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.
Kamlesh Verma and ors. Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)208; 97(2002)DLT318; I(2002)DMC638; 2002(62)DRJ321
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR No. 243/92 under Sections 498A/406 IPC P.S. Anand Vihar pending in the court of Sh. J.P.S. Malik, MM, Delhi.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioner No. 3 Naresh Kumar was married to respondent No. 2 Smt. Archana; marriage between the parties could not succeed and on account of personal & private differences between them, above noted FIR was registered on the report lodged by respondent No. 2. On 20th January, 1993 and 13th February, 1993 articles of Istridhan of the complainant were seized by the police and delivered to her. Other petitioners are the relatives of petitioner No. 3. They were challenged by the police. Petitioner No. 3 has filed a petition for divorce at Karnal and the same was decreed in his favor on 5th August, 1995. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed an Appeal in the High Court. The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana ...
Shri V.N. Sethi Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)190; 97(2002)DLT831
Khan, J. 1. A letter was received from one V.N. Sethi, resident of Frash Khana, Delhi complaining about closure of roads, snapping of telephone wires and electricity theft by one Murari Lal on some marriage function held on 18.11.2000. He alleged that all this had taken place in full public view and yet MCD and police authorities had failed to take any action in the matter.2. This letter was treated as writ petition by this court by order dated 16.1.2001 and MCD, DDA and NCT of Delhi were asked to explain their position and the criteria/guidelines regulating grant of permissions for raising of 'shamianas' on public roads.3. In the counter filed on behalf of NCT of Delhi, it is submitted that no such complaint was received by any police or traffic authority nor was any complaint regarding cutting of telephone or electricity lines or digging of roads received from MCD/DDA/PWD. It is, however, pointed out that guidelines for regulation of processions, meetings, etc. were formulated pursua...
Sekar @ Balasunderam Vs. Election Commission of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)112
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, an Indian citizen and a member of Dravida Munnetra Kazakam (DMK), a political party in Tamil Nadu, seeks by this writ petition a mandamus for deferring the elections to be held in Andipatti Assembly Constituency of Tamil Nadu till the electoral rolls are rectified. A direction is also sought for rectification of the electoral rolls prepared in Andipatti Constituency and to hold election along with other Constituencies, namely Saidapet and Vanniyampadi in Tamil Nadu. Petitioner also seeks disciplinary action to be taken against erring officers responsible for committing irregularities in the preparation of voters list in the Andipatti Assembly Constituency.2. Learned counsel for the Election Commission on receiving advance copy of petition had appeared when the writ petition came up for admission. He raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. Without prejudice to the contentions on maintainability, Election Commission has filed a...
Smt. Sangeeta and ors. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)1109
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. I have the advantage of going through the well considered judgment of my esteemed brother. On certain aspects I fail to subscribe to the view taken thereforee, a separate judgment is being recorded. 2. The sole question that comes up for consideration is as to under what circumstances the High Court would exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and its inherent powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and whether in the facts of the present cases it would be appropriate to exercise such powers. 3. By virtue of the present petitions petitioners seek quashing of the criminal proceedings of FIR 408/97 Police Station Model Town and quashing of the order dated 15th December, 1988 passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners besides directing certain proceedings to be taken against the erring officials. 4. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate on submissio...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Polo Singh and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)489; 2002(62)DRJ770
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.2.1997 passed by learned Single Judge in Suit No. 98/1996. The learned arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 2,46,482/- plus interest to the respondent. The award was filed in the Court and was later on made rule of the Court. It may be pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the matter, the respondent herein filed I.A. No. 6174/1996 before the learned Single Judge who by the Order dated 17th July, 1996 directed the appellant to pay to the respondent Rs. 86,482/- with interest at 12% per annum from 2.12.1992 till 25.12.1994 and interest at 14% per annum from 26.12.1994 till the date of payment. Out of the awarded amount Rs. 86,482 with 12% were awarded to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that this amount had been paid to him by the appellant.2. In the Order dated 17th July, 1996, the learned Single Judge has correctly mentioned the amount of award (as Rs. 2,46,482/-) but...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Shri Prem Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)1096; 2003(1)ARBLR393(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT976
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 4th December, 1995 in Suit No. 3670/1991. This Court issued notice to the respondent but he could not be served by the ordinary process and had to be served by publication. The order sheets indicated that even after service by publication the respondent has not been appearing. Today also neither the respondent nor his counsel is present.2. The award was published by the Arbitrator on 2.11.1991 and objections to the award were preferred by the DDA/Appellant. Learned Arbitrator rejected all the counter claims being No. 1 to 8. The counter claims related to quality of workmanship or the materials used in the work as is clear from the nomenclature of these counter claims.3. The Clause 14A of the Agreement between the parties provides that the decision of the Chief Project Engineer regarding the quantum of reduction as well as justification thereof in respect of rates of sub-standard wo...
Parshotam Lal Gupta Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT917
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This petition is filed with a prayer to quash FIR No. 278/2000 dated 28th March, 2000, under Section 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the owner of premises No. J-4/63, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. Araid was conducted on the said premises on 27.3.2000 and it was found that the petitioner was indulging in abstraction of electricity by unlawful means. Electricity, consumption bill of Rs. 23,505.52 (Rupees twenty three thousand five hundred five and paise fifty two only) was raised by the Delhi Vidyut Board which was paid on 30th March, 2000, within the due date.3. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to a relief under the Circular dated 16th May, 1996, issued by the D.V.B. qua those cases where payment has been made as per tariff after detection of the illegal abstraction of the electrici...
Super Cassettes Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs (Acc), New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC299
1. The issue involved in these eleven Appeals, filed by M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. is whether the NIL rate of additional Customs duty is available to the magnetic heads re-imported by them after repair being carried out abroad.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the recording of audio cassettes falling under Heading 85.24 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, that the recording is done on audio cassette records of which magnetic head is an essential ingredient; that they import magnetic heads which after regular use get worn out; that these worn out magnetic heads are sent abroad for re-lapping, as no such facility is available in India; that on their re-import, after repairs, the Appellants claimed the benefit of concessional rate of customs duty on the ground that the repair does not amount to manufacture and no Central Excise Duty is leviable on repaired goods in India; that the Revenue has charged Addition...
Stainless India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT705TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Stainless India Ltd., is whether "No claim discount" is deductible from the assessable value of the Central Excise goods manufactured by them.2. Shri O.P. Agarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture S.S. billets and flats which are cleared by them to Industrial Consumers; that they were allowing discount to their customers out of the wholesale price charged from them; that the benefit of discount was given to the customers by way of raising credit notes in their favour subsequent to the sale; that as the discount is an admissible deduction from the wholesale price as per Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act they filed claim for refund with the Department along with photocopies of credit notes issued to their customers; that Dy. Commissioner under Adjudication Order No.162/2000-C.E., dated 31-10-2000 rejected their refund claim on the ground that they had failed to satisfy the requirement of judgment ...
Steel Strips Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC618
1. In these six appeals filed by M/s. Steel Strips Ltd. arising out of two orders-in-appeals Nos. 221-225/CE/CHD-II 2001, dated 26-7-2001 and No. 231/CE/CHD-II/2001, dated 31-7-2001, the issue involved is whether the process of cold rolling of hot rolled strips amounts to manufacture and they are eligible to the refund of the Central Excise duty paid by them.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appel- lants have been engaged in the activity of cold rolling of duty paid hot rolled strips since 1982; that what is received by them is steel strip and what goes out of their factory is steel strip and as such the activity undertaken by them does not amount to manufacture of a new product; that the matter has been settled by the Apex Court in their own case as reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 248 (S.C.) [CCE Chandigarh v.Steel Strips Ltd.]; that the Department has now claimed that the position has changed from 28-2-1986 onward with the introduction of New Central Excise Tarif...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »