Delhi Court February 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
P.C. Singhal Vs. R.B.S. Tyagi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)561; 84(2000)DLT264; 2000(53)DRJ76
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. By this application the applicant prays that the respondent Shri R.B.S. Tyagi, ACP Crime Branch be held guilty of having committed the Contempt of Court for violating the order of this Court dated September 13, 1999 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 755/99 and he be punished in accordance with law. The contempt petition arises in the following circumstances. 2. A writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 755/99 was filed by the Bank of Baroda against the State and the Station House Officer, P.S. Shakarpur seeking a direction to the SHO to register a formal FIR against M/s. Singhal Strips Ltd., Loha Mandi, Naraina and its Directors. It was claimed in the writ petition that M/s. Singhal Strips Ltd. approached the Bank for grant of certain credit facilities including cash credit against (hypothecation of stocks and book debts) bill discounting and term loan in the year 1994. The said facilities were reviewed & enhanced at the request of M/s. Singhal Strips Ltd. from...
Madho Ram Budh Singh Vs. National Rifle Association
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)592; 84(2000)DLT249; 2000(53)DRJ71
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This Appeal is directed against Judgment and decree dated 31st January, 1997 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the Suit for ejectment filed by the appellant against the respondent holding that the notice does not disclose any justifiable cause and sufficient ground for determination of the lease. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are that on 21st December 1989 the appellant (plaintiff) filed a Suit against the respondent (defendant) for possession of Commercial Flat Nos. 46 and 49, 1st floor, Raghushree Shopping Complex, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, alleging therein that the premises were with the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 3516.70 p; requisite permission from the Slum Authority was obtained to institute the eviction proceedings in respect of suit premises; the tenancy of the respondent was from month to month basis, which was terminated vide notice dated 9th September, 1989 and the respondent failed to handover the vac...
Hari Singh S/O Anoop Singh Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)65; 2000CriLJ1964; 84(2000)DLT586; 2000(53)DRJ255
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the period of surety for good behavior for life sought by the respondents who are the Delhi Administration and its functionaries as one of the conditions imposed under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code for remitting the life sentence of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had completed 14 years of imprisonment in accordance with Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Sentence Revising Board has found his case to be fit to be recommended for premature release and he was accordingly released and has now sought to challenge the duration of the surety given on his behalf. 2. The petitioner was a life convict and his sentence was remitted by an order dated 25.1.93 subject to his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the like amount for maintaining peace and keeping good behavior during the unexpired portion o...
Mohd. HussaIn Vs. Mohd. Mian and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT602
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant has preferred a second appeal against an order dated 28th February, 1983 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in case No.201 of 1983. 2. The Appellant is the landlord of the suit premises. For the sake of convenience, he and his predecessors in-interest are referred to as the Appellant or the Landlord, as the case may be. 3. The Appellant had filed an eviction petition on 16th April,1960 against one Mohd. Yunus (the brother of Respondent No.1 and uncle of Respondent No.2). In this eviction petition, it was alleged that Mohd. Yunus (and another person who was also said to be the tenant) had created subtenancies in favor of Mohd. Syed.Mohd. Idris (another brother of Mohd. Yunus) and some others. This eviction petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 11th/16th August,1980. 4. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a second eviction petition on 17th January, 1961 against Mohd. Yunus. The allegation in th...
Satish Kumar Goel Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)841; 2000CriLJ2177; 84(2000)DLT199; 2000(52)DRJ823
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to register an FIR in terms of the report/complaint made by the petitioner and for direction to respondents to pay a suitable compensation to the petitioner for the agony, harassment and torture suffered by him at the hands of the respondents. 2. The petitioner claims that Head Constable Suresh Chand of Police Station Maya Puri came to his shop located at Maya Puri Phase-II, Delhi and demanded a monthly payment of Rs. 500/- from him which the other shopkeepers of the area were regularly paying to the police. On the refusal of the petitioner to pay the amount, the Head Constable threatened him of dire consequences. Again on May 12, 1998 at about 7 p.m. Head Constable Suresh accompanied with three other Constables of Police Station Maya Puri visited his shop and forcibly took away his younger brother Shri Pramod Goel and his servant to Police Station Maya Puri for ulterior motive...
i.T.D.C. Ltd. Vs. Chander Pal Sood and Son
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 84(2000)DLT337; 2000(53)DRJ96
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. Admit.Learned Counsels for the parties stated that as the point involved in the appeal is very short the same be heard and finally decided at this stage itself; accordingly, by this order we propose to dispose of this appeal. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3rd April, 1999 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi decreeing the suit of the respondent (plaintiff) for possession and mesne profits against the appellant (defendant) under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC').3. Facts giving arise to this appeal briefly are that respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit on 4th May, 1998 against the appellant (defendant) for recovery of possession and for damages mesne profits for unauthorised use and occupation of flat No. 9, 3rd floor, admeasuring about 721 sq. ft. in New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) alleging therein that the respondent was...
Rajiv Bahadur Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ314
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner was working with Indian Airlines, as Deputy Manager (Office Administration). He submitted application for voluntary retirement on 26.6.1996. His application was accepted and he was permitted to retire voluntarily on 15.7.1996. His dues, as a result of the aforesaid retirement, were worked out and paid to him. In this writ Petition, he challenges the order dated 15.7.1996 by which he was voluntarily retired, as arbitrary and colourable exercise of power.2. The factual matrix around which. Petitioner has woven his case can be summarised first. Petitioner is a victim of 'dwarfism' and is a congenitally handicapped person. He got employment with Indian Airlines Corporation, Respondent No. 1 on 25.3.1969 as Stenographer. He was promoted from time to time and in January 1991, he got promotion as Deputy Manager (Office Administration). He claims that he was an efficient employee who had been performing his duties with dedication and honesty and he could overcome hi...
Vindhyachal Synthetics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT931TriDel
1. In this appeal the issue involved is regarding availability of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993 to the appellants during the period 16th March to 24th May 1995.2. The appellants are manufacturer of texturised polyester yarn which was earlier classifiable under sub-heading No. 5403.00 of the Central Excise Tariff prior to 16-3-1995 and this sub-heading was covered in the Table annexed to the Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993 w.e.f.25-4-1994. But later on, the classification of this product was shifted to tariff subheading 5404.32 which was not specified in the Table annexed to the said notification. The A.C. through his order in original dated 8-8-1996 denied the benefit of the exemption Notification on the ground that the change in the Tariff Entry came into operation immediately on presentation of the Budget and not from the date of its passing by the Parliament. He confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 4,93,063/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,04,776/...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Menon Pistons Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC501
2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of gauges and value checking plates and certain other goods during the relevant period. In the classification list effective from 28.2.93, filed by the appellants under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, they had claimed exemption from duty on gauges and value checking plates under Notification No. 217/86 dated 2.4.1986. The Department took the view that exemption under the said Notification was not available to the above products because, according to them, the said products were not covered by the expression "inputs" under the Notification. The Department accordingly, by show cause notice, demanded duty on the clearances of gauges and valve checking plates made by the party during the period December 1992 to May 1993, amounting to Rs. 238.87. The appellants contested this demand by way of their reply to the show cause notice. The dispute was adjudicated by the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, who...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Anuj Auto Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT182TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the only issue for our consideration is whether the respondents M/s. Anuj Industries were eligible for the trade discount of 21%. The respondents had initially claimed 21% discount for their major sales and 40% discount for few buyers. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had disallowed the higher discount of 40% and the respondents have not filed an appeal against that part of the order.2. The only ground taken by the Revenue in this appeal is with regard to the 21% discount that it was not known at the time of the removal as most of the sales were on credit basis. It has also been pleaded by the Revenue that the sale orders were verbal and all the sales at the factory gate were on credit basis.3. Shri Surinder Mullick, Advocate replied that in the trade of motor vehicle parts the 21% discount was reasonable and normal, the sales have to be made on credit as the dealers were not lifting the stocks on cash sale basis and that even when the sales were...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »