Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments

Jagdish Chander Vs. State and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)454; 1999(50)DRJ172

ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. Petitioner-accused has been praying for the quashing of F.I.R. No.283/95 of Police Station Kashmere Gate, Delhi for the offences under Sections 420/120-B Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). 2. The complainant-ISBT on 9.5.1995 filed a complaint for the offences under Section 420/120-B IPC against Jagdish Chander son of Puran Chand (present petitioner) alleging that the parking sites of ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi were licenced to the accused as per the terms and conditions of the agreement whereunder the parking charges permitted to be charged were 50 paise per entry of cycle or Rs.10/- per month, for scooter or motor cycle Rs.2/- per entry or Rs.45/- per month, for cars Rs.4/- per entry or Rs.120/- per month and for helmet 50 paise per entry; that number of complaints against the accused were received from the public for over...

Shiv NaraIn Sharma Vs. Director of Education and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)764; 79(1999)DLT634

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are: The petitioner joined the second espondent, Dau Dayal Arya Vedic Senior Secondary School, Naya Bans, Delhi, as Assistant Teacher. He was promoted to the post of T.G.T. (Social Studies) on the 13th of January, 1983. Eleven years thereafter on the 29th of March, 1994, the second respondent declared the petitioner surplus. This had happened more than once and ultimately, the petitioner approached this Court for relief. 2. On the 14th of September, 1995, this Court passed the following order in CW. 2902/94:- 'Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1 today in Court. The same be taken on record. On the request of counsel for the parties the main writ petition has been heard. The relief sought by the petitioner in the main petition are the implementation of the order dated 3rd June, 1994 issued by respondent No.1. Direction to respondent No. 2 to release the salary of the petitioner with...

Madan Lal Ahuja Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)430; 86(2000)DLT680; 1999(49)DRJ551

J.B. Goel, J. 1. This is a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') for offence under Section 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act (for short the 'Act') read with Section 379, IPC in Case FIR No. 374/97, P.S. Mukherji Nagar, Delhi.2. Briefly the facts are that a joint raid was conducted by the team comprising of Officials of Enforcement (Zone 413) of Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) on 8.9.1997 in some areas including Indira Vikas Colony, Delhi. During the said inspection the petitioner was found to be extracting electricity illegally and unauthorisedly by direct tapping from the DESU lines at premises Nos. 17/1 and 17/2, Indira Vikas Colony, Delhi where he was found to have installed various machines of load of 39.8KW for industrial use. During raids photographs were taken and the offending material like wires, etc. used were also seized. In due course a report was lodged by Shri R.K. Aggarwal, Assistant Engineer, Zone 413, Dr. M...

Nafees Ahmad Siddiqui and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(49)DRJ569a

J.B. GoeI, J.1. By this order two applications being Crl.M.(M) 4699/98 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') filed by Nafees Ahmad Siddiqui (for short 'Nafees') for bail and the other being Crl. M.(M) 654/99 under Section 482 of the Code filed by the complainant Shri P.D. Lakhani for setting aside the order dated 20.2.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge admitting respondents No. 2 to 5, namely, Shadab Ahmed Siddiqui, Nadeem Ahmed Siddiqui, Shailender Dixit and Waseem Faridi (for short Shabad, Nadeem, Dixit and Waseem) to anticipatory bail.2. Nafees Along with Brij Mohan Sharma, Santosh Kumar Sharma, Ram Kishan Chauhan (for short Brij, Santosh and Chauhan) has been chargesheeted for offences under Sections 386/506/120-B IPC. Whereas aforesaid four others who had been absconding have been shown in column No. 2 of the report. Proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 were initiated against these four persons and in the meantime the learned Addl....

Atul Electro Former Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC140

1. This is an appeal against the confirmation of the demand of duty of Rs. 9,7027-, disallowance of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 10,310.40 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are manufacturers of nickel scrap and other goods. It was noticed that the appellants had manufactured and cleared 2019 Kgs. of nickel scrap for captive consumption during the period 1-3-1986 to 1-4-1986. The appellants neither maintained accounts in respect of nickel scrap nor filed any C.L. or P.L. The department alleged that the goods were-not exempted by Notification No. 217/86 dated 2-4-1986 inasmuch as this notification was not covered by the provisions of Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. It was also alleged that during the period 1-3-1986 to 30-9-1986, the appellants availed Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 10,310.40 wrongly in respect of inputs nickel rounds/strips etc. used in the manufacture of nickel matr...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bharat Seats Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC944Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal preferred by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 53 /88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 is available to the waste, paring and scrap of plastics obtained during the process of manufacture of P.U. Foam Paddings.2. Shri K. Srivastava, learned SDR, submitted that once the chemical mixed in appropriate proportion are placed in the tunnel of the foaming machine, the chemicals lose their identity completely and the product of Chapter 39 comes into existence at that stage; that whatever wastage of P.U. Foam arises, that arises only after that stage; that as the appropriate duty has not been paid at that stage, the benefit of nil rate of duty to waste, parings and scrap of P.U. Foam cannot be extended under Notification No. 53/88. He, further, submitted that it is settled law that a notification has to be interpreted strictly and if the condition specified in the notification is not satisfied, its benefit can not be allowed. He also mentioned that ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Acrysil (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT371TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The short point is to be considered is whether different prices for different territories are permissible under Section 4 of the Act. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee has followed a series of decisions of the High Court and the Tribunal including in the case of Goramal Hari Ram v. CCE, Delhi reported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 269.2. Since the issue has already been concluded and considered by the decision referred to above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and in the result the appeal is dismissed....

Satpal Manchanda and ors. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(85)LC1015Tri(Delhi)

1. S/Shri Satpal Manchanda, Rajpal Manchanda, Pawan Kumar, Ashwani Kumar and Raj Kumar Jalan, have filed appeals against imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962 and Gold Control Act, 1968 as also against confiscation of the Maruti car and scooter as also against absolute confiscation of seized Indian Currency of Rs. 1,05,000/- under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. As all the above eight appeals arises out of the same order, therefore, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that on 15.10.1988 the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence searched house No. 20A, Veer Savarkar Block, Delhi in the presence of its three occupants S/Shri Rajpal Manchanda, Pawan Kumar and Bhagwat Singh Choudhary and two independent witnesses. During the search of a Maruti Car No.DBG-6227 parked inside the said house, 260 foreign marked gold biscuits of 10 tolas each valued at Rs. 96,51,200/- were recovered f...

JaIn Associates and ors. Vs. Deepak Chawdhary and Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)385; 80(1999)DLT654

S.N. Kapoor, J.1. This petition is directed against an order dated 17.1.1997 summoning the petitioner firm and its two partners for offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable Insument Act (hereinafter called the Act).2. The contention of the petitioners herein is that there was no service of notice under Section 138 of the Act on the petitioners Jain Associates, Shri Prahlad Rai Jain and Shri Deepak Kumar Jain. The notice which purports to have been sent under registered envelop returned without any postal remark from Postal authorities. The petitioners rely on L. Mani v. Kandan Finance 1996 Company cases 205.3. On the other hand the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent is that in addition to the registered envelop the notice was also sent under UPC and Postal receipt of the notice was already there on the record. Accordingly the presumption is that the notice sent under UPC and the registered letter was served on the petitioners. They cle...

Eupharma Laboratories Ltd Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman - This appeal has arisen from the adjudication order No. ADJ/135/B/SDE/PKA/97, dated 31-7-1997 despatched on 1-9-1997 under which a penalty of Rs. 1,60,000 has been imposed on the appellant-company for contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. A further penalty of Rs. 32 lakhs each has been imposed on the co-appellants by invoking provision of section 68(1) of the Act. 2. The appellants petition for pre-deposit had been disposed of under this Boards order dated 12-10-1998. This order disposes of the appeal on merit. 3. The adjudication proceedings of this case were initiated with the issue of Memorandum of Show Cause (SCN) No. T-4/40-B/SDE/PKA/97 of 28-4-1997 wherein it is alleged that the appellant-company had exported goods worth Rs. 5,27,58,945 to various parties in England, Nigeria and Europe under different GR Forms as detailed in Annexure A to the Memorandum and that the company had failed to realise the full ...