Delhi Court April 2002 Judgments

Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)979; 98(2002)DLT175; 2002(63)DRJ461

Khan, J. 1. A cry for speedy justice. This is what this petition is all about filed by friends and relatives of Uphaar Cinema Fire Victims who have formed an association to seek justice. All they are clamouring for is the speedy trial of Sessions Case No. 1/99 pending before Ld. ASJ, Ms. Mamta Sehgal. 2. Petitioners' grievance is that even after 4 1/2 years of the fire incident, trial in the case was yet to take off and was proceeding at a snail's pace. Statements of available prosecution witnesses were either not recorded or deferred for non-availability of defense counsel or some other pretext. Adjournments were being granted to the defense lawyers on one ground or the other resulting in deferring of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses who were otherwise in attendance. Out of 191 prosecution witnesses, only 12 were examined so far. 3. Ld. senior counsel for petitioner Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi invited our attention to Supreme Court judgment in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh : 2001...

Ms. Sonu @ Neeraj Rani Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)1; 2002(4)Crimes86; 97(2002)DLT906; I(2002)DMC785; 2002(62)DRJ775

S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grantof anticipatory bail, in case FIR No. 250/2000,under Sections 307/498A/304-B/34 IPC, P.S. Dwarka, Delhi.2. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner is sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased; she was married about two years prior to the marriage of her brother with the deceased; ever since her marriage she has been living at her matrimonial house in Bhiwani (Haryana); she has two minor children; and on 20.10.2000, when the deceased received burn injury, petitioner was in family way and was being treated at Government Hospital Bhiwani. On the basis of medical record dated 20.10.2000 of the petitioner, he argued that as she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy it was not possible for her to be present at the spot in Delhi where the deceased received burn injury. He, further argued that petitioner has already participated in the investigation; that both her brothers are in custody; that investigation has...

New Era Education Society Vs. Dy. Director of It (Exemption)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Del)97

ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.The appeal has been directed by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28-2-2001, pertaining to assessment year 1997-98. Though various grounds of appeal have been raised, the main ground related to the denial of exemption under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessed-society is running-number of schools by the names of New Era Junior School, New Era Nursery School, New Era Public School, Mayapuri, Rajouri Garden and Naraina, New Era Public School, Pochanpur. The society is not registered under section 12A nor recognised under section 80-G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Following are the members of the societySl. No. Name Address PAN No.1. Mrs. Usha Chopra J-12/15, Rajouri Gdn., New Delhi110027 AACPC 721002. Sh. R.L. Chopra. J-12/15, Rajouri Gdn., New Delhi110027 AACPC-7211R3. Sh. S.K. Wadhawan B-VIII/6034, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi AAAPW 3059R4. Dr. Roshan Lal F-15/6, Krishan Ngr. New D...

J.C. Dhingra and Another Versus Times Guaranty Financials Ltd. and Ano ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 20th November, 2001, passed by District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2815/99 entitled Shri J.C. Dhingra and Anr. v. The Managing Director, Times Guaranty Financial Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellants had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that as the complaint filed by the appellants require adjudication in respect of complex and complicated questions of fact, it was not possible to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in summary proceedings before a Redressal Agency, established under the Act. On the basis of the above finding,...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Ics Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC595

1. Both these appeals are directed against a common order i.e.Order-in-Appeal No. 484-CE DLH 2001, dated 4-5-2001 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. Accordingly, they were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of under this order.2. The material facts of the case are that ICS Systems Pvt. Limited have been manufacturing Split Flat display boards. They had not taken Central Excise registration and were not paying any central excise duty on the display boards manufactured and cleared by them. This came to notice when the Central Excise Officers visited their premises on 8-1-98. Shortly thereafter on 28-1-98, Central Excise registration under Chapter Heading No. 8431 was granted to them by the jurisdictional central excise authorities. Subsequently, show cause notice dated 17-7-98 was issued to the appellant proposing central excise duty on the display boards cleared by them prior to the issue of registration at the rate applicable to goods classifiable ...

S.S. Bedi and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC165Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. S.S. Bedi & Sons, the issue involved is whether Central Excise duty is payable on Lay Flat Tubing.2. Shri S.C. Kamra, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture poly-bags which are exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 4/97-CE., dated 1-3-1997; that they obtained Lay Flat Tubing as an intermediate product in the manufacture of poly-bags from plastic granules; that the impugned goods were exempted from payment of excise duty right from 1994-95 till today except for the financial year 1997-98; that the Additional Commissioner under the Adjudication Order No. 170/99, dated 7-10-1999 has demanded the duty in respect of Lay Flat Tubing cleared during the period from 1-4-1997 to 31-12-1997 and imposed penalty of Rs. 50/966/- equivalent to the amount of duty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act; that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order has confirmed th...

H.B. Fibres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC389

1. This appeal filed by M/s. H.B. Fibres Ltd. is against the following order of the Commissioner of Customs :- (i) The goods weighing 20259 kgs. imported vide Bill of Entry No. 1823, dated 7-9-1998 and 20286 kgs. imported vide Bill of Entry No. 1824, dated 7-9-1998 by M/s. H.B. Fibres Ltd., Ludhiana be classified as acrylic fibre under heading 5503.30 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and finally assessed to duty at CIF value @ US $1.12 per kg. (ii) M/s. H.B. Fibres Ltd., Ludhiana are liable to pay customs duty amounting to Rs. 35,46,456/- under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and I have held so. The show-cause notice points out that M/s. H.B. Fibres Ltd. had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,12,982/-at the time of filing Bills of Entry and paid Rs. 12,30,000/- vide Bank Draft No. 641494 dated 19-8-99, Rs. 5,00,000/- vide bankers Cheque No. 079585, dated 11-12-1999, Rs. 3,00,000/- vide case order No. 642098, dated 11-12-1999, Rs. 6,00,000/- vide Cheque No. 315973, da...

Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels Limited Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)270; 97(2002)DLT622; 2002(63)DRJ812

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This revision petition challenges the order of an Additional District Judge dated 6.11.1996 by which he has dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short the Act) and has affirmed the order of the Estate Officer.2. Briefly the facts are that petitioner Northern Enterprises Corporation Pvt. Ltd. took on license basis from respondent No. 1 NDMC covered area of 1523 sq.ft. on 8th Floor of a multi storeyed building called Mayur Bhawan, near Connaught Place, New Delhi for a period 2 years w.e.f. 15.1.1981 at the rate of license fee of Rs. 6.60 per sq.ft. On the expiry of the license period it was renewed for further period of 5 years w.e.f. 15.1.1983 on the increase rate of license fee of Rs. 10.75 per sq.ft. During the period of said license the name of the petitioner company was changed from Northern Enterprises Corporation Pvt. Ltd. to Northern Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and a ...

Sepoy Lakhbir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)265; 2002(64)DRJ810

Vijender Jain, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order of summary court martial dated 3.1.92, awarding six months imprisonment and dismissal from service. Mr. Bikramjit Nayar counsel for the petitioner has contended that the award of dismissal by the summary court martial was illegal and without jurisdiction. On 25.1.96, Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:-'Counsel for the petitioner urges that one of his contentions is that the penalty of dismissal awarded to the petitioner is not contemplated in respect of the charges which were brought against the petitioner before the Summary Court martial. Sections 39(a) and 48 of the Army Act are the provisions under which the petitioner was charged before the Summary Court Martial. He has pointed out that under these provisions the penalty of dismissal from service is not contemplated for the officials of the rank of the petitioner. This point was taken by the petitioner in his representation ...

Kulvinder Singh Sethi and ors. Vs. Chairman-cum Managing Director, Pun ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)306; 97(2002)DLT816

Vijender Jain, J.1. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent-Punjab and Sind Bank issued letters of appointment to the petitioners on 4.3.1983 to join the Bank within one month. On 18.3.1983 result of the promotees for the post of Probationary officers was intimated to the officers by the respondent-Bank and on 22.3.1983 letter of appointment was issued to the promotees.2. Mr. Anis Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, very fairly contends that he would not like to upset the seniority of the officers, which was drawn in the year 1986. Even otherwise I do not see any force in the prayer made in the writ petition that the seniority of those direct recruits be considered from the date of the offer of appointment as Probationary Officers. The direct Probationary Officers were given one month's time to join and it is only after joining the respondent-Bank the date for consideration for promotion would be the date when they...