Delhi Court December 2001 Judgments

Majhar @ Papoo and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(3)Crimes90; 96(2002)DLT566; I(2002)DMC510; 2002(1)JCC515

K.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the petitioners seek quashment of FIR No. 15/2001 under Section 498-A, IPC, PS Bara Hindu Rao as also setting aside of the order directing issuance of summons to them to face trial in the proceedings emanating from the said FIR.2. Copy of FIR No. 15/2001 registered on 17th January, 2001 on the complaint of Smt. Guleshadabad made to in charge, Crime Against Women Cell, North District, is placed at page 24 to 26 whereas copy of complaint on the basis whereof FIR came to be registered is at pages 31 to 37 on the file. Indisputable, petitioners are the brothers-in-law (Devars) of Smt. Guleshadabad, complainant. It is also not in dispute that said FIR does not contain any allegation constituting the offence under Section 498-A, IPC against the petitioner. It was contended by Mr. M.N. Dudeja for State that criminal liability for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC is sought to be fastened against the petitioners on the basis of s...

D.R. Gupta Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT543; 2002(61)DRJ334

K.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks setting aside of summoning order dated 29th January 2000 and quashing of complaint case No. 174/1/99 - S.K. Khurana v. Singhal Holdings Pvt. Ltd and Ors. pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate.2. Said complaint (No. 174/1/99) under Section 138 read with Section141 the of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the 'Act') and Section 420 IPC was filed by S.K. Khurana, respondent No. 2 herein alleging that Singhal Holdings Pvt. Ltd, accused No. 1 is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. R.P. Gupta, accused No. 2 and D.R. Gupta, accused No. 3/petitioner are the directors of accused No. 1 and are responsible for the day to day running of company. Accused No. 1 company invited applications for allotment of residential flats to be constructed at Village Bijwasan. Complainant applied for allotment of a two bed room flat having a covered area of 900 sq. yds. and he was allotted...

Faridabad Iron and Steel Traders Association Vs. Union of India and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2001)DLT763; 2002(61)DRJ445; 2002(80)ECC59; 2002(140)ELT378(Del)

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The virus of Rule 3.11 as contained in Central Excise Manual, 2001-02 which is questioned in this writ petition, is in the following terms:'3.11 Provision has been made for permitting the CENVAT credit when the inputs or capital goods are purchased from the first stage dealer or from the second stage dealer. These dealers should be registered under rule 9 of the Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001. The other procedural requirements in respect of first stage dealer and second stage dealer will continue as in the case of modvat rules.'2. The contention of the petitioner is that the said administrative instruction is contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions contained in Rule 52AA(5)(c) of the Central Excise Rules 2001. The only question which has been canvassed at the bar is as to whether, having regard tot he fact that the said rule was deleted, the respondents could issue the impugned administrative instruction.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that...

Bahubali Exports (India) and anr. Vs. Joint Director General Foreign T ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)970; 2002(143)ELT54(Del)

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. Rule. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken uptoday for final hearing. 3. This writ petition challenges the denial of the benefitto the petitioner of Clause 66 of the Export-Import Policy1992-97 which reads as follows: 'Exports/supplies made from thedate of receipt of an application underthis scheme by the licensing authoritymay be accepted towards discharge ofexport obligation. If the applicationis approved, the license shall beissued based on the input/output andvalue addition norms in force on thedate of receipt of the application bythe licensing authority in proportionto the provisional exports already madetill any amendment in the norms isnotified. For the remainder of theexports, the Policy/Procedure in forceon the date of the issue of the licenseshall be applicable. The conversion ofduty free shipping bills to drawbackshipping bills may also be permitted bythe Customs authorities in case theapplication is rejected or modified bythe licensing...

Mitsubishi Corporation Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Del)294; [2002]256ITR458(Delhi); [2002]122TAXMAN663(Delhi)

1. The petitioner in this writ petition has questioned a show-cause notice.2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the impugned show-cause notice should not have been issued as thereby the penalty proceedings are sought to be revived which were earlier dropped. Such a contention, in our opinion, can be raised before the concerned respondent. It is now well settled that although this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition, wherein determination of writ jurisdictional fact is involved, such a power should not ordinarily be exercised, keeping in view the fact that such jurisdictional fact can be raised, at the first instance before the competent authority. In Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Their Workmen : (1962)IILLJ227SC , the apex court has held as under :'The High Court undoubtedly has jurisdiction to ask the Industrial Tribunal to stay its hands and to embark upon the preliminary enquiry itself. The juri...

Vijay Kumar Batish Vs. State Through Government of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT56; 2002(61)DRJ509

K.S. Gupta 1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 474/2000 under Sections 420, 467, 471, IPC, PS Lajpat Nagar.2. Anil Kumar made a complaint to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi against the petitioner, inter alia, alleging that in a raid conducted at the clinic of petitioner a number of objectionable documents were recovered and he has learnt that those documents also included a General Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by his deceased-father in favor of petitioner. Petitioner has fabricated documents regarding Shop No. 2/22, Main Market, Amritpuri, Garhi, Lajpat Nagar which is part of property measuring 300 sq. yds. in Khasra No. 143 which his father Des Raj Nagpal and uncle Kishanlal had purchased under a registered sale deed dated 14th February, 1966. His father expired on 8th August, 1996. On the basis of forged General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell etc. the petitioner has obtained ex-parte eviction order against him and he ...

Trans Asian Industries Exposition Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Indian Council of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ692

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties matter has been heard and disposed of finally.2. The petitioner had approached respondent No. 1 for taking the premises forming part of Sapru House on license basis. It appears that after negotiations, the respondent agreed to hand over the premises to the petitioner on license basis and an agreement for license was entered into between the parties for giving the premises on license to the petitioner. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as assurance on 15.2.2000 to respondent No. 1 in fulfillmentof his part of the obligations under the aforesaid agreement. The premises could be given on license by respondent No. 1 only after permission to that effect was given by Land and Development Office. Respondent No. 1 was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. By an Ordinance issued by the Government of India on 1.9.2000, the functions of respondent No. 1 were taken over by the Government and it was declared to be a...

Deen Dayal Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)557; 96(2002)DLT550; 2003(1)SLJ7(Delhi); 2002(4)SLR727

Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this court withthe prayer that the appointment of respondentNo. 7 to the post of selection grade as AssistantTeacher with effect from 13.12.1978 be setaside. The petitioner has also prayed that heis entitled to be promoted to the post ofselection grade in the cadre of AssistantTeacher on the basis of his seniority in thesame school. The petitioner has also prayedthat he be given all the consequential benefitswhich ought to have accrued to him on hispromotion to the post of selection grade in thecadre of Assistant Teacher. 2. Brief fats which are necessary to dispose ofthe writ petition are recapitulated as under. 3. The petitioner was appointed as AssistantTeacher in the S.D. Dev Nagari Pathshala, aprimary school aided by the Delhi MunicipalCorporation and owned by Sanatan Dharam Sabha(Regd.) on 1.4.1958 in the pay scale ofRs. 330-500. He was confirmed in the same schoolin the same post and held a lien on the samepost. 4. On 17.9.19...

Sharma Goel and Company Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited

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 4.10.2001, passed by District Forum (Central), I.S.B.T., Kashmiri Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1120/1999 entitled M/s. Sharma Goel and Company v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant, a partnership concern through one of its partners, had filed a complaint, before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Act averring that the appellant had purchased a Ceilo car, bearing registration No. HR-26-C-9451, on 2.5.1996. It was stated that the car so purchased by the appellant was financed by Canara Bank and was insured with the respondent for the period from 6.5.1997 to 5.5.1998 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The abovesaid vehicle was stolen on 18.4.1998. An intimation regarding the thef...

Telephone Cables Ltd. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT466; 2002(62)DRJ23

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This is an application for interim relief in a writ petition in which the petitioner has challenged the award of a part tender to respondent No.4, M/s. NICCO Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'NICCO') by the Bharat Sachar Nigam Ltd (hereinafter referred to as BSNL) which is a public sector undertaking and indisputably amenable to writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is M/s Telephone Cables Ltd., the respondent No.1 is Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., the respondent No. 2 is the Director (MMT), BSNL, the respondent No.3 is the CGM(QA), BSNL & respondent No.4 is the NICCO Corporation Ltd. The writ petition avers as under: On 27.3.01, the respondent No.1 invited tenders for supply of 441 LC KM (expand) of Polythene Insulated Jelly Filled (PIJF) cables. Different shares of the tendered quantity is awarded to the bidders in accordance with their Vendor Rating (VR) consisting of 3 components namely Delivery Rating (DR) having a weightage of 30%, Price Rating (PR) ha...