Delhi Court August 2001 Judgments

Anita and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT495; II(2001)DMC437

ORDER1. On the basis of statement of Smt. Raj Bala, mother of deceased Sudesh, case was registered under Section 498-A/304B/34, IPC on 13th June, 2001. Submissions advanced by Mr. Ali, Advocate is that petitioner No.1 is the married sister-in-law of deceased while petitioner No.2 is her husband and both of them have been staying separately in village Barah which is at a distance of about 60 kms. away from the house of in-laws of the deceased in Narela; that the role attributed to petitioners in the FIR is that whenever the petitioners visited in-laws house of the deceased they used to instigate her father-in-law, mother-in-law and other family members in complaining that she had not brought scooter, colour TV and cash from her parents. In support of grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners, he has placed reliance on the decisions in Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana, : (1995)1SCC349 ; Promila Malhotra v. State, 1995 (2) C.C.C 257 (HC); and Madhu v. State of Punjab, 1998(3) C.C. C...

Cit Vs. Associated Techno Plastics (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]120TAXMAN788(Delhi)

ORDERHeard the learned counsels for the parties.2. Admit.3. The following question of law shall be adjudicated upon:'Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has no application to the facts of the case?'4. The appellant shall file within three months ten copies of the cyclostyled paper books, containing all documents on which reliance was placed before the Tribunal, including any order/orders, either in the case of the assessed itself or in case of any other assessed, which has been followed by the Tribunal.5. The appeal be listed for hearing in the regular course....

Khan Carpets Export Ltd Vs. Deputy Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is against the Adjudication Order No. 45/2001 /DD(VS) dated 29-11-2000 of the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Calcutta, whereby a consolidated penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs is imposed on the appellants for contravening the provisions of section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Vide Memorandum No. C-70/99 SCN/DD dated 22-11-1999, the appellant-company was charged with failure to take steps to realise the total export proceed amounting to DM 1,63,866.89 from the German buyer in respect of two consignments vide GR Form Nos. AL375281 dated 30-5-1996 and AL935203 dated 1-7-1996 and thereby contravened the provisions of section 18(2) read with section 18(3) and was asked to show- cause why action should not be taken for the said contravention of the provisions of the Act. In their reply, the company admitted the non- realisation of the amount but denied the charge that they have failed to take reasonable steps for its realisation and stat...

Washeem and Bros. Vs. Assistant Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This is an appeal against the Adjudication Order No. 02/SVI/2001 dated 16-1-2001 of Assistant Director of Enforcement in File No. T-4/81/Exp./VSI/99 whereby a penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed on the Appellant firm Washeem and Brothers, Varanasi, to be disposed of by its partners as the firm has already gone into liquidation for contravention of the provisions of section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). 2. The Appellant-firm has been charged with failure to take all reasonable steps to realise the outstanding export proceeds. It is seen that the Appellant-firm effected shipment of carpets for export to Germany under cover of GR Forms No. AH207153 for US $ 32514.14, AH 414933 for DM 10886.88, AH 206316 for DM 10365.21 and AM 268573 for DM 15865.50 and the said export proceed remained unrealised. In their reply to the show-cause notice, the Appellant-firm named their Banker for failure to take necessary action for realisation o...

Rajinder Kumar @ Pappu Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ4580; 94(2001)DLT201; 2001(60)DRJ111; 2001(78)ECC37

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th August, 2000 and order dated 19th August, 2000 of an Addl. Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the 'Act') and sentencing him to undergo RI for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac. In default of payment of fine, the appellant is to further undergo RI for one year.2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22nd June, 1998 at about 11.40 AM, SI Joginder Singh received secret information that around 2.15 PM two boys possessing Opium/Smack - one having dark complexion and another whitish complexion and both wearing pants of black colour, after alighting at Khazuri Khas bus stand would go to Jai Prakash Nagar via Yamuna Pushta. This information was recorded by SI Joginder Singh in the DD at Seriall No. 10-A. Thereafter, he organized a raiding party and included therein SI Sanjay Sharma, HC Satyaveer Singh, Constables ...

Mr. Suresh Vs. Mr. Sandeep Kartia and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT597

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred as Act) Along with application for condensation of delay whereby the award dated 18.10.99 has been challenged.2. At the outset counsel for the respondent has taken the objections that the petition as well as the application for condensation of delay are bared by time as per averments of the petitioner. IN para 6 of the application the petitioner has categorically stated that he has received the signed copy of the award only on 5th November, 1999. The award is dated 18.10.99. However, the verification has been signed on 27th April, 2000.3. Sub section (3) of Section 34 of the Act provides that an application for setting aside the award may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been...

Syed Nasir HussaIn Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT711; 2001(60)DRJ255

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 15th May, 20001 of an Additional Sessions Judge in criminal appeal No. 87/99/97 upholding the judgment dated 30th January 1997 and order dated 1st February 1997 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the appellants were convicted under section 2(ia)(a)(j)(1) of PFA Act and appellant No.1 was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- while appellant No.2 to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant No.1 was to further undergo S.I. for 3 months.2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19th February 1987 at Karim Hotal, 16, Gali Kababian, Jama Masjid (appellant No.2), Syed Nasir Hussain (appellant No.1), nominee of hotel sold to N.N. Sharma, Food Inspector, a sample of 500 gms of Chicken Biryani for analysis on payment of Rs. 30/-. One part of sample was sent to Public Analyst who vide report No. PFA/Enf. (87)/MS/201/338 dated 25th February 1...

M/S. Veerumal Praveen Kumar Vs. M/S. Needle Industries (India) Ltd. an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT600

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A suit was filed by the respondents against the appellant herein for permanent injunction and recovery of damages under sections 105 and 106 of the Trade and merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with section 1962 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The suit is in respect of Snap Fasteners and the respondents claimed relief against packaging with the colour scheme orange and grey and a lay out and get up identical or deceptively similar being used by the appellant to that of the respondents under the copyright of 'Pony Card' and/or use of the trademark '555' and/or impugned cards bearing the trademark '555' apart from claiming a money decree for damages. Respondent no.1 stated in the plaint that they were a subsidiary of a British manufacturer of hand sewing needles, kitting pins and other similar products and during its growth benefited from the technology and skilled personnel from respondent no.2. There was a license agreement be...

Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. Vs. the Appellate Authority (Under the P ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002(92)FLR676]

ORDERDr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dt. 28.1.2000 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and also against the order dt. 8.1.98 passed by the Controller Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act allowing the application filed by respondent No. 2 herein under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and holding that the respondent No. 2 is entitled to receive payment of gratuity of an amount of Rs. 39,937.50 to be paid along with interest @ 10% from 9.4.91 till the date of actual payment of the said amount.2. The respondent No. 2 herein filed an application under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in the said application he prayed that he should be paid Rs. 48,535/- as his gratuity amount with interest. It was stated in the said application that respondent No. 2 was appointed by the petitioner on 25.9.1978 and he was r...

Air Com. K.P. Sreekant Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ257

ORDERDr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for quashing of the annual report generated by respondent No.4 for the period from 1.10.1999 to 31.9.2000 and also for setting aside the proceedings of the Special Review Board conducted by the respondents for the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Air Vice Marshal and also for quashing the letter dated 20.4.2001 issued by respondents to the petitioner intimating him that consequent upon drop in his performance his clearance for promotion by Promotion 1/2000 was reviewed and on this basis of the review the petitioner did not make the grade for promotion to the acting rank of Air Vice Marshal.2. The petitioner is a serving Air Commodore in the Indian Air Force. The petitioner was commissioned in the Fighter Stream of the Indian Air Force in the year 1966 and since then the petitioner has more than 34 years of service in the Indian Air Force. While working as aforesaid the petitioner wa...