were organised by Krishan Lalwani of New York; that the appellant agreed with Doshi to participate in the said shows for remuneration at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per show; that towards his remuneration the appellan...

Jalan Steel Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC442

1. For reasons recorded below, we dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and stay recovery thereof and dispose of all the three appeals, which involve a common issue, with the consent of both the sides.2. All the three appellants are Hot re-rolling mills and are engaged in the manufacture of hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel classifiable under CET sub-heading 7214.90.3. With the issue of Notification 33/97, dated 1-8-1997 read with Notification 45/97-C.E., dated 30-8-1997, the assessees were required to pay Central Excise duty with effect from 1-9-1997 on non-alloy steel hot rolled products as given in Notification No. 32/97-C.E., dated 1-8-1997 based upon the capacity of the re-rolling mills as determined by the formula prescribed in the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 vide Notification No. 45/97. Based upon the relevant parameters and applying the formula contained in Notification No. 45/97, the annual capacity of production was d...

Workwell Engineering Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC486Tri(Delhi)

1.1 The appellants herein are manufacturers of ghar ghanti cabinet without electric motor (domestic flour mills without electric motor).From 1-3-1986 the above product was classified under Heading 85.09. The Officers of Ahmedabad Collectorate without going into the facts of the determination of the classification of the articles calculated value of clearances which they found to have exceeded Rs. 15 lakhs and duty was calculated at 5% ad valorem amounting to Rs. 12,053.42. When the above came to the knowledge of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise concerned, he passed the order modifying the classification of the product under Heading 84.79 instead of Heading 85.09. The said order is dated 23-2-1987. Before passing the said order issued a show cause notice proposing modification of classification which was issued on 18-9-1986. The Assistant Collector changed the classification of the product to Heading 84.79. In the meantime, the Preventive Officers had recovered duty of Rs. 12,...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kwality Frozen Foods Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC300Tri(Delhi)

1. The question involved in the present appeal filed by the Revenue is about the classification of two products, namely, Mango Split-YD and Respberry split-YD. The original authority has classified the products under sub-heading 2105.00 and not eligible for exemption as edible ices under S. No. 5 of Notification 12/90-C.E., dated 22-3-1990.2. Lower appellate authority's findings regarding extension of benefit of Notification No. 12/90 are as follows :- "It is a settled law that when an article is specified by PFA/ISI that is certainly evidence of the fact that the said article is known as lay down standards of products based on composition and quality. In the present case, in the absence of any evidence to contrary, the products under dispute cannot be called as Ice-Cream/ Kulfi. In view of the fact that the products contain 72% to 74% of water and the predominant taste and flavour is provided by the ice only, the products under dispute cannot be treated either as Ice Cream or Kulfi."...

Delhi Consumer Coopt. Wholesale Store Ltd. Vs. S.L.Thakural

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)125; 79(1999)DLT644; 1999(50)DRJ79

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, management, has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 21.7.1995 by which the Labour Court had directed the reinstatement of the workman with full backwages. The question referred to the Labour Court, as mentioned in the award, is:-'Whether termination of services of Shri S.L.Thukral is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled?'2. On the pleadings, the Labour Court framed following issues:-'1. Whether Shri Virender Singh, Secretary (Labour), abused his powers in making the reference as alleged? 2. Whether Shri S.L.Thukral was a workman as defined in Section 2(S) of the I.D. Act? 3. Whether the reference was barred by virtue of provisions contained in the Delhi Shops & Establishment Act and this court had no jurisdiction to decide the reference? 4. Whether the workman was guilty of mis-conduct as alleged in para 9 of the W.S.? 5. Whether the termination of the workman was in accordance with the terms of contra...

R.K. Goel Abhay Kumar JaIn and Another Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)712; 79(1999)DLT277; 1999(50)DRJ637

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties relating to construction of Central School building at Janak Puri, New Delhi including internal water supply and sanitary installation, pursuant to Agreement No.70/EE/ DAO/ 78-79, the same were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri J.P.Singhal, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi, who was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator by the Chief Engineer (NZ), CPWD, New Delhi. 2. The arbitrator after having entered upon the reference and receiving evidence gave his award on 30.4.1986 awarding in favor of the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,07,628.70 plus 10% simple interest per annum thereon from 1.2.1983 till the date of payment of decree of the Court whichever is earlier. 3. A petition was filed in this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act which was registered as Suit No.1125-A/1986 seeking direction of this Court to respondent No. 2, namely, the arbitrator to file the original award given by ...

Amarjit Singh Johar and Company (Dc) Vs. Prakash Chand BrahmIn and Ano ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)718; 79(1999)DLT289; 1999(50)DRJ169; (1999)122PLR40

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking for a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 3.7.1993 directing the defendants to execute the Sale Deed in favor of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property bearing No. D-16, defense Colony, New Delhi and also to hand over vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling, alienating, transferring and parting with possession of the suit property. Along with the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from selling, alienating and or parting with possession of the suit property. 2. On 5.8.1996, an interim injunction was granted directing the defendant No.1 to maintain status quo in respect of title and possession of the suit property. The afor...