Delhi Court January 2002 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.
Sushma Devi and ors. Vs. Rajinder Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)432; 2002CriLJ2381
Khan, J. 1. Petitioner is the wife of one Dilbag Singh who was working with respondents 1 & 2 and was on board Truck No. HR 56 1536 from Delhi to Agra on 25.1.2001 when he was reported missing. She says her brother-in-law (petitioner No. 4) had lodged a complaint with SHO P.S. Vasant Kunj alleging kidnapping and murder of her husband by respondent 1 & 2 with whom he was employed on Rs. 1,000/- per month but no action was taken in the matter. She wants CBI to locate her husband, to investigate into the matter and to prosecute respondents 1 & 2 and a compensation of Rs. 50 lacs. 2. Status report filed by official respondents shows that one Amit Kumar, s/o respondent No. 1 had also filed a complaint in this regard and no inquiry it was found that P.S. Gursarai (U.P.) had recovered the vehicle which was later released to the owner. Pursuant thereto Petitioner No. 4 (complainant) was also advised to lodge a report there. The counter filed by these Respondents later, however, states that sub...
Abdul Qahar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)380; 2002CriLJ1709
Khan, J. 1. Petitioner was detained under COFEPOSA for one year by order dated 29.1.2001. Though his detention period was to expire shortly by the end of this month but he still wants a verdict on the validity of his detention. 2. One Ms. Olga Kozireva, an Uzbek passport holder was apprehended for alleged smuggling of Chinese silk fabrics in India. Petitioner was also arrested in this connection on 30.11.2000 and later released on bail on 1.2.2001. He was eventually detained to prevent him from dealing in smuggled goods on 29.1.2001. He made a representation against this which was rejected on 26.3.01. His order of detention was thereafter referred to Advisory Board and was confirmed on 30.3.01. 3. Petitioner challenges his detention on all conceivable grounds ranging from misuse of power to vagueness and irrelevancy of grounds of detention and non-application of mind by the detaining authority. According to him, respondents had misused their power in detaining him and had served vague ...
M.L. Khan and Co. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT837; 2002(62)DRJ34
Manmohan Sarin, J 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writpetition is taken up for disposal 2. By this common order, I would be disposing of above mentioned two writ petitions as both the writ petitions raise common question regarding the reservation of contract for security services in favor of ex-servicemen and requirement for registration with Director General of Resettlement. 3. By these writ petitions, petitioners seek directions to Government of NCT of Delhi and N.C,T.D. not to violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner firm for equality and freedom of trade and business as being enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14,16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners also seek directions to N.C.T.D. for issuance of the tender document and for allowing the petitioners to participate inf the tenders. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not question the welfare measure as well as the object and the aim in introducing the provision of se...
Rajbir Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)432; 97(2002)DLT19
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule.2. Matter is taken up for final disposal with consent of learned counsel for the parties.3. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 seeking writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.7.1998 whereby the petitioner has been prematurely retired on medical grounds and to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and with other consequential benefits. 4. The petitioner was appointed as a driver with the respondent on 20.12.1983. According to the petitioner he met with an accident on 12.8.1996 and as a consequence of the accident his left femora bone was fractured and thereafter the petitioner remained under treatment till 16.2.1997. It is also stated that the Doctor also advised rest for a period of three months initially on 24.1.97 and thereafter on 27.7.1997 and 15.1.1998. The petitioner claimed that he was issued a fitness certificate by Dua Nursing Home on 26.5.1998. 5. Petitioner appeared on 2.7.1998 before the Medical Board w...
Arun Kumar Bali Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)475; 96(2002)DLT699; [2002(93)FLR625]; 2003(1)SLJ54(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a Welfare Officer with respondent No. 4 on 1.3.1993 and the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner is aggrieved by the termination of his services.2. The termination letter is dated 22.11.2001 (Annexure P2) which is a simplicities termination in terms of para 5 of the letter of appointment dated 2.3.1993. Para 5 of the letter of appointment 2.3.1993 is as under :'After confirmation, two months' notice on either side shall be required for the termination of this arrangement. The Management can, however, dispense with your services any time by paying you two months salary in lieu of notice.'3. In view of the aforesaid fact there is no doubt that termination is in terms of the appointment letter. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the terms of his appointment cannot over ride the provisions of the Factories Act 1948 and the rules made there under being the Delhi Factories Rules 1956. Learn...
Sonipat Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT767TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the refund claim, filed by the appellants, was rejected.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and they were clearing the sugar for free sale as well as the levy sugar, which is sold through Public Distribution System. The rate of duty in respect of free sale sugar is @ Rs. 85/- per quintal whereas the rate of duty in respect of levy sugar is Rs. 52/- per quintal. The levy sugar is released monthly as per the order received from the Ministry of Food and on certain occasions, the Ministry of Food directed the appellants for supply of levy sugar out of the free-sale sugar available with the unit, which is then adjusted in subsequent months as per the orders of the Ministry of Food. During the month of Nov., 1998, the Ministry of Food, New Delhi, vide letter dated 28-10-98, directed the appellants to release 512 MTs of sugar as levy sugar out of free-sale sugar. The...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. L.G. Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT673TriDel
1. Appeal No. E/446/2001-NB(D) has been filed by the Revenue on the ground that the penalty imposed in the impugned order is not in conformity with provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act inasmuch as the penalty imposed is not equal to the amount of duty evaded. The appeal contends that penalty equal to the duty determined is mandatory under Section 11AC and that there is no discretion in the adjudicating authority to impose a lower penalty.2. Through Cross-objection E/Cross/156/2001-A the assessee seeks setting aside of the impugned order.3. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides. The material facts of the case are that appellants are a manufacturer of consumer durables. The Colour Television Sets manufactured by them were liable to excise duty based on the value worked out from the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) declared on the packages of the Colour Television Sets in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1...
insulatek Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC346
1. Today the matter is posted for hearing the stay petition in pursuance of the Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 17-10-2001 in Civil Writ Petition No. 6314/2001.2. Shri Sugriva Dubey, learned Advocate, submitted that the Tribunal vide Stay Order No. 71/2001, dated 20-6-2001 directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 1 lakh; that they moved the High Court by filing the Writ Petition and High Court directed the Tribunal to hear the stay petition again for permitting the applicants to make submissions of financial hardship. He further submitted that the factory of the applicants has been closed since 1998 and the Bank has stopped the credit facilities; that the applicant has to recover more than Rs. 40 lakhs from different buyers and they have also moved National Consumer Commission for damages for a sum of Rs. 2 crores; that the petition has been disposed of with the direction to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal for counter claim as the Bank has also filed a recovery petition f...
Commissioner of Customs (Acu) Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC354
1. This is an application by Revenue for staying the implementation of Order-in-Appeal No. 734/2001 dated 6.9.2001 in which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent, M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. 2. Shri R.D. Negi, learned DR submitted that the respondents filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of a consignment of Hydraulic Power Unit, Ics and some other goods and claimed green channel facility; that the green channel facility was rejected and on examination, Item No. 2 and 6 were found to be Compact Digital Signal Processor and Demodulator Box classifiable under Heading 8537.10 and 8542.10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act; that the goods were confiscated and ordered to be released on payment of redemption fine and penalty; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly allowed the appeal observing that the importer had claimed classification under Heading 85.42 on the basis of supplier's invoice.3. On the other hand, Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advo...
Nawab Khan Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT507TriDel
1. This application arises in an appeal filed by the applicant against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the appeal preferred by the party against an adverse order passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, without going into the merits of the case.2. The applicant prays for waiver of pre-deposit of an amount of penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed on him by the adjudicating authority under Section 112 of the Act and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal.4. Ld. Advocate. Shri Imran Khan for the applicant has given a brief account of the facts of the case :- Accordingly, Indian currency of Rs. 4,98,800/- was seized along with certain documents from a vehicle hired by the present applicant on 8-4-97. The currency admittedly belonged to the applicant. In his statement recorded by the officers of Customs under Section 108 of the Customs Act, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »