Delhi Court March 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.
Rakesh Chaudhary Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)965; 97(2002)DLT532; 2002(62)DRJ336
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Rakesh petitioner seeks suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. Needless to state that the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shahdra had held the petitioner and others guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for life besides a fine for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and for rigorous imprisonment for six months for an offence punishable under Section 147 Indian Penal Code besides rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence publishable under Section 148 Indian Penal Code.2. The facts of the prosecution case relevant for disposal of the present application are that on 4th April, 1998 at 8.12 pm police control room of East District informed police post Anaj Mandi that an accident has taken place of stabbing at kanti Nagar. This led to the further process of law into motion. The polic...
international Security and Intelligence Agency Limited Vs. Municipal C ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi347; 2002(2)ARBLR7(Delhi); 2002(63)DRJ38
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Award was made by Justice Jagdish Chandra on 14.3.1997. Objections were filed by the respondent-Judgment Debtor before this court. Vide order dated 17.1.2001, objections were dismissed and the award was made rule of the court, and the decree sheet was ordered to be drawn up accordingly. Pursuant to the decree, instant execution petition was filed. Respondent-Judgment Debtor preferred an appeal and sought stay of the execution of the decree. However, subsequently the application of stay was withdrawn being not pressed as the Judgment Debtor failed to deposit the decretal amount as ordered by the Division bench. In this regard, the order of the Division Bench needs to be reproduced and is as under :-'C.M.1135/2001 The appeal is not within the period of limitation. Pending consideration in the application for condensation of delay, there was a request for staying the execution of the decree passed pursuant to the award of the arbitrator. It was stated that execution pe...
Whitefield International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT180
ORDER 1. It is submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner that it would be proper andin the interest of justice if the amount standing in the credit of the petitioner'saccount as of date after making the reverse enteries by the Bank, is converted intoa Fixed Deposit Receipt which shall be kept with the bank with the direction that thesame will not be allowed to be operated by the petitioner without the order of theCourt. Once the Fixed Deposit Receipt has been made, the petitioner's account maybe allowed to be operated normally. Learned Counsel for State has no objection tothe same.2. In view of the statements of learned Counsel for parties, I direct Central Bankof India, Janpath to convert the amount as stands credited in account No. CD-101205in the name of M/s. Whitefield International Private Limited after making thereverse entries into a Fixed Deposit Receipt which the bank shall hold and anyoperation of that receipt shall to the orders of the Trial Court. After themoney has been ...
Sarmon Pte Ltd. Vs. Chemi Nova Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT103
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. The present suit is instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of US Dollars 3,32,118.80. The suit is filed under the provision of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, thereforee, it is a summary suit. The suit is based on invoices, bill of lading and bills of exchange. 2. In the plaint it is stated by the plaintiff that the defendant had been importing from the plaintiff raw materials for manufacturing Polyurethane Foam namely, Polyarcol and that the plaintiff had been supplying the same to the defendants in terms of the requests made by the defendants from time to time. In order to support the aforesaid contention the plaintiff has produced nine invoices of different dates amounting to Rs. 2,78,616/- U.S.$ and copies of the said documents have been annexed to the petition as Ex.A. It is further stated that the plaintiff forwarded the aforesaid invoices Along with the other documents relating to the shipment of the goods including the bills ...
info Edge (India) Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Shailesh Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT499
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The plaintiff by filing the present suit has sought for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents from operation any business, selling, offering for sale, advertising and/or in any manner dealing in the interest services under the trademark/domain name 'NAUKRI.COM' or any other mark/domain name, which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark/domain name 'NAUKRI.COM' and also for rendition of accounts and damages. The plaintiff has also files an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from operating any business and/or selling or offering for sale or advertising and in any manner dealing in the aforesaid trade mark /domain name of the plaintiff or any other trade mark/domain name, which may be identical and/or deceptively similar with the aforesaid mark/name.2. The plaintiff adopted the name 'NAUKRI.COM' ...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Vs. Deepak Steel Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC795
1. This is a COD petition filed by the Revenue. The delay in filing this appeal is of 280 days. I have heard Shri H.C. Verma, JDR for the appellants. In the written Memorandum of petition, it is stated that the Order dated 12-1-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh is received in the office of appellants on the same date. It is also stated that on 12-3-2001, the Order-in-Appeal was accepted by the Commissioner of Central Excise. However, the Chief Commissioner issued the direction on 8-1-2002 that an appeal may be filed against the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the delay.Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandramani - 1998 (3) S.C.C. 132.1 have considered these submissions. In this case, admittedly, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) was accepted on its merit by the Commissioner of Central Excise on 12-3-2001. The present appeal is filed on the direction of the Chief Commissioner ...
Q.H. Talbros Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC220
1.This is an appeal challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. 46,926. Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He has submitted that the show cause notice in this case was issued on 7.4.1998 and there is no mens rea alleged therein against the appellants. The officers have visited the site on 15.10.1997. The duty amount in this case was paid on 20.10.1997 and 30.1.1998 much before the issue of the show cause notice. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. CCE, DelhiAmritsar Crown Caps (P) Ltd. v.CCE, Chandigarh 2001 (46) RLT 169. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the said decisions the penalty imposed on the appellants may be set aside.2. Shri A.S. Bedi, learned SDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue and he contended that the penalty under Section 11AC is mandatory. Besides, the appellants have also challenged the formula worked out by the Department, but ultimately the duty was...
Ahimsa Mines and Minerals Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT71TriDel
1. The appeal and the cross-objection relate to the final finding of the Designated Authority on antidumping investigation concerning imports of Theophylline and Caffeine from European Union under Notification dated 26-6-2001 read with Notification No. 82/2001-CuS., dated 30-7-2001 issued by the Central Government imposing anti-dumping duty on Theophylline and Caffeine originating in and exported from the European Union and when imported into India at the rate specified in the notification.2. When the appeal came up for hearing on the first occasion on 19-11-2001 a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Designated Authority that the appeal at the instance of M/s. Ahimsa Mines and Minerals Ltd. is not maintainable as it is not aggrieved by the impugned finding and notification. The same objection was raised before us when the matter came on subsequent dates also.3. It is the contention of the Designated Authority that the appellant is in no way affecte...
Bir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ84CAT
1. Both learned Counsel heard. The applicant has impugned the letter dated 15.11.2000 issued by the respondents by which they have rejected his claim for refixation of pay on re-employment which, according to the applicant, is arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice.2. This is the second round of litigation of the applicant. The earlier O.A. filed by the applicant (O.A. 33/97) was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 25.7.2000 directing the respondents to take a final decision in the matter in accordance with rules and instructions regarding his pay fixation. Accordingly the aforesaid impugned order dated 15.11.2000 has been passed.3. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant retired as Havildar in East Infantry in the Army on 15.2.83. Subsequently he was re-employed with the Respondent No. 3 i.e., 510, Army Base Workshop, Meerut Cantonment as a civilian employee with effect from 23.7.1984. One of the main contention...
Mrs. Shivani Sadanand Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)242; 2002CriLJ3384; 97(2002)DLT443; 2002(62)DRJ678
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against order 28th June, 2001 passed by Sh. A.K. Sarpal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 205 Cr.P.C. seeking exemption from personal appearance during the trial.2. Facts in brief are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I.Act') against the petitioner alleging that petitioner had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, Noida (UP) in his favor. The said cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured with the remarks 'refer to drawer' due to funds not being sufficient in the account of the petitioner. The petitioner did not make the payment of the cheque amount even after the legal notice. By order dated 18th September, 1995, trial court took cognizance and summons were issued for appearance of the petitioner to face the trial. In compliance of the summons, petitioner appeared before...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »