Delhi Court February 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.
Madan Lal Vs. State, National Capital Territory of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)177b; 2002CriLJ2605b; 96(2002)DLT803; 2002(62)DRJ210; 2002(82)ECC522
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. it is alleged that Tempo bearing registration No. DL-1LC-8270 was purchased by the petitioner on hire purchase basis from Tata Finance Ltd for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- Now 4 Installments of Rs. 46,000/- only remain to be paid to the said company. Dev Narain was employed as driver to ply the tempo. It is stated that on 20th April 2001 said tempo while going towards Azadpur Mandi was intercepted by the police and one polythene bag containing 400 grams of smack was recovered from inside the cabin of the seat of driver. Chargesheet based on said recovery has been filed against said Dev Narain. It is further alleged that after filing of chargesheet, tempo has been seized by the investigating officer and it is now lying at the police station. Application filed for released of tempo on superdari by the petitioner has been declined by the trial court by the order dated 31st July 2001. In case the tempo is .not released in favor of pet...
Ralhan Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)1093; 2002(2)ARBLR25(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT372
D.K. Jain, J.1. These are the objections filed by respondent No. 1 the Union of India under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act) against the award dated 7 May 1993 made and published by the sole arbitrator, Shri S.S. Juneja.2. The award is challenged on the ground that the arbitrator has failed to appreciate the evidence and material placed before him, while awarding: (i) Rs. 31,356/- against claim No. 11; (ii) interest @ 12% p.a. on the amounts awarded against claims No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 19 for a period of seven months between 20 September 1991 and the date of publishing of award as pendente lite interest; (iii) simple interest @ 14% on the awarded amount (except on pendente lite interest) from the date of award to the date of its payment or decree whichever is earlier and (iv) the costs of Rs. 2,000/-.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main thrust of argument of learned counsel for the objector-Union of India is that since the ...
Brahma Prakash Kalra Vs. National thermal Power Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)Crimes463; 96(2002)DLT369; [2002(93)FLR808]
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proposed departmental proceedings initiated against him in respect of which a criminal case is pending.2. The petitioner is alleged to have demanded/received a bribe and was caught by the raiding party of the CBI. A criminal case has been filed against the petitioner.3. The respondents have proceeded departmentally against the petitioner and issued a statement of articles of charges as annexed to the memorandum dated 6th August, 2001. It would be relevant to reproduced para 2 of the said statement of charges.'By the above acts, Sh. Brahama Prakash Kalra demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 2,200/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) from Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sethi and took the same from the said Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sethi. Thereby, he committed an act of misconduct in terms of Rules 5(2) of the NTPC, CDA Rules, 1976. He also failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and there...
Shri Naresh Pal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)742; 97(2002)DLT534; 2002(64)DRJ61; [2002(94)FLR208]
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Counsel for both the parties have been heard. Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari, for quashing the letter dated 12.7.2001, whereby in response to petitioners application under Section 33(c)(1) implementation of the a ward and issuance of recovery certificate, he was advised to have the amount computed under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act. petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a recovery certificate for back wages for the period 9.5.1995 to 31.5.2001 as per the calculation chart filed by the petitioner.3. Facts of the case may be briefly noted. Petitioner claims to have worked as a driver for a short period of February to May 1995, with the respondent/FCI. Petitioner claims that his services were wrongly terminated by the respondents. Reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act was made to the presiding officer of the Central Government Industria...
Usha Wire Netting Factory Ltd. Vs. Mr. Ram Kishan Yadav
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)702; 97(2002)DLT778; 2002(62)DRJ754
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. Heard the parties' counsel 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a document which was sought to be filed was reply to the notice sent by the respondent in response to notice of termination of tenancy. As such, it is a very material document and the learned Trial Court should have allowed filing of the document and should have granted opportunity to prove it in evidence. It is submitted tat the respondent could also be given an opportunity to lead evidence by proving the document. The respondent could also be compensated by payment of cost.3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the revision petition is not maintainable for rejection of an application under Order 13(2) does not relate to the point of jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. It relates to the question of the fact at the same time, a question of law also, in a given case. But, in any case, it does not relate to the question of jurisdiction. The learned Trail Cour...
Yogendra Kumar Modi Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT829
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. In this batch of petitions filed by Yoginder Kumar Modi, challenge is to a part of identical order dated 12th December, 2000 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate whereby Pir Mohammed or any Executive Officer of Rossel Finance Ltd., Mumbai arrayed as accused No. 2, was allowed to be dropped from the array of accused.2. Persons imp leaded as respondent No. 2 in these petitions are the complainants who based on different FDRs have filed separate complaints under Sections 403/ 406/409/417 and 420, IPC against the petitioner arrayed as accused No. 3, P. Dinakaran, accused No. 1, Pir Mohammed or any other Executive Officer of Rossel Finance Ltd., accused No. 2 and Ms. Anupama Modi, accused No. 4. In the replies filed to the petitions it is, inter alia, alleged that said Pir Mohammed or Executive Officer (accused No. 2) had been evading service of summons. In Crl. Misc. (M) 1102 and Cr. Misc. 1425/2000 this Court had directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiousl...
Yoginder Kumar Modi Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT701
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. In this batch of petitions filed by Yoginder Kumar Modi, challenge is to a part of identical order dated 17th March, 2001 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate whereby condition was imposed on him (petitioner) not to leave the country without the permission of Court.2. Persons arrayed as respondent No. 2 in these petitions are the complainants who have filed separate complaints based on different FDRs under Sections 403/ 406/ 409/ 417 and (sic.), IPC against the petitioner and three others. It is not in dispute that in all 7 complaints the petitioner was admitted to bail by an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi by a common order dated 17th March, 2001 on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. During the course of argument copy of said bail order has also been placed on the file. Short submission advanced by Mr. Siddarth Luthra for petitioner was that petitioner w...
Asstt. Cit Vs. Samcor Glass Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Del)138
ORDERR.K. Gupta, Jm:This is an appeal by department against the orders of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 15-1-1997, under section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The following ground of appeal has been taken by the department :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the deduction of tax at source by Samcor Glass ITD., the Indian company in respect of payment to Corning Incorporated, USA, should have been only at 10 per cent instead of 30 per cent determined by the Assistant Commissioner in respect of total payment of US Dollars 34.02 lakhs and modifying the order of the Assistant Commissioner accordingly.'2. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 14th Jan., 2002. The counsel of the assessed filed synopsis. Copy of the same was given to the learned departmental Representative and the matter was adjourned for 18th Jan., 2002. The appeal was heard partly on this date and the matter was again adjourned for 21st Jan., 2002. On t...
Jagan Nath Mandal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ309
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner was aggrieved by his non-consideration for promotion as Naib/Subedar w.e.f. April, 1998 on setting aside his adverse ACRs from 1985. The petitioner sought a mandamus also for directions to the respondents to forthwith review his case of promotion w.e.f. April, 1998 against the then existing vacancy with consequential benefits.3. The respondents, on their own, after filing of this present petition granted benefits of seniority and promotion from April, 1998. Thus the only question remained was of the monetary benefits which would accrue to the petitioner there from. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the adverse ACR against the petitioner was only set aside and thereafter the respondents have taken expeditious steps in pursuance thereof and since the petitioner did not work in the said rank the petitioner should not be granted the monetary...
Ashok Singhla Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT465TriDel
1. These two appeals have been filed by M/s. Polyglass Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. and Shri Ashok Singhla, Director, against the Common Adjudication Order No. 3/2001, dated 22-1-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. Shri G.L. Rawal, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant Company is engaged in the manufacture of acrylic sheets; that the raw material is acrylic off-cuts, acrylic sheet pieces and acrylic chips; that as on 1-4-99, the quantity of raw material as per Raw Material Account was 139.202 M.T.; that they had also imported acrylic strips, chips & sheet pieces which were received by them during the period September, 1999 to January, 2000; that the unit was searched by the Central Excise Officers during the period from 23-12-99 to 26-12-99 by the Central Excise Officers in respect of 177.441 M.Ts. raw material (acrylic sheet pieces and chips); that subsequently the same material was also seized by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »