Delhi Court April 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.
Sh. Joginder Singh Vs. Sh. Kuldip Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)758; 97(2002)DLT806
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner, who is defendant No. 1 in the suit, underSection 115 of the CPC assailing the order of anAdditional District Judge dated 31.8.1998 by which he had dismissed an application filed by the petitioner for grant of leave to defend the suit filed by the defendant No. 1 against him for recovery of Rs. 30,000/- under the summary procedure of Order 37 CPC.2. The facts of the case are peculiar. The respondent No. 1 Mr. Kuldeep Singh and respondent No. 2 Sardar Mr. Udham Singh are brothers. Their father owned property No. 1/210/4, Sardar Bazar, Delhi Cantt, Delhi. The electricity meter was installed in the name of Sardar Amrik Singh which provided electricity to the premises. Sardar Amrik Singh sold one half of thisproperty in favor of his grandson Sardar Indermohan Singh, who is a son of the respondent No. 2 by a registered sale deed dated 10.5.1995. Portion of the property which was purchased by Sardar Indermohan Sin...
Smt. Manorma J. Gupta and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)233; 97(2002)DLT785
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This order will dispose a petition filed under Contempt of Courts Act (The Act). It is alleged that the petitioners are legal representatives of late Mr. Jawahar Lal Gupta. Mr. Gupta was in the employment of the respondent MCD initially as Section Officer (later known as Junior Engineer). His services was terminated, which order was challenged by him in the writ petition bearing CW No. 12/1972. A learned Single Judge of this court allowed the writ petition 28.3.1980 directing his re-instatement in the service. This order was challenged by the respondent MCD in LPA No. 136/1980. A Division Bench of this court stayed the operation of the judgment dated 28.3.1980 on 16.1.1981. During the pendency of the LPA, Mr. Jawahar Lal Gupta died on 10.2.1985 and the petitioner were brought on record as his LRs. The said LPA was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 13.8.1999. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.3.1980, as such, became final. No SLP has be...
Uniplas India Limited Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3488; 97(2002)DLT714; 2002(62)DRJ669
Khan, (J)1. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 are fighting it out for Rs. 12 lacs or more. The dispute has spilled over leading to lodging of FIR No. 65/01 u/s 420 IPC at PS Vasant Vihar by respondent No. 2. Petitioner wants its quashing and hence this writ petition.2. Factual matrix is by and large admitted barring a minor variation here and there. Both parties entered a high sea contract for supply of PVC resin worth Rs. 26.70 lacs to petitioners by R-2. The goods were fully insured with the National Insurance Company, firstly in the name of R-2 and then endorsed in the name of petitioner company. But when the consignment was delivered at Mumbai, petitioner found 123 mt. worth Rs. 14.20 lacs or so missing.3. There are two versions to the story thereafter. Petitioner claims that R-2 had the liability to deliver full cargo and it offered to compensate them for the loss and paid them Rs. 15 lacs till finalisation of insurance claim. But R-2 claims that petitioners had approached it to tid...
Jai Pal Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)45; 97(2002)DLT782; 2002(62)DRJ805
Khan, J. 1. Petitioner is challenging externment order passedby Additional DCP dated 16.5.2001 asking him to removehimself outside Delhi and Lt. Governor's order dated18.7.2001 rejecting his appeal. 2. A show-cause notice was issued to petitioner underSection 50 of Delhi Police Act on 25.10.2000 charging himof including in illegal activities and criminal offencespunishable under Chapter XII IPC, resorting to force andviolence, causing danger and alarm to person and property.He was also informed that six FIRs (Nos. 594, 605, 628, 647,440 and 756) under Section 379 IPC stood registered againsthim and that witnesses were not willing to come forward toopenly depose against him. 3. Petitioner replied to this notice on 13.11.2000 denying the allegations. He also led some defense evidence to show that he was engaged in lawful business along with his father who was the President of Fruit & Vegetable Wholesalers Association, Tilak Nagar and was not involved in any criminal activity prior to his...
Krishan Pal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ481
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. These Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 13.8.1998 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 84/96 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant Krishan Pal guilty under Section 366 and 376 IPC and appellant Som Pal guilty under Section 366 and vide a separate order dated 17.8.1998 sentenced the appellant Krishan Pal to undergo R.I. for seven years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 376 IPG and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for eight months. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 366 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for four months. Appellant Som Pat sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 366 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for four months.2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset states that he is not in a po...
Hitech Abrasives Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT113TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed against the Order-in-Original dated 31-5-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur.2. The appellants manufacture steel shots, grits and MS ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are avail Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On 17-8 the Preventive Staff of the Central Excise Division, Raipur intercepted a to bearing No. CIR-8727 on Ring Road No. 2, Raipur. The truck was found to carry 21.345 MTs of MS ingots without cover of any Central Excise invoice, as required under Rule 52A of the Rules evidencing payment of Central Excise duty. Due investigations were made and statements were recorded. Shri R. Venugopalan, Company Representative has appeared on behalf of the appellant and he has drawn my attention towards paras 12 to 13.2 of the Order-in-Original at pages 31 to 33 of the paper book wherein it is recorded as under : "12. M/s. Hi Tech Abrasives Ltd., Raipur (C.G.) had made a d...
Joyco India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC337Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Joyco India Pvt.Ltd. is whether the Bubble Gum manufactured by them is classifiable under sub-heading 1704.90 as claimed by them or under sub-heading 1704.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.2. Though the matter is posted today for hearing the stay application, we take up the appeal itself for hearing as the issue involved has already been settled by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we grant the stay of the entire amount of duty and penalty.3. Shri S. Madhavan, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that the appellants manufacture Bubble Gum which was classified by them under sub-heading 1704.90; that the period involved in the present matter is from 23-7-97 to 31-5-98; that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Gum Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Madras [1987 (27) E.L.T. 360] has held that the Bubble Gum is different from Chewing Gum and is not classifiable...
Angrej Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ365CAT
1. Shri Bijender Singh, an employee of the E.S.I. Corporation died leaving behind his widow Smt. Raj wanti and a son named Rohit. Smt.Rajwanti was appointed on compassionate ground on 23.1.1991 as a Peon.In addition to the aforesaid employment, Smt. Rajwanti was the recipient of the family pension also. She married again on 14.1.1997 and thereby lost her claim for family pension. The aforesaid family pension was, however, transferred on to Rohit vide PPO dated 18.8.1998.Smt. Rajwanti continued to work as a Peon, however. On 7.7.1997 a daughter, named Shalu was born to her from the second marriage with Shri Angrej Singh, one of the two applicants in the present O.A. The other applicant is the aforesaid daughter Ms. Shalu. On 5.1.2000 Smt.Rajwanti also died leaving behind the aforesaid Shri Angrej Singh and Ms. Shalu, both the applicants in the present O.A. as well as Rohit, her son from the previous marriage. The grievance raised is that the pensionary and the other benefits arising fr...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Delhi Industrial Syndicate
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)83ITD130(Delhi)
1. These are three appeals by Department against the orders of CIT(A) who cancelled penalties under Sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(a) and 273(1)(a) of the IT Act, relating to asst. yr. 1983-84. The CIT(A) has discussed the issue in detail in his appellate order passed under Section 271(1)(c) and in other two orders, this order passed under Section 271(1)(c) and in other two orders, this order passed under Section 271(1)(c) was following by him. Therefore, we will take up the appeal first in ITA No. 6629 relating to cancellation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The following grounds of appeal have been taken by the Department : 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in cancelling penalty under Section 271(1)(c). 2. The leaned CIT(A) erred in holding that the order of AO under Section 271(1)(c), dt. 30th June, 1992, is barred by limitation. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in 'presuming' that the order of the Tribunal dt. 10th Jan., 1991, was received in the office of the CIT, when the CIT(A) himself ve...
Mr. Kanwar SaIn Vs. Airport Authority of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ARBLR146(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT537; 2002(62)DRJ554
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. In response to an invitation to tender for management of computerized car parking at terminal no. 1, I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi, the petitioner submitted its tender. The petitioner's tender was accepted and license/contract was awarded to him vide letter of acceptance dated 7.11.1996 initially for a period of one year. The contract was extendable for a further period of two years. However, the contract/license was terminated on 20.11.1997. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a civil suit for injunctions according to the him, as per terms of the contract, license was extendable by further period of two years. Though ex-parte injunction was granted but finally suit was dismissed.2. Admittedly there was an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. The disputes raised by the petitioner in this petition pertain to the period subsequent to the termination of contract. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents committed breach of contrac...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »