Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 13 of about 209 results (0.021 seconds)Dominant Offset Private Ltd. Vs. Adamovske Strojirny
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)717; AIR2000Delhi254; 84(2000)DLT594; 2000(54)DRJ523
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 18.4.1998 passed by the Hon'ble Arbitrator on the application filed by the appellant under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. The appellant prayed for injunction restraining the respondents from manufacturing or selling offset printing machines, subject matter of the agreements between the parties, within the territories of India, Bhutan and Nepal, and also for an injunction restraining the first respondent from dealing with any one else, except the appellant. In deciding the application, it became necessary too decide what is the effective date of the commencement of the contract for the purpose of the enforcement of the terms of the contract. The Hon'ble Arbitrator by order dated 18.4.1998 declined to grant injunction and rejected the case of the appellant that the effective date was 8.4.1992. 3. The appellant and the first respondent had entered into two agreements, one on the 18th of ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)769; 83(2000)DLT644; 2000(52)DRJ783
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner had purchased a flat in the Complex put up by Amrit Cooperative Group Housing Society (Rashmi Apartments), Harsh Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi. On 6.7.1992 the petitioner informed the Corporation that he had paid the dues to the Society and he had become owner and he had taken the possession of the flat also. 2. The respondent Corporation being fully aware of the position proceeded to assess the flat for the purpose of determining the property tax payable thereon. Assessment order was passed on 25.3.1998 fixing the rateable value at Rs. 31,990/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 to the learned Addl. District Judge contending inter alias that no notice was served on the petitioner and no opportunity was given to him to file his objections and the order of assessment was wholly void. 3. The plea before the learned Addl. District Judge by the M.C.D. was that notice was served on Amrit Cooperativ...
Tag this Judgment!Lekh Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)774; 83(2000)DLT684; 2000(56)DRJ80
ORDERC.R. No. 22/19831. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 13.1.1983 in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1982 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, dated 17.7.1982 convicting the petitioner under Section 411 IPC to undergo R.I. for 9 months. 2. The brief facts of the case are, that the police of Police Station Tilak Marg submitted a challan against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Sections 414/380 IPC with the allegations that one accused Johnson had disposed of a gas cylinder between 11.10.1980 and 14.10.1980 to Dinesh Kumar which originally belonged to Ms. Vina Pasricha. After trial it was held that the petitioner was to be convicted under Section 411 of IPC and this charge was amended later on. 3. After going through the record, and considering the submission of the learned amices Curiae, Mr. Thakur, I am of the opinion that the offence committ...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Singh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)776; 2000CriLJ1544; 84(2000)DLT93
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. These appeals were filed by Bawa Gurcharan Singh, Advocate. These appeals are on board for quite some but no one has appeared for the appellants. thereforee, I appoint Ms. Ritu Gauba, Advocate, (2305, Chhatta Punjabian, Bahadur Garh Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-6) to assist the Court. 2. These appeals arise out of one incident. I proceed to dispose of both the appeals with this common order. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are recapitulated as under : 4. Suraj Singh, appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 28/78 and Sant Ram, appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 33/78, who are son and father, respectively, and residents of R-416, J.J. Colony, Raghbir Nagar, Delhi had been committed by Shri Dinesh Dayal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, vide his order dated 6.10.1977 to stand trial on a charge under Section 307/34 IPC. It is alleged that on 3.1.1977 at about 7.30 p.m. both of them in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries to Vijay P.W....
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Singh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(2)ARBLR740(Delhi); 2000CriLJ1503; 84(2000)DLT123; 2000(53)DRJ420
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. 1. These appeals are on board for quite some but no one has appeared for the appellants. thereforee, I appoint Ms. Reena Garg, Advocate, (107 Lawyers Chambers, Delhi High Court) to assist the Court. 2. These appeals arise out of one incident. I, thereforee, proceed to dispose of both the appeals with this common order. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are recapitulated as under . 4. Kesho Ram, complainant, had a cow tethered along with the calf in his plot, but the cow suddenly broke lose and strayed out of the plot. His daughter Anita was trying to take the cow again into the plot when in the meantime, the Municipal Staff of the Cattle Pound, Khureji reached there in a truck and they tried to load the cow in the truck. The girl informed Kesho Ram at the house. He rushed to the place where the truck was parked. Some neighbours also reached there. The all implored the Municipal staff to leave the cow saying that the cow was not a...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Avtar Singh Hit and ors. Vs. the Delhi State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)750; AIR2000Delhi196; 84(2000)DLT781; 2000(53)DRJ746
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings which took place in the second meeting convened to elect members of the Executive Board of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (for short 'DSGMC') held on May 12, 1999 and for declaration of the same as illegal and non est. 2. Notice of the meeting was issued on April 21, 1999 by the President S. Jaswant Singh Sethi. The said notice reads as follows : '2564/3-1 Dt. 21.4.1999 All the MembersDelhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee. Dear Sir, Waheguru ji ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh A meeting of the Executive of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee will be held on Wednesday, the 12th May, 1999 at 11 AM in the office of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee, Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib, New Delhi to discuss the following agenda. AGENDA Election of the Office-bearers and Members of the Executive Committee. Kindly attend the meeting in time. With r...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Dass Vs. Thakur Dass and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)952; 84(2000)DLT57; 2000(56)DRJ343
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality of the order dated 31 July, 1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner seeking dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the same lacks material facts. 2. Delhi, as defined under the DMC Act, is divided into 124 wards. Each of the aforesaid wards is to return one Councillor to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Ward No. 122 is a reserved ward from where only a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste was competent to seek election as a Councillor to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The election of the Councilor to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was last held on 23.2.1997 by the Election Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the DMC Act. The results of the aforesaid election of the councillors were published on 3.3.1997 in the Official Gaze...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC489
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-original, dated 8-10-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise vide which the duty demand had been raised and penalty had also been imposed on them under Rule 173F, 173G(1), Rules 45,47,51 and 52 read with Rules 52A, 53 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton/yarn and cotton fabrics covered by T.I. ISA and 191 of the Central Excise Tariff 1944 (sic) up to 28-2-1986 and thereafter under Chapters 54 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and also of man-made fabric and yarn covered by T.I. 221, 181-11 and 18E of the Central Excise Tariff 1944 upto 28-2-1986 and thereafter under Chapters 54 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are holders of the Central Excise licence, L-4 CF/21/49 CY-1/61 and ASF-48/63. On 16-6-1987 the appellants filed for the first time, classification list bearing No. 1, dated 16-6-1987 in respect of coated and laminat...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Shree Ganesh Rolling Mills Vs. Cce, Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT778TriDel
1. Todays the matter is posted for hearing the Stay Application filed by M/s. Shree Ganesh Rolling Mills (I) Ltd. As the issue involved is in very narrow compass, I stay the recovery of entire amount of duty and penalty and take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. Shri K.K. Gupta, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture M.S. structurals and other rolled products with the help of rolling mill; that due to wear and tear, certain rolls become unfit for use in the rolling mill; that they purchase rough rolls from the market which are grooved by them on both ends in their factory; that the Deputy Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 3/97 dated 15.10.97 demanded duty, holding that rolls after machining done by the Appellants are different excisable product falling under Heading 84.55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected their appeal, under the impugned Order. He, further, sub...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Anima Investment Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)73ITD125(Delhi)
1. This is Revenue's appeal against order of CIT(A)-I, New Delhi, dt.25th September, 1990 relating to asst. yr. 1984-85 and following single ground has been raised : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 24,80,000 without appreciating that on the basis of the material facts and provisions of s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961, the AO is competent to enquire into the sums credited in the books of account of the assessee." 2. Facts are like this that assessee is an investment company, he filed his return declaring a loss of Rs. 31,361 on 6th May, 1984 and assessment in this case was completed under s. 143(3) vide order dt.28th February, 1986 at net loss of Rs. 29,898 by disallowing Rs. 1,500 out of expenses debited to P&L a/c under various heads including interest payment of Rs. 1,500. This order of assessment was revised by CIT-III, New Delhi after due notice to the assessee by setting aside the assessment ord...
Tag this Judgment!