Delhi Court September 2001 Judgments

M/S Rakoor Industries Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sh. R.L. Bali, Income Tax ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]108CompCas83(Delhi); 94(2001)DLT478

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23rd May 2001 passed by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, dismissing the application of petitioner for staying the proceedings in criminal complaint No. 1229 / 1/ 97 R.L. Bali vs. M/s. Rakoor Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others. 2. In short the submission advanced by Sh. Shabmbhu Nath for petitioner whom I heard on the point of admission, was that as the Provisional Liquidator with respect to M/s. Rakoor Industries Pvt. Ltd., petitioner No.1 had been appointed in C.P.No.17/88 by the order dated 22nd May 1990, the complaint filed by respondent No.1 fro the offences punishable under section 276-C and 277 of Income Tax Act, 1962 (for short the 'Act') against the petitioner could not be proceeded except by leave of winding up court which the respondent No.1 has not obtained and, thus, the impugned order declining to stay proceedings is bad in law. He pointed out that decision in M/s. BSI Ltd. an...

Khushwant Singh and anr. Vs. Maneka Gandhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi58

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. 'He that publishes a book runs a very great hazard, since nothing can be more impossible than to compose one that may secure that approbation of every reader' - rightly observed Miguel De Cervantes. 2. Two competing interests of a well-known author to publish his autobiography where references have been made to personal lives of a public figure and the public figure's claim for protection against such publication under her rights of privacy has given rise to interesting questions of law in the present appeal. 3. Mr. Khushwant Singh, appellant No.1 is a well-known author. He was desirous of publishing his autobiography and the same was proposed to be published in a book titled 'Truth, Love and a Little Malice'. The book was to be published and distributed by appellant No.2. The book is stated to contain a chapter under heading 'Gandhi's and Anands'. respondent a public figure, is aggrieved by the contents of this chapter. The broad contents of this chapter...

Shri Inder Dev Sharma Vs. the Government of the National Capital Terri ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT422; [2002(92)FLR995]

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. Rule.2. An adjournment is prayed for on behalf of Respondent-School on the grounds that Mr. R.S. Tomar is out of station. I have perused the previous proceedings and find that Mr. Tomar has not appeared in this case at all. The prayer for adjournment is declined. In any even since the Selection was carried out by the Selection Committee under Rule 96(3)(b) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), it seems paradoxical for its Management to resist the writ petition. The adversaries in reality are the Petitioner and the School on one side and the Department of Education on the other. If this is not so there appears to be good reason to maintain that all recruitment in aided schools should be through the aegis of the Education Department which pays 95 per cent of the salaries.3. There is much wisdom in the proverb that the person who pays the piper calls the tune. In aided schools since the Government defrays 95 per cent ...

integrated Fire Protection Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Director of Purchase Air Head ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ779; 2002(144)ELT530(Del)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The main dispute involved in this petition revolves around the interpretation of the clause relating to the Customs Duty Exemption (hereinafter referred to as 'CDE') in the tender submitted by the petitioner in response to the Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as 'NIT') dated 28th November 2000 issued by the respondent No.1.2. The relevant clause for determination of the dispute involved in the writ petition in the NIT and the petitioner's and the respondent No. 5's response in their respective tenders thereto are set out below:'DETAILS OF ITEMS OFFERED: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. See/Part Description Specific at DOQ Qty. PriceNo. No. -ions--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. 321F/ Foam Liquid DS CAT No. ltr. 101,200Aqueous Film 1240-000802 1240-000802 Forming Type 6 IND/CQAFE/(Normal) for fire PFOV/0013 (c)Fighting in 20 lts. 1999Container...

Rakoor Industries (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. R. L. Bali, Ito and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR802(Delhi)

K S. Gupta, J.This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23-5-2001, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, dismissing the application of the petitioners for staying the proceedings in -R. L. Bali v. Rakoor Industries Pvt. Ltd. Criminal Complaint No. 1229/1/of 1997.2. In short the submission advanced by Sh. Shambhu Nath for the petitioners whom I heard on the point of admission, was that as the provisional liquidator with respect to Rakoor Industries Pvt. Ltd., petitioner No. 1, had been appointed in C. P. No. 17 of 1988 by the order dated 22-5-1990, the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 for the offences punishable under sections 276C and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the petitioners could not be proceeded with except by leave of winding up court which respondent No. 1 has not obtained and, thus, the impugned order declining to stay proceedings is bad in law. He pointed out that the decision in B...

Shri Balvir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Challenge in this OA is directed against the alleged improper action of the respondents in holding a fresh enquiry against the applicant on the same grounds as in the earlier enquiry.2. Heard Shri G.D. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and Shri V.S.R. Krishna, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The applicant who was recruited to Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Police. Service (DAMPS) on the basis of Civil Service Examination, 1980 (CSE-1980) joined duties on 29.6.1982. Accordingly, he was to complete his probation in June 1984, but was informed on 21.4.1988 that the same stood extended until further orders, though on reason for the same was mentioned. In the meanwhile, he was placed under suspension between 9.9.1983 and 26.2.1987, on the basis of a false complaint filed by one Shri Mit Singh to pressurise his tenant, one Shri R.S. Rati, the applicant's uncle to vacate the rented premises. The preliminary enquiry report prepared at the back of the applicant, alleged ...

i.G. Telecom Ltd. and ors. Vs. I.F.C.i. Ltd. and anr.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The appellants have urged before me that their contention that the claim application of the respondent Corporations was time barred had not been decided by the Tribunal below. On perusal of the written statement, I find that a plea of limitation was taken. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, I also find that though Learned Presiding Officer has made a mention that (he defendants have contended that the claim is time barred but there is no finding given by the Tribunal below on the lea of limitation.2. The plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. On perusal of the concerned O. A. filed by the respondent Corporations in the Tribunal below, it is to be found that no facts have been given by them as to how their claim is within time. In para 4 of the O.A. only the following has been stated : That the applicants further declare that the application is within the limitation prescribed under Sectio...

M/S M.G.F. (India) Ltd. Vs. M/S Daily Pratap and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT437; 2002(61)DRJ416

ORDERB.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Instant application is made on behalf of the respondent under Order XLVII Rule 7(2), Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 141 and Section 151 CPC seeking recall of order dated 13th May, 1999 and restoration of RA No. 24/98 as well as application for condensation of delay in filing the objections. 2. The application proceeds to state that Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate had appeared as counsel for applicants respondents on 18th March, 1999 when the case was adjourned to 13th May, 1999. However, by bonafide mistake, Ms. Saroj Bidawat got the impression that matter had been adjourned to 14th May, 1999 and she accordingly made note of 14th May, 1999 instead of 13th May, 1999 as the next date of hearing in her diary. Having misnoted the date, there was no appearance on 13.5.1999 from the side of the applicants-respondents, which accounted for dismissal of the review application and I.A. No. 9480/98 for condensation of delay in filing the objections.3. The application is ...

Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Shri Lal Chand Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT768

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This is an unfortunate dispute between Father and Son in respect of House No. 11/4314, Gali Kayasthan, 3, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. The Father has alleged in paragraph 14 of the eviction petition that his Son is an old Tenant and that no rent agreement had been executed between them. It is, however, alleged that the monthly rent is Rs. 2500/- excluding all other charges. The tenanted premises have been described as two rooms and one open courtyard as shown red in the Plan annexed to the petition. Arrears of rent are claimed with effect from 1.1.1999 and the service of Notice of Demand is not in dispute. Reliance is placed on a Rent Receipt dated 4.1.1999 recording these facts. On the observe of the Receipt there is a notation to the effect that the Son will not claim tenancy rights. The contention of the Tenant, who has filed the present petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution, is that the relationship of landlord and tenant is vehemently denied. It is st...

Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma Vs. the Ambassador, Royal Netherlands Embassy ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT615; 2002(62)DRJ581

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this order, defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint is being disposed of.The plaintiff's suit is fora decree against the defendant, for reinstatement of the plaintiff in the service of the Embassy with retrospective effect with full back wages and consequential benefits. In the alternative, plaintiff prays for a decree in the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rs.thirty lacs only) against the defendant together with interest @24% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit.2. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff after the Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India had granted permission under Section 86 of the CPC on 10.2.1998, for institution of the suit. The plaintiff had earlier field a writ petition bearing CW No.2643/91, which was disposed of this court vide orders dated 13.11.1997, directing the Ministry of External Affairs, UOI to consider the plaintiff's prayer for permission...