Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Mr. R.L. Arora Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)725; 90(2001)DLT671; 2001(59)DRJ202

ORDERUsha Mehra, J. 1. Appellant R.L.Arora has assailed the order of his conviction dated 13th September, 99 and of sentence dated 28th October, 99 passed under Section 302 IPC, inter-alia on the grounds, that he has been convicted without there being an iota of evidence linking him with the crime. That the weapon of offence alleged to have been used in the commission of this crime proves prosecution's case to be false.2. In order to appreciate the challenge raised in this appeal, we may have quick glance at the facts of this case. Briefly stated the case of prosecution as set up was that the appellant and the deceased were in joint occupation of room No.17 in the New Delhi Municipal Corporation, Sandhya Home (hereinafter called the Home). They were not on good terms and had been quarrelling with each other. 4 or 5 days before the incident appellant and deceased fought. He was so afraid of the appellant that he never wanted to sleep with him in the same room. thereforee, with the permi...

Sh. Kishan Lal Kalra Vs. N.D.M.C.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi402; 92(2001)DLT67; 2001(59)DRJ270

ORDERA.K. SIKRI, J.1. Scars of Emergency, which was proclaimed in the year 1975, are still visible. This case is yet another example that the persons affected by the excesses of that period are still struggling to get justice. The plaintiff in this case claims himself to be a victim of Emergency era. He was given license by the NDMC to run an open air restaurant in Connaught Circus, New Delhi which he started under the name and style of 'Ramble Open Air Restaurant'. The lease was to expire on 31st May, 1978. However, the plaintiff was allegedly thrown out of the premises after taking forcible possession thereof without due process of law by the defendant which sent its demolition squad with police force on 7th August, 1976 for t his purpose. The plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs suffered allegedly by the plaintiff on this account.2. The detailed facts as mentioned in the plaint can be stated chronologically in the following manner:License ...

Shri Suraj Bhan and Another Vs. Shri Rajinder Pal Singh Lamba and Othe ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 91(2001)DLT702

ORDERB.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Instant Letters Patent Appeals No.30/1999, 31/99 & 64/99 arise out of a common judgment dated 9th of November, 1998 of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writs No.1939 of 1988 and 1152/1988 filed by Shri Rajinderpal Singh Lamba & Shri V.K. Garg respectively allowing the same in the following terms:'13. It is hereby declared that the petitioners are deemed to have been promoted as UDCs w.e.f. 1.1.1976 and that shall be the basis on which their claims for future promotions in the ladder of service would be considered by respondents 2 & 3. To the extent indicated above, the writ petition is allowed.''14. The respondents 2 & 3 shall give the benefit of this judgment to the other similarly situated persons like the petitioners, who had become graduates before 1.1.1976.''15. There shall be no order as to costs.'2. In LPA No.30/99 the appellants S/Shri Suraj Bhan and Radha Krishan assail the impugned judgment and seek reversal thereof. In LPA Nos.31/99 and 64/99 resp...

Sh. Harish Ramchandani Vs. Mr. Manu Ramchandani and ors

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)72; 91(2001)DLT480

ORDERA.K.Sikri,J.1. This application is filed under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC). Prayer made in this application is that defendants, who according to the plaintiff are in unauthorised occupation of the suit property, may be directed to deposit in this court an amount of Rs. 43,000/- p.m. from the date of filing of the suit till their continued use, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for possession, permanent injunction, recovery of original documents, damages, mesne profits with interest and costs. The parties are related to each other. In fact the defendant No. 1 is real brother of the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 is wife of defendant No. 1 and defendants 3 and 4 are the children of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff claims that he is the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the first and second floors of the property bearing Municipal No. E-182, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi (hereinafter ...

Cref Finance Limited Vs. Puri Construction Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi414; 2001(60)DRJ85

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This appeal has been filed purportedly under Clause (10) of the Letters Parent of Lahore High Court as applicable to Delhi High Court. challenge is to the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 12.2.2001 in FAO 75 OF 2001 holding the same to be not maintainable under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act). Subject matter of the said appeal was order dated 12th January, 2001 passed by the Arbitrator appointed pursuant to the directions given by this court in OMP 173/2000.2. First appeal was filed as an application before the Arbitrator to implead respondents 2 to 6 herein was rejected by the Arbitrator on the ground that there was no arbitration agreement between the appellant and the said respondents and thereforee, there is no question of impleading respondent 2 to 6 herein as parties to the arbitration proceedings. In the FAO, stand of the appellant was that order of the Arbitrator is under Section 16(2) of the Act ...

Shri Trilok Kumar Vs. the Administrator, U.T. of Delhi and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)1059; 92(2001)DLT387; 2001(59)DRJ496

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. (Oral)Rule.1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction for allotment of a specific flat in Bhikaji Cama Place, in terms of allotment letter dated 10.2.1995. Consequential directions for handing over of possession are also sought. Petitioner also questions the non-intimation of the scheme of draw of lots for adjusting Nehru Place Allottees in Bhikaji cama place. Alternatively, the petitioner demands compensation for the escalation in cost and prices to enable him to acquire comparable accommodation in Bhikaji Cama Place. He, thereforee, prays that the amount paid be refunded with market rate of interest duly compounded.2. The petitioner, an advocate by profession, had applied under the SFS Commercial Flat scheme No.1 For allotment in the year 1984. The petitioner paid in all a sum of Rs.4,82,830.05 (rupees four lacs eighty two thousand eight hundred thirty and pai...

Ganga Dass (Dead) Through His L.Rs. and Others Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)925; 91(2001)DLT433; 2001(59)DRJ231

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J. 1. The appellants/applicants are seeking review of the judgment of this Court delivered on 5.4.1984 in RFA No.167/69.2. The facts in brief are that the appellants land admeasuring about 470 bighas situate within the revenue estate of village Wazirpur, Delhi was notified for being acquired at public expense for public purpose through notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 2/3-3-1957. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 29.3.1961 for which Collector Land Acquisition made his award No.1231 on 2.12.1961. Another declaration was made on 18.4.1962 for which Collector Land Acquisition made his award No.1399. In this case we are concerned with only the land, which is the subject matter of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 29.3.1961 for which award No.1231 was made on 2.12.1961.3. While offering amount of compensation, Collector divided the land in three categories va...

Shri Narendra Aggarwal and M/S. Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Notice for today's hearing was issued to the appellants on 7.3.2001; however, none appears when the cases were called. We find that when theses appeals were listed before the Eastern Zoanl Bench at Calcutta (Where they had been filed)on 8.2.2001, none appeared and the Bench not that the registered notice had been returned unserved and that an express telegram was also issued to the appellants who did not appear inspite of notice.This shows that the appellants are not interested in pursuing these appeals. Hence, we dismiss the same for non-prosecution in terms of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982....

M/S L. Kant Paper Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Kanpur - 1

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Under Final Order No.A/160/98-NB dated 10.3.98 in appeal No.E/117/93-NB in the case of M/s.L.Kant Paper Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Kanpur, the Tribunal had upheld the findings in the impugned order as discussed in para 33 of the order. However the amount of penalty was reduced from Rs. 50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs) to Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs) (Para 34 refers). Against this order the appellants filed an application for rectification of mistake which was rejected by the Tribunal under Miscellaneous Order No.M/264/99-No(DB) dated 10.11.99.2. Shri Amit Awasthi, Advocate submits that against this rejection of the ROM application the appellants had filed reference application before the Honurable Allahabad High Court and the Honourable High Court had passed the following order:- On the facts of the case we are of the opinion that the following question of law arisen out of the order of the CEGAT. 1. Whether the Bench comprising of Mr. Jyoti Balasundaram and Mr. G.R. Sharma could deci...

Adinath Textiles Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants availed modvat credit amounting to Rs.1,13,872/- on the strength of the original copy of invoice No. 2083 dated 23.12.98.They were, however, issued a show-cause notice dated 19.3.99 by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II, Ludhiana calling upon them to show cause why this amount of modvat credit should not be denied to them on the grounds that, (i) affidavit of the goods were not made available for physical verification when the Range Officer visited their factory premises for verification of goods as required under Trade Notice No. 111-CE/94 dated 9.10.94. In reply to the show-cause notice the noticee party produced the affidavit from the driver of the vehicle that the duplicate copy of the impugned invoice was lost in transit and further submitted that the material covered by this invoice was received by them on 24.12.98 at 2020 hrs. The 25th to 27th December, 1998 being holidays, they informed the Range Officer on 28.12.98. It was also contend...