Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

Ashok Kumar Tyagi Vs. State and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)105; 2000CriLJ1188; 84(2000)DLT555; 2000(56)DRJ136

ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of the revision at the stage of admission itself. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this revision is that on 6.8.1995 the petitioner lodged a report at the Police Station Nand Nagri regarding theft of his gun on the basis of which FIR No. 369/95 was registered at the said Police Station. During investigation of the case, the respondent was repeatedly called at the Police Station. He, thereforee, moved the Court of Sessions for grant of anticipatory bail. However, the bail petition was dismissed on the basis of the report of the Investigating Officer that the respondent was not wanted in any case registered at the Police Station Nand Nagri. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 500 I.P.C. against the petitioner alleging therein that in his report dated 6.8.1995, the petitioner had made a defamatory imputation charging the respondent with having committed theft of...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Orkids and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)188; AIR2000Delhi174; [2000]102CompCas271(Delhi); 83(2000)DLT501; 2000(53)DRJ231

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Against the attachment of property No. D-112, Malviya Nagar Extension, New Delhi in execution of the decree in Suit No. 1179/83 - Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Orkids & Others, Smt. Bimla Devi, Sh. Vijay Gupta and Dr. Ajit Gupta have jointly filed these objections under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 CPC. In short it is alleged that on or about 9th May, 1989 the objectors were informed by their neighbours of the affixation of prohibitory order in the form prescribed under Order XXI Rule 54 CPC dated 30th March, 1989 issued by this Court, on the outer gate of property No. D- 112, Malviya Nagar Extension. In terms of this order, said property has been attached. It is stated that the plot of land underneath the said property was demised on perpetual lease basis by Delhi Development Authority to Major H.S. Barar and a perpetual lease deed was executed on 19th December, 1972 and was registered with the office of Sub-Registrar as document No. 28, Additional Book...

S.P. Gupta (Ex. Major) Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)297; AIR1990Delhi65; 2000CriLJ1838; 84(2000)DLT344

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief :- '(a) Declare that the General Court Martial held from 4.10.90 to 21.12.90 is not legally constituted and had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter, and that its findings and sentence against the petitioner are perverse, without any evidence on record and illegal; (b) Order, direction or Writ in the nature of : (i) Certiorari quashing the entire proceedings of the aforesaid General Court Martial in so far it relates to the petitioner; (ii) Mandamus directing the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service forthwith retrospectively with all consequential benefits including promotions and pay/allowances as if he is continuously in the service. (c) Record be summoned.' 2. The petitioner had challenged the trial proceedings on the ground that the respondents had not followed the procedure prescribed and thus the petitioner was deprived of his right to safeguard his interest in defending himself...

Badshah Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)668; 2000CriLJ2119; 84(2000)DLT652; 2000(53)DRJ487; 2000(69)ECC615

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal has been on board for a long time. No one is appearing for the appellant. thereforee, in the interest of justice, Mr. Manoj D. Taneja, Advocate, is appointed amices Curiae in this case. 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 6.2.1992 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.1 lakh under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are recapitulated as under. 3. As per the prosecution on 24.8.1989 Ved Parkash, ASI, Investigating Officer in this case, was on patrolling duty Along with Rejinder Singh, Head Constable Virender Singh, Constable, Om Pal Singh, Constable and Sher Singh, Constable at police booth within the bounds of Police Station, Partap Nagar, Delhi. On being tipped off, that one person wearing grey coloured pants and a yellow coloured shirt would come from Andha Mughal R...

Jai Parkash Gupta and ors. Vs. Nand Lal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)915; 84(2000)DLT849; 2000(56)DRJ141

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Appellants filed an appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directed against the order dated 17th December, 1983 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in R.C.A.No. 459 of 1982. 2. The Appellants are the landlords in respect of the suit premises situated on the second floor of property No. VII-21, Naya Bans, Delhi. Respondent No . 1 was said to be the tenant in the suit premises and Respondent No. 2 was said to be the sub-tenant inducted by the tenant. 3. While the eviction petition was filed on various grounds, the learned Additional Rent Controller in his order dated 24th May, 1982 passed in Suit No. E-1007 of 1973 found in favor of the landlords only on the ground of sub-letting and directed the eviction of the Respondents. The relevant provision of law on which eviction was ordered is proviso (b) to Section 14(1) of the Act. The said proviso reads a...

Abdul Shakur Vs. Sh. Barkat Ali

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)23; 84(2000)DLT214; 2000(53)DRJ418

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The judgment debtors, who had suffered a decree on 6.12.1957, are the petitioners in the revision petition. They have been successfully resisting the enforcement of the decree. A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of the revision petition could be stated thus. The parties hereinafter referred to as the petitioners in the revision petition and the respondents in the revision petition. The first respondent died during the pendency of the revision petition and his legal representatives have been brought on record. 2. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents obtained a decree for possession from the Rent Controller Court on 6.12.1957. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court on 4.8.1958. The appeal was dismissed. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had to apply under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Clearance & Improvement) Act, 1956. That was rejected by the Competent Authority under that Act. Thereafter, the predec...

institute of Research and Management and Others. Vs. Sanjay Kumar and ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 18.11.1999, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case No. 369/99 entitled Sh. Sanjay Kumar v. Bharti Vidyapeeth, Institute of Research and Management and Ors. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that Sh. Sanjay Kumar respondent No. 1 (for short respondent) had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the appellant runs a study course of two years duration, leading to the Degree in Management (MPM), after successful completion of the said course. It was stated that the respondent succeeded in getting admission in the said course. It was further stated in the complaint by the respondent that the respondent successfully completed the said course in July, 1997, and was declared by the appellan...

Him Ispat Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT627TriDel

1. In these two appeals filed by M/s. Him Ispat Ltd., the common issue involved is whether the side slits arising during the manufacture of cold rolled strips in coils out of hot rolled strips are waste and scrap of iron and steel classifiable under Heading 72.04.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri Vinod Aggrawal, learned Advocate, submitted that the waste and scraps of iron and steel arises as the mill of the Appellants can accept only strips with less than 100 mm width and if width is beyond 100 mm, they have to cut it from the sides; that the waste also arises due to end cutting of hot rolled strips and due to strips getting damaged during the process of cold rolling. He further submitted that such waste and scrap was classified by the Department under sub-heading 7211.59, 7208.20 and 7209.20 during the period from 1-4-1991 to 30-9-1991; that as according to them, waste and scrap was classifiable under sub-heading 7204.90 they filed refund claims for refund ...

Graphic Print Pack Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC506

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Graphic Print Pack is whether the product manufactured by them is classifiable under Heading 83.09 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order or under Heading 76.07 as claimed by Appellants.2. Shri Parveen Sharma, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the activity of printing and cutting to shape aluminium foil as per requirements of their customers; that the shapes are circular which are being treated by the Department as 'aluminium foil disc' used as seal for avoiding leakage and pilferage of the product packed by their customers; that the product is classifiable under Heading 76.07 only as it is in the nature of foil only in view of Note (d) to Chapter 76 of the Tariff inasmuch as the definition of foil covers aluminium foil cut to any shape including other than rectangular and square. He further, submitted that in trade parlance also the ...

H.C. Sumer Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents dated 21.8.1995 forfeiting three years of service permanently entailing reduction in his pay during which period he will also not earn increments (Annexure A-1). The period of suspension from 6.9.1994 to 17.5.1995 has also been treated as period not spent on duty. He has challenged the show cause notice dated 18.5.1995 before this order was passed as well as the appellate authority's order dated 4.3.1996 rejecting his appeal.2. While the applicant was posted at Police Post Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, he was placed under suspension by order dated 9.9.199-4. He was proceeded departrnentally under Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, on a complaint made by one Shri Atul Sharma, by order dated 27.10.1994. The relevant portion of the summary of allegations against the applicant reads as under: "It is alleged against HC Sumer Singh No. 295/Cr. that while posted at PP Hazrat Nizamuddin on 4.9.94 at about 10.15 PM Shri...