Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Kishori Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)742; 93(2001)DLT661; 2001(59)DRJ443

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Kishori, the appellant has been found guilty under Section 148 and under Section 302 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Accordingly, he has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. He has been awarded life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Of course, he has been granted the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.2. The Sessions Case No.55/95 had part of the main riot case bearing FIR No.426/84. On the basis of the statement of Raj Bai, the complainant, a case was registered for rioting, unlawful assembly and for the murder of her sons in which the challan was filed against one Ram Pal Saroj, the accused. Per the statement of Raj Bai dated 25th January, 1985, on 1st November, 1984 around 6.00/7....

Mr.Obaidul Rab Raufi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)1019; AIR2001Delhi454; 92(2001)DLT241; 2001(60)DRJ125

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, owner of the fourth floor of House No.D-808, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, had filed this writ petition, seeking quashing of the order requiring him to vacate the premises in question. During the course of proceedings, respondent/MCD stated that fresh show cause notices for the unauthorised construction, were being prepared and they would be served on the petitioner. These notices were then got served in Court on the petitioner. Petitioner also filed his reply to the same. A demolition order was also passed pursuant thereto. Parties were directed to maintain status quo up to 20.3.2001, to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the MCD Appellate Tribunal. The writ petition stood disposed of except for the purpose of considering the Explanationn called from Municipal officers for entertaining/processing the joint application for regularisation of owners of 3rd & 4th floors i.e. petitioner of the property.2. During the course of proceedings...

Sh. M.R. Arora Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)1001

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking quashing of bill (Annexure P-9) in the sum of Rs.65,181/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 9.10.1998, the appeal of the petitioner against the fixation of rateable value vide order dated 21.9.1993 was accepted by the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge fixed an interim rateable value of Rs.15,000/-, keeping in view that it took quite sometime to decide the remanded cases. The present grievance of the petitioner emanates out of the bill (Annexure P-9) for Rs.65,181/- as arrears.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on judgment dated 3.2.2000 in CW.No.120/2000, when this Court quashed a demand notice issued and remanded the matter back to the Assessor & Collector for re-determination and re-assessment.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tax for each year wor...

K.C. Goyal Vs. D.D.A. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)732; 92(2001)DLT353; 2001(59)DRJ412; 2001(1)RAJ468

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act of 1940 for the removal of defendant No. 3 as an arbitrator and declaring the proceedings null and void and without jurisdiction on the ground that there was no specific appointment of respondent No. 3 by the Engineer Member by name and as such the respondents were not entitled to appoint the arbitrator by designation. It is contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract agreement. View was taken by this court in M/s Strength & Sports Builders (P) Ltd vs. DDA, OMP No. 152/98 that it was wrong for the Engineer Member to appoint an arbitrator by designation as the arbitrator ought to have been appointed by name and thereforee the appointment by way of designation is null and void. In the above referred case the arbitrator was removed on the said ground.2. Clause 25 of the Arbitration clause of the 'person' to adjudicate upon the dispute of the parties. Instead of appointing a person by name...

Shri Kishan Lal Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ650

ORDERManmohan Sarin. J (Oral)1. Rule.With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to hand over possession of flat No.22-C, IInd Floor, Phase-II, Jhil Mil Area, Delhi or alternatively hand over possession of a similar flat in Jhil Mil Area. if possession of the above flat cannot be handed over.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.C. Dua submits that petitioner was entitled to flat No. 22-C, Phase II, Shivam Enclave, Jhil Mil Colony, Delhi. However, the respondent/DDA has allotted flat No.22-C, IInd Floor, Phase-II, Jhil Mil Colony.The crux of the problem appears to be that in the Jhil Mil Colony there is a block having a cluster of flats, which has come to be popularly known as 'Shivam Enclave'. It appears that the cluster of flats in the block known as 'Shivam Enclave' are preferred and coveted flats, as compared to rest of the Jhil Mil Colo...

Shiv Narayan Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT681; 2002(61)DRJ734

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Shiv Narayan, appellant in Crl. A. No. 330/97 and Jal Singh, appellant in Crl. A. No. 203/97 have assailed their order of eviction of sentence whereby they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for one year. They have also been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/- for an offence punishable under Section 201/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Of course benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted.2. Since both the appeals have arisen from a common judgment, thereforee, these appeals are taken up together and disposed by this order.3. Appellants have challenged the order of conviction dated 22nd April, 1997 and of sentence dated 25th April, 1997, inter alia, on the grounds that the circumstantial evidence c...

M/S. Majestic Auto Ltd. Vs. Cce Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has come present on behalf of the appellants on the call of the appeal. On the last date of hearing the counsel for the appellants was present and the appeal was adjourned for today, but today neither the counsel nor any other representative has come present. No request for adjournment has also been received. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.2. This appeal has been directed against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29.1.98 vide which modvat credit has been disallowed to the appellants on the original invoices as well as on 'capital goods'.3. The issues involved in the present appeal are only two (l) whether the disputed goods satisfy the definition of 'capital goods' for the purpose of modvat credit under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules and (ii) whether the modvat credit could be claimed on the basis of the original invoices by the appellants.4. Regarding the first issue, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in latest pronounc...

M/S. L. Kant Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Amit Awasthi, Advocate prays for withdrawal of his stay application. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR has no objection. The stay application is dismissed as withdrawn.2. If there is any demand as a consequence of the impugned order in appeal then both the sides are at liberty to mention the matter and then appellants will have to seek stay of the recovery and pre-deposit before the appeal is heard. With these observations, the stay application is dismissed. The Registry to post the appeal in due course for regular hearing....

M/S. Shreeji Processors (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise has decided the assessee's claim for abatement of duty amounting to Rs. 2,32,258/- on proportionate basis for the closure of their stenter machine between 12 and 24 March 99. he has held that they are entitled to abatement of Rs. 1,93,548/-.He has held that the abatement claim sanctioned is to be adjusted by the Range Officer against pending demand of duty on account of addition of galleries in the capacity of the stenters.2. The assessees who are represented by their Counsel, Shri K.K. Anand submits that the question of adjustment of the amount sanctioned does not arise in view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2001 (127) ELT 679 wherein it has been held that the length of galleries are not to be included for computation of the length of galleries are not to be included for computation of the length of stenter. He, therefore, prays that the case may be remanded to the adjudicating a...

M/S. J.C.T. Electronics Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned ordr dated 18.11.99 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide which he had disallowed the modvat credit on the goods in dispute by holding the same to be not 'capital goods', to the appellants.2. It has been submitted by both the sides that the question as to whether the disputed goods fall within the ambit of 'capital goods' or not deserves to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority in the light of the latest Larger Bench decision in CCE Indore Vs. Surya Roshini, 20001(42) RLT 817(LB). We have also gone through the impugned order and the record and in our view the submission of both the sides deserves to be accepted. The decision of the larger Bench in the above cited case was not available to the Commissioner(Appeals) when he passed the impugned order. The question, whether the disputed goods satisfy the definition of 'capital goods' requires to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority in the (sic) above said ...