Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2000IAD(Delhi)45; AIR2000Delhi52; 82(1999)DLT445; 2000(52)DRJ65
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 6.9.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in MCA No. 47/1999 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent against the order dated 26.2.1999 passed by the Civil Judge grating ad interim injunction in favor of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners herein are in occupation of three LPG godowns as licensees and their licences are expiring on 31.3.2000, 31.3.1999 and 31.3.2000 respectively. It was alleged in the suit filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners that the respondent/defendant started construction for 220 KV Transmission Line Tower in front of the godown of plaintiff No.1 and that the base of the said tower would be 20 ft. x 20 ft. which would not only cause problems and difficulties for the petitioners/plaintiffs while loading and unloading of gas cylinders, but might also cause accidents like setting the godowns on fire. Accordingly the petitioners/plaintiffs sought for a perpetual and mandatory ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 86(2000)DLT6; (2000)126PLR51
J.B. Goel, J.1. This petition under Section 8 and Section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') is for appointment of an Arbitrator by the Court.2. Petitioner's tender for certain work out of the work of 'construction of houses at Sarita Vihar, Sector 1, Pocket A Group IV' was accepted vide letter dated 18.9.1990 and Agreement No. 7/EE/SED-4/DDA/90-91 was executed between the parties. The contract is governed by the General Conditions of the Contract Clause 25 of which provides for resolving the disputes arising out of the contract by arbitration. The Chief Engineer of DDA is the Designated Authority to appoint the Arbitrator. The work was to be completed within 12 months, i.e., by 27.9.1991, but was actually completed on 7.4.1994. Due to delay various disputes arose including claims for increase in rates of labour and material. The Arbitrator was not appointed in spite of contractor's notice and he had to file a petition under Section 20 of the Act being Suit No. 18...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999VIAD(Delhi)178; 82(1999)DLT266
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This petition filed under Sections 439(2) and 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks the cancellation of bail granted to respondents 1 to 4 by the order dated 16th October, 1998 by an Additional Sessions Judge.2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was married to Neeraj Gupta, respondent No. 3 and 3rd July 1998 at Delhi. On a complaint made by the petitioner, FIR No. 997/98 under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC was registered at PS Sriniwas Puri on 14th October, 1998. Thereafter, on 15th October, 1998 search was conducted at the respondents residence No. A-57, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and respondents 1 to 4 were also arrested. Application filed by these respondents seeking anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, after their arrest, was allowed to be treated as application for regular bail and they were admitted to bail by the order dated 16th October, 1998, the cancellation whereof is n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999VIAD(Delhi)144; (1999)157CTR(Del)179; 83(2000)DLT33; [2000]241ITR9(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. In these two sets of three references each, at the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for the opinion of this Court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure (Rs. 4,520/- in 1967-68, Rs. 1,19,816/- in 1968-69 and Rs.1,02,440/- in 1969-70) incurred by the assessed in pursuing its claim against the National Bank of Pakistan before the International Chamber of ommerce was capital expenditure and has to be disallowed in the computation of the taxable income?.'2. Since, except for the difference in the amount of expenditure, the question in respect of assessment years 1970-71 to 1972-73 is the same, it is needless to set out the question referred in the second set of reference.3. The question referred and the statements of case drawn up by the Tribunal, in substance, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999VIAD(Delhi)15; 82(1999)DLT497; 1999(51)DRJ741
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army (Corps of Electrical) and Mechanical Engineering i.e. EME) on 11.4.69 and he retired from service on 30.4.97 as Subedar. However, even after his retirement he is fighting for promotion to the rank of Subedar Major.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was promoted as Subedar w.e.f. 1.2.92. Persons senior to him in the seniority list of Subedar were to retire, in normal course, between August 1996 to November, 1996 and he was to become senior most Subedar by then. Accordingly, he was expecting to become Subedar Major after November, 1996. Vacancy of Subedar Major arose and one JCO, Sub. Rajan Thomas who was at Seriall No. 36 in the seniority list was promoted to the rank of Subedar Major. The name of the petitioner in the seniority list was at Seriall No. 52 and as per his calculations persons above him would have retired including Rajan Thomas. He was surprised to note that Rajan Thomas at Seriall No.36 was promo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999VIAD(Delhi)430; 82(1999)DLT502; (2000)ILLJ744Del
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioners who are 20 in numbers have filed this writ petition with the following prayers: (a) Issue directions directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners from the date of their joining along with other arrears of difference in pay scale and all other consequential benefits: (b) Issue the directions for stay of the illegal action of handing over of customs detained baggage warehouse to department of Customs, till the decision of this court; (c) To issue any other appropriate direction to take civil and criminal action against the respondents for indulging in an unfair labour practice, against the provision of Industrial Dispute Act,1947. (d) to issue directions directing the inclusion of appropriate definition of CASUAL in the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. (e) Pass any other order or orders as may be deemed fit and just under the facts and circumstances of the case. (f) Award the costs of the present petition in favor of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999VIAD(Delhi)609; 82(1999)DLT272
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 10.7.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi directing separate trial of the petitioner in respect of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and under Sections 78/79 of the Trade Mark and Merch-andise Act.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision are that Sub Inspector Magan Singh, on the basis of some secret information, raided the godown of the Jullandhar Delhi Transport Company and recovered two cartoons containing certain gas regulators on 24.9.1991. On interrogation, Shri Ashok Kumar, an agent of the said transport company, disclosed that the seized regulators were booked by Pawan Kumar Gupta owner of M/s. Gupta Agencies. Thereupon a case under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and under Section 78/79 of the Trade Mark and Merchandise Act and Section 420-IPC was registered against the accused Pawan Kumar Gupta. During investigation of the case, hou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999VIAD(Delhi)225; 82(1999)DLT217; 1999(51)DRJ644
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. The petitioner by this petition has challenged the detention order dated 23rd April, 1999 passed by the Commissioner of Police under subsection (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short the Act) with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. Mr. R.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground that on 23.4.1999 the petitioner was in jail when the order of detention was passed; that there was no material before the detaining authority to show that there was an imminent possibility of the petitioner being released on bail; and that in the grounds of detention a case FIR No. 680 dated 23.12.1997 under Section 324/307/34 IPC PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi was shown to be pending trial, whereas the petitioner had already been acquitted in the said case on 9th April, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999VIAD(Delhi)305; 2000CriLJ414; 82(1999)DLT356; 1999(51)DRJ551
ORDERDalveer Bhandari J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 9.3.1978 by which the accused appellant was convicted under Section 376/511 IPC and sentenced to one year and six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The accused appellant filed an appeal through Mr. R.K. Naseem, Advocate, who appeared at the time of admission of the appeal on 14.3.1978. This appeal has remained on Board for quite some time but no one appeared for the appellant. In this view of the matter, Ms. Reena Garg, Advocate, was appointed as amices Curiae in this case. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are recapitulated below. 4. Hari Chand, appellant, who was then about 20-22 years of age was exployed as nursing orderly in Willingdon Hospital. The prosecutrix, aged about 23 years (unmarried) was admitted in the second floor emergency ward of the Willingdon Hospital as an in door patient. She was suffering from Asthma. Her mother...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT682TriDel
1. This Stay Application has been filed by M/s. Samanta (P) Ltd. against Order C. No. IV (16) 441 /Tech/DL-II/98-99/5228, dated 21-5-1999, passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi determining the annual capacity of appellants' textile processors. The applicants contend that in their declaration, they had given the details of their Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processor as three chambers each of the length of 300 cm and width of 155 cm. After verification by the Excise Authorities and in terms of Trade Notice No.22/99, dated 12-3-1999, the Commissioner had determined the size of the chambers as under : Accordingly, the month-wise duty liability had also been revised by the Commissioner to Rs. 2,54,277.00 for the period 16-12-1998 to 31-12-1998 and Rs. 5,08,554/- per month from January, 1999 onwards.2. The applicants contend that the revision of the capacity and the calculation of duty demand month-wise has been determined by the Commissioner by adding length of Gallery ...
Tag this Judgment!