Delhi Court July 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Akhtar HussaIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(78)ECC447
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 304/91, whereby the learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 25.8.1993 has held the appellant guilty under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. Further by his separate order he has sentenced the appellant to undergo an imprisonment of ten years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh).2. The case when called out today, no body appeared for the appellant in support of the appeal. Since this is a case of 1994 and has been shown on the list for a sufficient amount of time, it can brook no further delay. I, thereforee, appoint Mr. R.P. Luthra to assist the Court.3. The brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Session Judge are that:On 30.12.1990, S.I. Pran Nath of P.S. Pratap Nagar, who was on patrolling duty Along with other police officials, received a secret information about this case, he organized a raiding party and apprehended t...
Karan and Co. Vs. Itat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)361
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution), the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the assessed, calls in question legality of order dated 31-1-2001, passed by a Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in purported exercise of powers under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Factual position which is almost undisputed is as follows :The assessed had filed an appeal before the Tribunal primarily challenging the reopening of assessment under section 147(a) for assessment year 1985-86. By order dated 24-11-1993, a Bench of the Tribunal consisting of the President Shri Ch. G. Krishnamurthy and Shri Vimal Gandhi, Member, allowed the appeal. We are not very much concerned with various issues which were examined by the Tribunal for allowing the appeal in view of certain factual aspects with...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shri Vir Mohd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT746; 2002(63)DRJ136
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. Since the question that has arisen in the above entitled cases centres around the controversy of compassionate appointment, both the writ petitions shall be disposed off by this common judgment. All interim applications stand disposed off in conformity with this judgment.2. Article 16 of the Constitution of India assures to all citizens of India quality of opportunity in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the State. The respondent State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to `as the SBI') uncontrovertibly falls within the sweep of Article 12, and thereforee employment therein tantamount to `employment or appointment to any office under the State'. The dilution of the right of equality of opportunity is found in Article 16 itself, but `compassionate appointment' does not so feature. Every statute or rule or order must meticulously measure with Chapter III of the Constitution and the equality assurances contained and guaranteed therein. ...
Tirupati Lpg Industries Ltd. and Others Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT313; 2002(60)DRJ454
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. CM.4900/2001 is an application for stay and CM.6708/2001 is an application filed by respondent No.1 in C.W.No.2831/2001 for modification of Order of status quo dated 30th of May, 2001, passed on he petitioners' miscellaneous application CM.490/2001 for interim stay and Civil Writ Petitioner No.2911/2001 is another connected matter to be taken up Along with this petition. Both these applications are being disposed of by this common order. Even though the application CM.6708/2001 originally sought modification of the interim order dated 30.5.2001 qua 4,40,000 cylinders eventually the matter was argued by both the parties for modification/variation of the interim order dated 30.5.2001. Both petitions raise the challenge to what is termed as post tender negotiation contrary to CVC guidelines. The petitioners are manufacturers of LPG gas cylinders used for domestic consumption and the supply is made to government undertakings such as respondent-BPCL in what is termed...
Vinay Kumar @ Shyam Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2001VIIAD(Delhi)142; 93(2001)DLT655
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 125/1993 is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 32/1989 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 28.8.1993 held the appellant guilty under Section 306, IPC and further by order dated 30.8.1993 sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for nine months.2. Brief facts of the case are that Indu Narang wife of the appellant was married to him on 19.8.1980 and is alleged to have committed suicide on 5.10.1983 at about 11.30 p.m. at house No. J-8, Ganga Ram Vatika, Jeevani Block.3. It is the case of the prosecution that the incident of fire was deliberate and not accidental and that the same was abated by Shyam Lal, the appellant herein. The prosecution, in order to prove the case examined as many as 22 witnesses. Of them PW 17 stat...
Bhim SaIn Vs. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ489
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. The revisional before this Court stands convicted by the Courts below under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months under Section 279 IPC and RI for 1 year under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the-State and also gone through the records.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned convicted and sentence of the petitioner, mainly on the ground that the Investigating Officer was not examined before the trial Court, site plan was not proved and even mechanical inspection report was not proved. It is also submitted the P.W. 4, who was produced an eyewitness in the case, is a falsely introduced witness, but still both the Courts below gravely erred in accepting his testimony. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid infirmities and lacunas in the prosecution case call for int...
M/S S. Lall and Company Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT727; 2002(61)DRJ756
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. On the filling of the award by the arbitrator parties were noticed. Respondent-DDA filed objections. The only objection of substance that needs consideration is with `regard to claim no.1. All other objections are in the nature of challenging the findings on fact based upon material and evidence. Admittedly, the Arbitrator has not travelled beyond terms of the contract in respect of these claims.2. The main objection is that this claim comes within `Excepted Category' and as such beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. According to Mr. V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent arbitrator on the one hand has rejected claim no. 5 of the petitioner which comes under clause 25(b) of the agreement whereas has contradicted himself by allowing claim no. 1.3. Clause 25B is relevant. It reads as under:--'The decision of superintending Engineer regarding of reduction as well as well as justification there of in respect of rates for sub standard which may be decide...
Shri Paramjit Singh Ahuja Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court-vi and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT58; 2001(60)DRJ193; [2002(92)FLR112]
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner draws attention to the first order passed in these proceedings on 20th July, 1999. The contention of Learned Counsel for the petitioner had been recorded to the fact that the petitioner had offered reinstatement of the workman not only before the Conciliation Officer but even in the Lower Court but that this offer had not been acted upon. Counsel further submits that the Respondent/Workman was reinstated with effect from 18.7.2000. Predicated on a decision of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Raipur and Another, 1992 (64) FLR 741, Mr. Vohra contends that the application under Section 17-B is not maintainable at all.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, contends that no offer of reinstatement was ever made before the Conciliation Officer. He has drawn support for his contention from statement made on behalf of the...
Shri Krishan Lal Sharma and anr. Vs. Smt. Shushil Budhiraja and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ752
S.N. Kapoor, J. 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have filed the execution proceedings despite the following order dated 26th November 1999:'...In the meantime, further execution proceedings qua the appellant in FAO No. 188/96 shall remain stayed, subject to the condition of the appellant herein furnishing security for the entire decretal amount to the satisfaction of the Executing Court.'2. There is not dispute that a security to the sum of Rs. two lakhs has been given. It appears that the calculation given by the petitioner does not include the interest on the principal amount of Rs. 1,64,000/- at the rateof 2% per annum to the claimant as is mentioned in the operative portion of the judgment of the learned Trial Court. It reads as under :'In view of my findings above, I hold that the award to the extend that it hold respondent No. 1 to 4 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,64,000/- towards principal, Rs. 13,000/- towards the interest, Rs. 2,000/- as co...
Asstt. Cit Vs. Manick Chand Damani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(Del)675
ORDERR.C. Sharma, A.M.This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 20-7-1995, for the assessment year 1992-93. Following are the three grounds of appeal:'1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing the expenditure of Rs. 41,383 out of Rs. 61,438 for earning commission disallowed by the assessing officer.2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to delete the addition of notional interest income of Rs. 2,02,734.3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing the interest of Rs. 8,03,116 paid to other parties disallowed by the assessing officer'2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessed was carrying on business of ball-bearing in his proprietorship capacity-In addition to it, he was also engaged in fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »