Delhi Court April 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Sanjeev Gupta (In Jc) Through His Wife Mrs. Neeru Gupta Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)781; 2000CriLJ3461; 97(2002)DLT1011
Khan, J. 1. Petitioner, a readymade garment exporter, was detained under Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act by order dated 26.4.2001. He was supplied grounds of detention and relied upon documents. He, however, made a representation on 22.10.2001 and asked for supply of some more documents which was rejected vide order dated 25.10.2001. He then again made a representation dated 5.11.2001 for revocation of his detention which was also turned down by order dated 13.11.2001. His case was thereafter referred to the Advisory Board where he was heard and his detention was subsequently confirmed.2. Petitioner challenges his detention on several grounds. He alleges delay of 8 months and 16 days in passing the detention order which vitiated his detention. According to him, authorities had received information regarding his alleged fraudulent duty draw back claim on 29.7.2000 leading to investigation in which his last statement was recorded on 27.1.2001 but despite this they had failed to pass the detent...
Smt. Saroj Devi and ors. Vs. Rameshwar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ222; 2002VIAD(Delhi)615; 98(2002)DLT407; 2002(63)DRJ397
R.C. Chopra, J.1. The appellants, feeling aggrieved by an order dated 25.1.1996 passed by learned MACT, have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded to them on account of the death of Shri Hans Raj who met with a fatal accident on 10.5.1993. The appellants contend that the learned Trial Judge had not taken into consideration the prospects of future increase in the income of the deceased. They also submit that a higher multiplier ought to have been applied for computing the compensation payable to them.2. I have heard learned counsel for he appellants and learned counsel for respondent No. 3. None appeared for respondents 1 and 2 inspire of notice. I have gone through the records of the case.3. The appellants in support of their claim had examined the widow of the deceased as PW3 who stated that the deceased was running a cycle repair shop at his residence itself and was earning about Rs. 2000/- per month. She also stated that he was aged about 38 years at the time of ...
Smt. Hussan Bano and ors. Vs. Sh. Subhash Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC249; 2003ACJ1114; 2002VIIAD(Delhi)146; 97(2002)DLT942; 2002(62)DRJ722
R.C. Chopra, J.1. The appellants are the window and six young children of deceased Imtiaz Ahmed who met with a fatal accident on 5th January, 1992 caused by a DTC bus driven by respondent No. 1. The appellants petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act was disposed of by learned MACT vide orders dated 23.12.2000 and a total compensation of Rs. 2,65,000/- was awarded to them. The appellants assails the computation and award of compensation and pray for enhancement of compensation amount.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No. 2. None appeared for Driver, respondent No. 1. I have gone through the trial Court records.3. The main grievance of the appellants against the computation of the compensation is that the learned MACT computed the compensation on the basis of the salary of Rs. 3500/- per month ignoring the salary statement Ex. PW5/1 which had gone challenged and unrebutted. According to the said statement the salary of t...
Late Shri Somnath Sahu Vs. Hindustan Door-oliver Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ARBLR421(Delhi); 99(2002)DLT729
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Admittedly the award is a non-speaking award. The respondent/objector is the Government of India Undertaking.2. The objector awarded the contract to respondent no. 1 Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Limited (in short DHOL) for setting up Phosphatic Acid Plant. The HDOL gave a sub-contract to the claimant vide letter of intent dated 18th February, 1987 and handed over the site to the claimant on 23.2.87. The total value of the award was Rs. 2,06,47,500/-. The work was to be completed by 31.1.1988. Since the work could not be completed by the stipulated date the contract was terminated on 11.9.89 and the balance work was re-tendered.3. On disputes being raised and as a result of compromise in this Court the claimant and HDOL jointly appointed Mr. Justice J.K. Mohanty as an Umpire.4. Initially the claim for Rs. 1,52,65,746.84 was made. On 7.3.82 the claimant raised additional claim raising it to Rs. 3,18,16,762/-. However the objector also preferred the counter claim to the tune of...
Atul B. Kohly Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau (Ncb)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(82)ECC551
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under section 439 read with Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C'), petitioner is seeking bail in the case under Sections 21/29/30 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Subsidences Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act') (Kamal Kant vs. Vasantan @ Manish & Ors.), pending trail in the court of Special Judge, Delhi.2. Persecution allegations in brief are: that they had received information that petitioner was indulging in illegal trade of heroin; the information was also received from the Central and Excise (National Investigation Service) through British High Commission, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, showing that he was convicted in Consequently a close surveillance was kept on the 13.08.88 at about 5:30 p.m. in pursuance of a specific information form the search of the Hose No. A-6/308C, Paschim Vihar @ Manish, brown powder weighing 1.810 k.g. was recovered, in the presence of the panch witnesses. On testing it gave positive indicat...
The Manager, Govt. of India Press Vs. Mohender Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT381; [2003(97)FLR1091]
ORDERS THAT SHRI MOHINDER KUMAR BE RETIRED COMPULSORILY FORTHWITH. 15. It is further ordered that his absence period be treated as dies non.' 10. An appeal preferred there against was dismissed. Rule 27(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 reads thus: '27. Effect of interruption in service.- (1) An interruption in the service of a Government servant entails forfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases:- (a) unauthorized leave of absence; (b) unauthorized absence in continuation of authorized leave of absence so long as the post of absence is not filled substantively; (c) suspension, where it is immediately followed by reinstatement, whether in the same or a different post, or where the Government servant dies or is permitted to retire or is retired on attaining the age of compulsory retirement while under suspension. (d) Transfer to non-qualifying service in an establishment under the control of the Government if such transfer has been ordered by a competent autho...
Jai Bhagwan and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)644; 99(2002)DLT696; 2002(63)DRJ580
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Validity of Rules 4 and 6(a)(j)(i) to (iii) of the Delhi Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1959, is in question in this writ petition. 2. The petitioners who are three in number, are residents of Village Khera Kalan, Delhi and hold bhoomidari rights in respect of agricultural land. They are said to be members of the Gaon Sabha of the said village. 3. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 was enacted to provide for the compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and for presenting fragmentation of agricultural holdings in the State of Punjab and for assignment or reservation of land for common purposes of the village. 4. The said Act was extended to the Union Territory of Delhi by an appropriate notification on or about 18 December 1951. The Delhi Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention Fragmentation) Rules, 1959 were made in terms of provisions of the said Act. 5. In the years 1952-53, consol...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-viii, New Delhi Vs. Pragati Cons ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)652; 98(2002)DLT729; [2002]256ITR593(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, CJ.1. The question referred to for opinion of this court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal In terms of section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act is as under: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the CIT (Appeals) and upholding that the provisions of Rs. 97,040/- for registration charges of plots by the assessed in its accounts were chargeable as accrued liability against the profit of the year under consideration?'2. The fact of the matter is as follows: The assessed is a registered firm. It carries on business of construction and sale of plots in multi-storeyed commercial buildings. Allegedly, during the accounting period or relevant assessment year, it had completed certain works. In its Return, it claimed a deduction of Rs. 97,040/- on account of provision of registration fee. The said scheme was disallowed by the assessing Officer stating: 'No registration has yet been done and only provi...
Mintoo Shah Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT962
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. By this common judgment, both the appeals (Crl. A. No. 607/2001 and Crl. A. No. 733/2001) can conveniently be disposed together. Both the appeal are directed against the common judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi and the order of sentence dated 3.1.2001 and 4.1.2001 respectively. The learned Trial Court held the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, IP.C and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 201/34, IPC In case of default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count.2. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 3.1.1997 at about 8.50 a.m. an information was received at Police Station Kapashera that...
Gabriel India Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(155)ELT236(Del)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Trade Notices issued to the petitioner purported to be by way of conveying a decision of the Collector Central Excise that firms or companies who have no factory of their own and who get excisable goods manufactured according to their own specification and/or under their own brand names or trade names should be required to be licensed under the Central Excise Law, are the subject matters of this writ petition.2. The petitioner is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act. It is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling thin walled bearings. It sells majority of its goods in the replacement market through independent wholesale dealers. The petitioner has received an order from India Motor Parts and Accessories Limited for manufacture of bearings under its trade name IMPAL on the outer cartons.3. According to the petitioner, those who purchase goods in bulk and sell the same in their own brand name, cannot be treated as a manufacturers ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »