Delhi Court November 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.
P. Das Gupta Vs. State (Thru C.B.i.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1055; 101(2002)DLT193; 2003(66)DRJ129
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the moment he will appear in the court of learned Special Judge, he will be taken into custody as the learned Special Judge as a matter of practice is taking everybody into custody against whom CBI files challan by way of rejecting the bail application. An instance cited is of co-accused Dr. Bhawna Doshi whose bail application was dismissed on the date she appeared in the court of learned Special Judge and was taken in custody on the same day. Bail application of Dr. Bhawna Doshi was rejected on the ground that there is reasonable possibility of her trying to influence the witnesses if she is enlarged on bail.2. However, co-accused Dr. Bhawna Doshi was granted bail by this court on 8.4.2002. The only allegation against her was that she had arranged air tickets for the petitioner and his family members. For this offence, the learned Special Judge rejected her bail application by a length order. It was only in view of the ...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shri Jai Bhagwan, Ex Driver
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ77; [2003(96)FLR979]; (2003)ILLJ1029Del; 2003(1)SLJ100(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The Order which has been impugned in this Writ Petition is dated 23rd September, 1996 in which the Hon'ble Tribunal-II had dismissed the 'Approval' application of the Petitioner as a consequence of the Management's failure to pay costs.2. Ms. Kittoo Bajaj, learned counsel for the respondent at the very threshold, concedes that the Order of dismissal of the Approval application on the ground of non-payment of costs may not be sustainable in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 480/00 entitled Delhi Transport Corporation v. Shri Hari Narain girl and Anr. The Hon'ble Division Bench had followed the view of the Apex Court in Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Sri Ram Kunwar, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi and Ors. AIR 1957 SC 276 holding that in terms of Section 11(7) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the costs of the proceedings would mean costs of the entire proceedings as determined on its conclusion and not costs in a pending proceedings, nor costs ...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ramesh Chand Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ204; [2003(96)FLR957]; 2003(1)SLJ80(Delhi)
R.S. Sodhi, J,1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 123 of 1999 has filed by the Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA') challenging the judgment and order dated 27.10.1998 of the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 583 of 1997 whereby the learned Judge has allowed the writ petition quashing the orders dated 16.4.1991 and 15.9.1991 of the DDA, while directing reinstatement of the respondent herein in service of the DDA with all consequential benefits.2. The facts of the case, as emerged from the documents on records, are that the respondent herein was appointed in the service of DDA on 27.7.1981 as Junior Engineer. In January, 1983 he was transferred to the Housing Division No. 4 of the appellant-DDA. In August, 1983, the respondent was directed to take charge of construction of 237 MIG dwelling units in Pocket KG-1, Vikaspuri, New Delhi from Mr. A.K. Chopra, the officer-in-charge of the said construction work. On 29.8.1983 the respondent took over charge subject to verifications. On 22.12...
Ex/Hav Clk Bhagirath Jat Vs. the Chief of Army Staff and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)SLJ84(Delhi)
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This petition arises out of alleged non-compliance of the review order dated 25.04.2000 passed by this Court in CW 4240/98 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed aforesaid writ petition on account of his having been ignored for promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar presumably on the ground that his ACR for the year 1991 was adverse and affected his promotion. This Court while allowing the petition gave the following directions vide order dated 25.4.2000:'In view of the above review being allowed today the petitioner's case for promotion to the next higher rank of Naib Subedar will be considered in accordance with law and fact that the petitioner's supersession is based on the ACR of 1991 will not come in the way of the respondents to give relief to the petitioner. The petitioner's superannuation in the interregnum will also not come in the way of petitioner's promotion, if found fit. The consideration of the petitioner's case without considering the impugned AC...
Om Prakash Vs. Chief of the Army Staff and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ139; 2002(62)ECC45
Khan, J.1. Petitioner, a Battery Havaldar Major (B.H.M.) complains of his supersession and wants promotion to the ran of Naib Subedar. All he says is that he was not considered for promotion tough his three juniors were promoted from time to time resulting in infringement of his rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.2. Respondents claim that he was considered for promotion from 1985 to 1989 but he could not be promoted because he failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria for such promotion. It is explained by them that promotion to the post of Naib Subedar was being made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and the grading criteria of ACRs and availability of vacancies. The grading criteria had been promulgated in the Artillery Records instructions para 575 (b) and was duly approved by the Army Headquarters. Under this petitioner was required to possess three 'above average' gradings out of the five last reports. But he had never obtained 'above average' grading. On the c...
Keramos (Through Its Proprietor Shri Vikram Chopra) Vs. Customs, Excis ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(87)ECC504; 2003(153)ELT301(Del)
D.K. Jain, J.Rule D.B.1. An order dated 28 December 2001, passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the Act), directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 14 lacs as a pre-condition for entertainment of its appeal, is under challenge in this writ petition.2. Briefly stated, the background facts, giving rise to this petition are:The petitioner, an individual, is engaged in the business of printing, decorating and ornamenting the glazed tiles under the trade name 'KERAMOS'. The tiles manufactured by the petitioner are classifiable under Chapter heading 6906.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The glazed tiles are the raw material for his activity but these are not manufactured by him. The tiles manufactured under various brands are procured from different sources by paying full duty of excise. The final product of the petitioner is claimed to be customer specific inasmuch as...
W.H. Deeth (Ballabhgarh) and Co. Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT787; 2003(66)DRJ609
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. The plaintiff had instituted this suit against the defendant for a decree of ejectment and damages for use and occupation/mesne profits in respect of the flat No. GF-1, Ground Floor, Manisha Building, 75-76, Nehru Place, New Delhi admeasuring about 1067 sq. ft. As far as the prayer for a decree of ejectment is concerned, the same has become infructuous for the reason that on 29.9.2001, the possession of the suit premises has already been handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant. The controversy, thereforee, now stands confined to the plaintiff's claim for damages for the use and occupation of the suit premises.2. The plaintiff's case briefly stated is that vide a registered Lease Deed dated 1.5.1991, the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises for a period of five years w.e.f. 1.8.1989 on a monthly rent of Rs. 6455.35p. @ Rs. 6.05 per sq.ft. per month. The Lease Deed expired by efflux of time on the midnight of 31.7.1994. Vide letters dated 6.6.1...
Satyadeen @ Ram Singh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 103(2003)DLT135; 2003(66)DRJ472
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 17.1.2001 whereby he has dismissed the criminal revision filed by the petitioner against an order of a Metropolitan Magistrate who had dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and had declined to recall three PWs : PW 1 Naval Kishore Joshi, PW 2 Mrs. Devki and PW 3 Mr. N.K. Banerjee.2. Briefly stated the facts are that a case was registered against the petitioner Satyadeen @ Ram Singh and others for offence under Sections 419/468/420/471 read with Section 34, IPC on the complaint of one Naval Kishore Joshi. It was alleged that these accused in complicity of each other hand cheated the complainant of Rs. 2,48,000/- on the pretext of sale of a plot of land measuring 400 sq. yds. to him in Ashok Nagar. The charge-sheet was submitted in the Court in January, 1991. Since then the case lingered on and ultimately the state...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. TIn Box Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Del)171; [2003]260ITR637(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. These five appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), are directed against a consolidated order dated October 19, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), in I. T. A. Nos. 4429, 4430, 4432, 5135/Delhi of 1996 and 4354/Delhi of 1998, pertaining to the assessment years 1988-89, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1994-95, respectively.2. Since in all the appeals an identical issue has been raised, for the sake of convenience these are being disposed of by this common order. However, we shall take the facts of the assessment year 1988-89 as illustrative.3. The assessed, a registered firm, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tin containers and printers, had been advancing interest-free loans to its sister concern, namely, Pant Nagar Soya Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. (PNSMPL), since the assessment year 1984-85. At the same time it had been availing of overdr...
Mech and Feb Indus. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC107
1. The above captioned two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 8.5.2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original of the Asstt.Commissioner disallowing the modvat credit to the appellants.2. In Appeal No. E/1919/2002-NB(S), the modvat credit of Rs. 47,136 had been disallowed to the appellants on the ground that the inputs were received by them from the manufacturer through the agent, and that the agent, M/s. Mangalam Steels, was not the authorised agent. The Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the order of the Asstt.Commissioner in this regard. But the record shows that the goods were directly received by the appellants from the manufacturer and the invoice was issued by the manufacturer in their name. All that was mentioned was that the supply was made through the agent. The invoice contained full particulars of the manufacturer, the amount of duty paid and the name of the appellants as purchaser of the goods...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »