Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 2 of about 277 results (0.016 seconds)Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ494
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J. 1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XII, Rule 6 CPC, seeking a partial decree on the basis of admissions said to be made by the defendant No.1 in its written statement. 2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the averments regarding admissions made by defendant No.1 in its written statement to the following effect:- 'Para 3 The answering defendant cannot be held liable for the acts of omission or commission by or on behalf of defendant No.2 as also specifically stated in para 18 of Dealership Agreement. The defendant No. 2 used to book the vehicles and accept the payment from the customers. The answering defendant in lieu of the payment received by it from the defendant no. 2 delivered vehicles to defendant No. 2 and the invoices were also raised in the name of defendant No. 2. Para 7 - In so far as the payment of price to the dealer for the booking of vehicle is concerned, it is submitted that the custom- er makes th...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Optical Communication Ltd. Vs. Department of Telecommunication ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ241
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. By this order plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for interim injunction against invocation and encashment of bid security bank guarantee (No.2/98 dated 12.3.1998 issued by defendant No.2 - Punjab National Bank) on behalf of plaintiff in favor of defendant No.1 for Rs.25.00 lakhs is being disposed of. 2. Briefly the facts are that defendant No.1 on 20.1.1998 floated a Tender (Tender No.MM/OF/121997/000116) for supply of 6F Optical Fibre Cables along with accessories for a quantity of 13000 Kms. later increased to 13624 Kms. Plaintiff had submitted tender for the same along with bid security in the form of a Bank Guarantee in the sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs as per condition of the bid tender documents. Plaintiff's bid being the lowest was accepted on 15.4.1998. However as provided in clause 11 of Special Conditions of Contract, (Section IV) the quantity to be supplied was allocated among ten lowest bidders by adopting the formula of Vendor Rating. Total...
Tag this Judgment!Courts of Its Own Motion Vs. Inspector Akhilesh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001CriLJ68
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. On reference being made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to initiate contempt of Court proceedings, notice was issued to Inspector Akhilesh Kumar vide order of this Court dated 10th December, 1999. 2. Briefly stated the facts which gave rise to the initiation of contempt proceedings are that in case FIR No.517/96, Police Station Lajpat Nagar titled 'State v. Farooq Ahmad & Ors.' under Section 120-B/301/302 IPC contemner Inspector Akhilesh Kumar of Rajasthan Police filed an application praying therein that the accuseds, namely, Abdul Mirza Hussain, Farooq Ahmad Khan, Mohd. Ali Bhat and Latif Ahmad Vaza be permitted to be produced before the Court at Bandikui, District Dosa, Rajasthan on 9th July,1999. That they may be permitted to be taken from Tihar Jail, Delhi to Rajasthan. Inspector Akhilesh Kumar undertook to the Court by way of an affidavit that he would produce accused Javed in the Court at Delhi on the date fixed i.e. 16th July, 1999. On the basis of...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Pal Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ85
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. For a princely sum of Rs. 5. Pintoo (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) lost his life as a result of stab injury and appellant, Dharam Pal Singh, (hereinafter referred to as the accused) is stated to be author of the crime. 2. Background facts which led to the trial of accused, his conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (in short IPC) and award of sentence for imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation of one year imprisonment is essentially as follows : On 1.9.1990, the deceased a riksha puller was seen demanding his fare from the accused near Old Delhi Railway Station. Since the accused did not pay the fare, deceased stopped him in the verandah and again demanded Rs.5/- of his wages and when accused did not pay, the deceased caught hold of him by his collar and grappled with him. At this the accused uttered that he will soon be paid the money. Saying so, accused took out a veget...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maharaj Krishan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]246ITR327(Delhi)
1. Accepting a prayer under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), made by the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal'), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied upon the assessed under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act ?'2. The factual position as borne out from the statement of case is as follows:Mr. Maharaj Krishan (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') had filed his return of income for the assessment year 1958-59. The same was dealt with and an order of assessment was passed on March 28, 1963. As there was delay in filing the return, the Income-tax Officer directed, inter alia, in the assessment order as follows : 'Issue demand notice and challan. Allow L. I. P. Rebate on Rs. 1,069 and on tax paid by R. E. Also issue penalty notice for late filing of the return.' (underlined for emph...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maharaj Krishan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]246ITR327(Delhi)
Accepting a prayer under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), made by the revenue , the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied upon the assessed under section 271(1)(a) of the Act ?'The factual position as borne out from the statement of case is as follows:2. Mr. Maharaj Krishan (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') had filed his return of income for the assessment year 1958-59. The same was dealt with and an order of assessment was passed on 28-3-1963. As there was delay in filing the return, the Income Tax Officer directed inter alia in the assessment order as follows :'Issue demand notice and challan. Allow L. I. P. Rebate on Rs. 1,069 and on tax paid by R. E. Also issue penalty notice for late filing of the ret...
Tag this Judgment!Sharifa Yusupeva Sayeda Zimova Vs. Poonam Puri, Air Customs Officer
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002(142)ELT39(Del)
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. By this petition Criminal Misc. (Main) Petition No. 2003/2000, the petitioner has sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in Customs case under Sections 21/23/28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). He has impugned the order dated 8-5-2000 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, on an application of bail made to her, has rejected the bail on the ground of an embargo of Section 37 of the Act which, according to her, is couched in the negative language and, thereforee, declined bail. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who purportedly came into the country to do business in garments, was detained by the Customs authorities on 4-4-2000 and from her effects was recovered 1,77,5000 Diazepam (5 mg.) tablets. On the recovery of the same, she was detained for having committed offence under the A...
Tag this Judgment!Kul Hind Tanziam-e-masjid (Registered) Vs. Delhi Wakf Board and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ790
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. As there was no representation on behalf of Respondents on 18.7.2001 they were proceeded ex parte. Ms. Nandini Ramachandran, learned counsel for UOI had only put in appearance for the Respondents on 24.7.2001 and stated that the said Respondent No.5 shall abide by the Orders of this Court.2. In this petition filed on behalf of Imams of various Masjids in delhi, through the Petitioner-Society, the prayer is for the issuance of a mandamus directing Respondents 1 to 3 to pay the salaries and wages with all consequential benefits to the Imams, members of the Petitioner-Society. Earlier, a petition had been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, for enforcement of the fundamental rights of the Imams, against their exploitation by Wakf Boards and for payment of their basic wages to enable them to survive. In those proceedings - All India Imam Organisation v. Union of India, : [1993]3SCR742 , following directions were passed.'6. In the circumstances we allow thi...
Tag this Judgment!Kodak India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT531TriDel
1. In this appeal, as-sessee challenges the correctness of order-in-appeal No. 113-CE/BPL/2000 dated 24-1-2000. By that order, appellate authority confirmed order-in-original No. 66/CEx/DEM/AC dated 16-3-98 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Gwalior.Assessee was engaged in the manufacture of chemical preparations for photographic use. They filed price lists in part IV on 14-6-94 claming deduction on account of trade discount; additional discount, turnover discount, expenses on account of freight; transit insurance; octroi and other taxes; interest on receivables, secondary packing and central excise duty. The deduction claimed by the assessee was disputed by the department and notice dated 24-2-94 was issued calling upon them to show cause why turnover discount, interest on receivables and secondary packing should not be denied. Assistant Commissioner who went into the issue disallowed turnover discount, interest on receivables and cost of card board boxes as per order-...
Tag this Judgment!Vineet Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT103TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Vineet Appliances (P) Ltd., the matter relates to the admissibility of Notification No. 73/89-CE., dated 1-3-1989 (as amended), to the product referred to as Weather Maker. The Weather Maker was an evaporative type of cooler with facility for blowing hot air. A hot blower was fitted in its cabinet. The Asstt.Collector of Central Excise, Delhi, who adjudicated the matter observed that the Weather Maker had got two functions - one to evaporate water and give cool air, and the other is to give warm air. It had a common blower for both the purposes. The adjudicating authority had held that the product had been designed as a cooler and its purpose of blowing hot air was only an additional function. In the Trade Parlance, it was known as a cooler and not convector. He classified the same as evaporative type of cooler. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) confirmed the view taken by the adjudicating authority observing that the additional facility of bein...
Tag this Judgment!