Delhi Court July 2001 Judgments

The Management of M/S Shafiq Memorial Higher Secondary School, Bara Hi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT261; 2002(61)DRJ238; [2002(92)FLR240]

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.1.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition in liming. The appellant had challenged in the writ petition the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.IX, New Delhi published in the gazette on 16.10.1995.2. Brief facts necessary to decide this appeal are set to as under:-3. The appellant is a recognised aided minority educational institution. Respondent No.2 Mohammed Salman Abbasi was appointed as an Upper Division clerk on a purely ad-hoc basis from 11.6.1977 to 31.12.1977. According to Rule 98 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, it is mandatory that every appointment made by the managing committee of an aided school shall, initially, be provisional and requires the approval of the Director of Educational. In other words, no appointment in an aided school can be made without the prior approval of the Director of Education. Rul...

Swaranjit Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT147

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.9.1992 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 127/1990 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 25, Arms Act and further by his order dated 17.10.1992 sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant, at the outset, does not wish to challenge the judgment of conviction but confines his arguments to the question of sentence only. He submits that the sentence undergone would suffice for the reasons that the case relates to 20.7.1991 and the appellant has already undergone a substantial portion of incarceration. He has undergone the ordeal of trial for nearly 10 years. He submits that the accused has been on bail since 5.11.1992 and that there has been no complaint about his having beli...

iqbal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ451

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.8.1992 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 159/88 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 354 IPC and further by his order dated 31.8.1992 sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for two months.2. The learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, does not challenge the Order of conviction but confines his arguments to the question of sentence only. He submits that the sentence undergone would suffice for the reasons that the case relates to 4.7.1987 and the appellant has already undergone some time in custody. He has undergone the ordeal of trial for nearly 14 years. He submits that the appellant is not a previous convict and has by now assimilated in the mainstream of society as a useful citizen. thereforee, no usefu...

Raju @ Bhajan @ Ram Bhajan @ Raju Lal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT410

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.11.1992 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 193/1990 whereby the learned Additional Sessional Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 366, IPC and further by a separate order of the same date sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo R.I. for four years with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for the three months. 2. The case when called out today, nobody appeared for the appellant in support of the appeal, inspire of warning being indicated in the cause list. Since this is a case of 1992 it can brook no further delay. Mr. R.P. Luthra is present on behalf of the Legal Aid. I, thereforee, appoint him as amices Curiae to assist me in this case. 3. With the assistance of learned amices Curiae and learned Counsel for the State, I have gone through the record of the case. Learned amices on the basis of the record submits that h...

Virender @ Pappu and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT134

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. The criminal appeal is directed against the Order dated 22.9.1992 whereby the appellants, while being admitted to the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act, were required to deposit cost of proceedings of Rs. 1,500/- each to the State totalling to Rs. 6,000/-, which shall go to the State. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were released on probation and directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,000/-. In addition thereto they were required to pay Rs. 6,000/- by way of cost to the State. He submits that Rs. 6,000/- payable as cost to the State cannot be imposed in view of the fact that the appellants have been admitted to the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. However, Rs. 6,000/- by way of compensation can be imposed.2. Learned Counsel for the Stage agrees with this proposition of law.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I direct that the fine of Rs. 1,500/- each imposed on the appellants is not payable and, thereforee, mo...

Hindustan Refrigeration Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)458; [2002]256ITR700(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN343(Delhi)

1. Heard. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The questions which have been proposed for adjudication relate to the findings of the Tribunal regarding alleged suppression of transactions. The assessed claimed that the alleged suppressed transactions were direct sales to customersby the dealer and it only received commission. This plea was rejected by the Assessing Officer. 3. We find that the Assessing Officer referred to certain books of account seized and the report received from the supplier, i.e., Kirloskar Brothers Limited (in short 'KBL'). It was noticed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short 'the CIT(A)') that there was no evidence regarding the arrangement of direct sales as claimed by the appellant. On the contrary, it was noticed by the said authority that the stand of the assessed varied from time to time and different stands were taken at different points of time. He referred to a certificate given by KBL and certain correspon...

Rohit JaIn Vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This is an appeal against the Adjudication Order No. 183/ADJ/95-E.D. (RS) of 1978 dated 31-10-1995 whereunder a penalty of Rs. 15,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravening provision of section 9(1)(a) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) for having received a cheque of Rs. 2 lakhs from Shri Sumeer Mahajan, a person resident outside India, purported to be by way of gift after paying a premium of Rs. 24,000 for the same. 2. The brief facts of the case are: On 28-10-1991 a search was conducted under section 37 of the Act at the residential premises of one Shri Sumeer Mahajan, as a result of which, foreign currency and documents were recovered and seized. The seized documents included pass-book of various NRE accounts of different persons reported to be settled outside India, blank gift forms and gift deeds. In his statement dated 28-10-1991. Shri Sumeer Mahajan has, inter alia, stated that number of NRE accounts with different Banks in Delhi were opened after...

Chandra Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT448

ORDER AND MILITARY Army Act DISCIPLINE. Section 63 in that he, at filed, on 17th Nov. 1988, improperly utilised for himself IAFT-1752-PA/53- 869651 dated 15th Nov. 1988, single/return journey railway warrant from Jammu to New Delhi and back.' 3. The petitioner at the first instance made a grievance as to the constitution of the Court saying that the officers manning the same were subordinate to the Convening Officer against whom the petitioner had filed a statutory complaint and, thereforee, he had no confidence in the Court. This objection was adjudicated upon by the Court and over-ruled vide its order dated 15th March, 1990. The petitioner chose not to carry his grievance any further instead participated in the proceedings till the very end. He challenged the same only by way of this writ petition in 1991, where inter alias he took grounds of bias based on his objections taken by him earlier before the Court.4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner who has strenuously ar...

Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal Alias Bhagat Ji Vs. Govt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi455; 93(2001)DLT28; 2001(60)DRJ297

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This is a petition filed on behalf of an association of public activists in public interest. Main grievance in this petition is that as a result of display of fire works and use thereof during festivals and marriages, physical and mental hazard is suffered by adults as well as children. Noise pollution is caused due to use of high-sounding explosive fire works and other blaring sound-producing devices and the effect of the same results in pollution in sound, which is hazardous. It is also submitted that because of indiscriminate use of loudspeakers, noise pollution has become a routine affair affecting mental as well as physical health of citizens. There is noise pollution notwithstanding specific instructions issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, Delhi. It is highlighted that manner in which sound pollution is being caused and the impact of such sound pollution on the health of the people, is a cause for great concern.2. 'Pollution' i...

Mansoor Mumtaz and ors. Vs. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi103; 93(2001)DLT851

ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. In its stark brevity sub-section (1) Section 86 of the Code of Civil procedure unfolds itself in the following words:'Suits against foreign Rulers, Ambassadors and Envoys (1) No foreign State may be sued in any Court otherwise competent to try the suit except with the consent of the Central Government certified in writing by a Secretary to that Government: Provided that a person may, as a tenant of immovable property, sue without such consent as aforesaid from whom he holds or claims to hold the property.2. Of sub-section (1) to Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes the procedure for suits against foreign rulers, ambassadors and envoys. It makes a little departure from the known forms of international law. The Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case V.D.S. Rostock (D.S.P. Lines, Deppt. of G.D.R. vs . N.C. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. : AIR1994SC516 referred to the said principle in paragraph 5 in the following words:One of the principles of Int...