Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Manisha Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)485; 2001CriLJ2718; 91(2001)DLT541; 2001(59)DRJ187

ORDERR.C.Chopra, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 397, 401 read with Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order dated 20th October, 2000 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi whereby a complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was dismissed in default on account of absence of the complainant.2. I have heard Shri Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Rajiv Garg, learned counsel for the respondents.3. According to the petitioner a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed on its behalf was pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. On 6th July, 2000 when the petitioner's counsel went to the Court with an exemption application on behalf of the petitioner neither the respondents nor their counsel were there and as such the matter was passed over to be taken up later. When the case was taken up again learned counsel for the petitioner ...

Rakesh Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)1111; 2001CriLJ2978; 91(2001)DLT86; 2001(58)DRJ664

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.. 1. Admit. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28th February, 2001 passed by the court of Shri H S Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi upholding the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial court ordering the petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (for short RI) for one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to further undergo RI for three months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the point involved in this petition is very short; that the petitioner does not want to challenge his conviction on merits and that the revision be heard and disposed of at this stage itself. 3. Brief facts are that as per the prosecution case, the Food Inspector took the sample of 'Lal Mirch Powder' from the petitioner on 4-12-91 for analysis under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). The sample was declared to be adulterated by the Public Analyst...

Smt. Meenu Bakshi Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002(94)FLR475]

ORDERMukundakam Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in one branches of State Bank of India, in Delhi, after quashing the order dated 27.11.96 whereby the Bank has declined to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.2. The husband of the petitioner was working as an Accountant in the Jodhpur Branch of State Bank of India. A criminal case was registered against the husband of the petitioner on the allegation that he perpetrated a fraud to the tune of RS. 4,53,000/- while working as Accountant at I.A.F. Station Branch, Jodhpur. The said case was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and in its report the CBI recommended prosecution against the husband of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner was placed under suspension on 1.2.92 and a charge sheet was also issued to him. However, the husband of the petitioner expired on 1.6.94 at the a...

Shri Anand Kumar Makkar Vs. I.i.T, Delhi and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ407

Held:However, atleast two of the petitioners by virtue of the interim orders have now worked for several years in the post of Senior Research Assistants and by now must have crossed the age limit prescribed as maximum age for a new and fresh appointment. Accordingly, it is observed that the respondent Institute would consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law and merit for appropriate positions in the Institute as and when the same is available and in that event the bar of age, if any, shall be condoned and their past services rendered ' in the Institute shall be given due weightage. Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. As the facts and issues that arise for determination in these writ petitions are similar, I propose to dispose of all the aforesaid writ petitions by this common judgment and order.2. The petitioners herein were appointed on different dates as Senior Research Assistants by the respondent/Institute. Since actions were being taken by the respondent/Institute to te...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sahni Silk Mills P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]253ITR294(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (in short 'the Tribunal') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 51,528 made by the Income-tax Officer, being the difference between 12 per cent., i.e., the rate of interest which was charged by the assessed on the advances made to the three concerns, and 16 per cent., i.e., the rate of interest paid by the assessed on its own borrowings during the assessment year 1976-77 ?' 2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77 and the controversy lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows : The assessed is a private limited company deriving income from the manufacture and also of knitted fabrics made of nylon and art ...

Bakshi Jagdev Singh Decd. Through L.R. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.P. Saberwal, Member: 1. The present complaint was filed by Shri Bakshi Jagdev Singh, proprietor of M/s. Delhi Ghaziabad Transport Company under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The complainant was running goods transport business under the name and style of Delhi Ghaziabad Motor Transport Company (Regd.) at prominent place of business at Pul Mithai, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. At the time of ASIAD the complainant was up-rooted from his business place and was allotted plot No. 121, Transport Centre, Rohtak Road, New Delhi. Possession of the said plot was handed over to the complainant on 4.5.1982 by Delhi Development Authority. It is alleged that the complainant wanted to make payment of the plot to the opposite party and also wanted to construct the plot to run his business. It is further alleged that the complainant paid several personal visits to office of D.D.A. and requested for issue of Demand Note but it was not issued. On 8.8.1986, ...

M/S. Mansarovar Pearls Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC661

1. The above application for stay of operation arises out of the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Airport, Mumbai who has upheld the findings of the Joint Commissioner of Customs, that the goods imported viz. fresh water pearls, articles of fresh water pearls and fresh water pearls (worked cultured) were misdeclared regarding description and value and that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act since their import required specific licence for their clearance, which the importers did not produce.2. Learned Counsel, Shri C.L. Bhanot contends that the charge of misdeclaration of the description os not sustainable since the goods were found to conform to the description in the Bill of Entry filed and that the charge of under valuation is also not sustainable as the importers had declared correct value. On the other hand, learned SDR, Shri P.K. Jain submits that there is a clear case of misdeclaration of the description...

M/S. King Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order dated 13.10.2000 passed by the Commissioner. The issue in this appeal relates to the redetermination of the annual production capacity of the unit of the appellants who are operating an hot steel re-rolling mill and manufacturing hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel which are chargeable to duty in terms of Section 3-A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 read with Notification No.31/97-CE(NT) dated 1.8.97, according to the annual production capacity of the unit.2. The appellants changed the parameters of their re-rolling mill in terms of Rule 4(2) of the HRRSMACD Rules, 1997 and they also filed the revised declaration dated 11.3.99 and letter dated 17.3.2000 as required under Rule 3(1) of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. They also filed Chartered Engineer's certificate dated 11.3.99 who certified the correctness of their declaration. The Commissioner also got the verifi...

M/S Jodhpur Supply Co. 3. Sh. Tarun Vs. Cce Delhi Iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC392

1. The issue involved in these four appeals, arising out of a Common Order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi III is whether the nylonfabrie bags bearing brand name "Reebok" valued at Rs. 2,41,72/- seized from tempo on 10-9-1997, nylon/canvas bags bearing brand name "Reebok" and "Levis" valued at Rs. 1,44,548 seized from the factory premises of M/s Jodhpur Supply Co. on 10-9-1997, bags bearing name "Reebok" valued at Rs. 4,78,354 seized from the premises of M/s Reebok India co. and Leather Pad, diaries Wallets valued at Rs. 28,92,570.94 p. seized from the premises of M/s Crew B O.S.Products P.Ltd on 10-9-1997 are liable to Confiscation under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules and Whether Penalty is imposable on all the Appellants.2.1 Shri R. K. Kapoor, ld. Advocate for Appellants M/s Jodhpur Supply Company, M/s Crew B.O.S. products Pvt. Ltd and Shri Tarun Oberoi, submitted that the main case of the Revenue against Appellant No. 1 related to demand of duty of excise ...

M/S. Weston Electronics Ltd. Vs. Cce New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellants herein who hold value based advance licence manufactured Aluminum Electrolytic Capacitors valued at Rs. 16,25,249/- out of inputs imported duty free under notification No. 203/92 and exported the same. As per condition No.V(a) of the notification, modvat credit under Rule 57(A) Central Excise could not be availed. It came to the notice of the department that appellants availed (sic) amount of Rs. 3,38,789/- on inputs used in the exported goods thereby violating the condition of the notification. In terms of Govt. Of India circular dated 10.1.97, they were given an option to reverse modvat credit alongwith interest @ 24% per annum up to 31.1.97 failing which they would be liable to penal action. Appellants reversed modvat credit but did not pay the interest amount of Rs.2,74,052/- accrued on that credit. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 18.2.98 was issued to the appellants, proposing recovery of duty alongwith interest on inputs effected under V.B.A.L. licence and pro...