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.
Rajiv Goel and anr. Vs. Krishna Kumari Goel and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)346; 98(2002)DLT91
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. this civil revision petition is field by the petitioners, who are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, under Section 115 of the CPC assailing an order of the Additional District Judge dated 22nd November, 2000 whereby he has dismissed an application of the petitioners filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of their written statement.2. Facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 1, plaintiff in the suit, filed a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief against the petitioners, who are arrayed as defendants 1, 2 and five other persons (who were tenants in different portion of the suit property) for grant of 1) a decree of declaration that the sale deed dated 1st November, 1995 pertaining to property No. E-188 Greater Kailash Part-I executed by petitioner No. 1 /defendant No. 1 in favor of petitioner No. 2 defendant No. 2 was null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs; 2) a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from making furt...
Ms. Suresh Khullar Vs. Mr. Vijay Khullar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi373; 98(2002)DLT41; II(2002)DMC131; 2002(62)DRJ758
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the CPC assailing the order of an Additional District Judge dated 24.2.1997 whereby he has dismissed an application of the petitioner filed for grant of interim maintenance to her during the pendency of proceeding instituted under Sections 18, 20 and 23 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (hereinafter the Act) against the respondent.2. The short question that arises for adjudication in this revision petition is whether the petitioner, the second wife of the respondent may be allowed the interim maintenance under Section 18 of the Act.The facts are short and simple. The respondent was married to one Ms. Manju Khullar in 1980. He filed a divorce petition in the court of the District Judge, Himachal Pradesh and his marriage with Ms. Manju Khullar was dissolved by an ex parte decree of divorce dated 29.10.1984. Thereafter he contracted second marriage with the petitioner on 14.10.1988. Ms. Manju Khullar fil...
Mithan Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)55; 2002CriLJ3422; 97(2002)DLT1004; 2002(63)DRJ529
ORDERBy this order, I shall decide as to whether PW Mithanlal is guilty under Section 349 Cr.P.C. or not.The respondent Mithanlal was cited as witness and he was holding the original documents, i.e., Gift deed of that plot in question. Being prosecution witness he was summoned for 30/4/94 but he failed to appear on that day. Consequently, he was summoned through bailable warrants for 06/8/94, he appeared on that day but could not be examined as he failed to produce the original documents. Thereafter, he was given several opp. to produce the original document but he failed to do so.Consequently a show cause notice under Section 349 Cr.P.C. (Hereinafter called notice) was served upon him on 22/x/94. He was directed to file his reply but he failed despite giving several opportunities till date and till he was not conveyed the intention to produce the same.Since the respondent has failed to discharge his duty by not producing the document in question and has failed to satisfy the Court, I ...
Svam Soft Ware Ltd. Vs. Point to Point Couriers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)312; 98(2002)DLT68; 2002(64)DRJ805
R.C. Jain, J.1. This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 15-7-2000 by which an application under Order 37 Rule 3(5) read with Section 151 CPC moved on behalf of the petitioner-defendant seeking leave to defend a summary suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been declined and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed.2. The relevant facts to be noted for the disposal of the revision petition are that the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.22,596/- as the amount of two bills for the month of August and September, 1998 in respect of the courier services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant besides interest and expenses of the legal notice to the tune of Rs.550/- under the provisions of Order 37 CPC. The petitioner-defendant on receipt of the summons had put in appearance and on receipt of the summons for judgment, applied for leave to defend by means of an application several grounded fully detailed...
Devi Dutt Malhotra and anr. Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)970; 98(2002)DLT206; II(2002)DMC157; 2002(63)DRJ21
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.4.1997, passed by the court of Ms. Rekha Sharma, ASJ, Delhi, holding that prima facie case under Section 498-A IPC is made out against Devi Dutt Malhotra, (petitioner No. 1 - father-in-law) and under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC against Pramod Kumar, (petitioner No. 2 - husband), of the deceased.2. Facts in brief are that petitioner No. 2 is son of petitioner No. 1; that the deceased (Meenu) was married to him at Amritsar; after the marriage they started living in Delhi. On 26.6.1994 she was found dead and her body was found hanging from the ceiling fan, by their landlady (Kamlesh). Parents of the deceased were informed. Father of deceased (Satpal) made a statement before the S.D.M. stating that his daughter (Meenu) was married with Pramod Kumar on 20.9.91. In the marriage he had given the dowry to the best of his capacity. In between, Pramod asked for Rs. 40,000/-, which he had given after raising a loan and...
Raman Kapoor Vs. Government of Nct Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)217; 98(2002)DLT135; 2002(63)DRJ678
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 3.1.1995, recording the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.1992 or otherwise direct the Registrar of firms of respondent No. 1 to rectify Under Section 64 of the Indian Partnership Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the alleged mistake as done by him and further to penalise the other partners of the firm for their act of forgery and furnishing false particulars, under Section 70 of the Act. 2. The factual matrix of the case may be briefly noted to the extent it is relevant. The petitioner claims that he is a partner in the partnership firm in the name of M/s. Kapoor Sons and Co., along with respondent No. 2 Mr. O.P. Kapoor and other partners. The writ petition has its origin and genesis in family acrimony. The petitioner is the son of respondent No. 2 and other partners are his brother. Petitioner claims that he is also a partner in other family concerns and firms, ...
Lokesh Tokas and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)941; 98(2002)DLT178; 2002(62)DRJ780
K.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners/accused seek setting aside of the charges framed against them under Sections 323/341/34 IPC on 14th February, 2002 by an Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi.2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in brief, are these. Bhagwan Dev Tokas made a complaint to the police alleging that on 28th April, 1999 at about 9.45 AM, when he reached the house after performing night duty, his wife told that Lokesh Kumar (petitioner No. 1) and his two brother-in-law were demolishing their other house No. 352-R, Munirka. Complaint went to that house where he found Lokesh Kumar and his two brothers-in-law present and roof of house damaged. On enquiry, why had they damaged the roof of house, said persons started abusing and beating the complainant. When the complainant rushed to the lane in order to save himself, Lokesh Kumar stopped him on the way and he Along with his two brothers-in-law gave him leg and fist blows due to which he receive...
Commissioner of C. Ex., New Delhi Vs. Trishul Research Lab. (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC183
1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.980-CE/DLH 2001, dated 16-10 2001 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. The COD application seeks condonation of delay of 27 days in preferring the appeal. Upon hearing both the sides we are satisfied that COD application merits acceptance.3. The issue raised in this appeal relates to assessment of soaps sold under contract by the appellants to the Hotel Industry. The appellant who is a soap manufacturer sells Biotique and other branded soaps to the Hotel Industry for use by them for issuing to their guests. The prices were determined under contract. The soap is not sold but is issued to the guests who are staying in the Hotel. The question that arose for consideration was as to whether the valuation of such soaps was to be made under Section 4A of Central Excise Act or Section 4 of that Act. The Commissioner held in the impugned order that such sales of soap to hotel are also to be assessed under Secti...
i.P.F. Vikram India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC199
1. In the instant case the Commissioner (Appeals) did not accept the contention raised by the appellant that the case is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the appellants' own case reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 116 (Trib.) for the reason that from 28-9-96 there has been amendment to the definition of "place of removal".Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant brings to our notice a Circular No. 251/85/96-CX., dated 14-10-96 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) clarifying certain points which had arisen as a result of the amended definition of 'place of removal'. One such point is whether the amendment will have any effect in the matter of valuation of goods manufactured on job work basis. It is clarified that if an independent job worker processes the goods and returns it back to the supplier of goods, the prescription of other 'places of removal' in the Budget will not make any difference in such cases. For such goods the...
Nutech Packagings, Sh. Mukul Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC295
1. Through the present stay applications, the appellants, M/s Nutech Packagings, has sought waiver of the pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 21,22,913 and equal amount of penalty, while appellant S/Shri Jatinder Shroff and Mukul Maindiratta have sought waiver of the penalty amount of Rs. 2 lakhs each as imposed on them under Rule 209-A of the Act by the Commissioner through the impugned order-in-original under appeal.2. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellants, M/s Nutech Packagings, are engaged in the manufacture of Boxes of duplex paper board and varnished printed paper sheets. During the course of transit checking, the Preventive Officers of the Central Excise intercepted their three wheeler loaded with 6984 sheets of unprinted and laminated duplex paper board. In a follow up, it also revealed that they were availing modvate credit on their inputs i.e. duplex paper board etc. under Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules. They were removing the modvat able inputs ei...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »