Delhi Court May 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.
Smt. Sabnam Vs. Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)881; 2002CriLJ2779; 97(2002)DLT979; 2002(64)DRJ276
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against order dated 28th April, 2000 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi declining to release Vehicle No. HYN 849 to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 543/99 seized under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for short 'the Act'), P.S. Saraswati Vihar.2. Briefly stated the facts are: that on 14th August, 1999, police of P.S. Saraswati Vihar stopped and checked Gypsy No. HYN 849; it was found to contain five bags of country-made liquor totalling one thousand pouches; he disclosed that the Gypsy was given to him by the petitioner's husband Hasrat Ali at the border; thereafter he was arrested under Section 25 of the Act; after investigation, challan was filed and cognizance was taken. Petitioner moved an application for release of the said vehicle pending final disposal of the case, submitting therein that she is the registered owner of the vehicle; that she is ...
Dalmia Resorts International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Deepak Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)254; 98(2002)DLT181; 2002(64)DRJ81
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') petitioner M/s. Dalmiya Resorts International Pvt. Ltd. is seeking quashing of the proceedings under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. in the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 (Deepak Gupta) against them and others, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act') read with Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.2. Facts in brief are that respondent No. 1 (Deepak Gupta) filed a complaint against the petitioner, Mrs. Indu Dalmiya (Chairperson), N.P. Jalan and Pardeep Shukla (Directors of petitioner No. 1) alleging that the petitioner issued cheque No. 974214 dated 3rd December, 1997 for Rs. 18,515.67 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Nehru Place, New Delhi. The cheque was dishonoured with the remarks 'stopped payment'. Despite notice, the payment was not made. After the preliminary enquiry, petitioner were summoned under Section 138 of NI Act. Summons were returned ...
Bharat Engineering Enterprises Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)182; 2002(3)ARBLR410(Delhi); 99(2002)DLT48
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. On being noticed as to the filing of award respondent-DDA has filed objections under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by way of I.A. 892/1995.2. Though respondent has assailed each and every claim awarded by the Arbitrator but the substantial objections are mainly with regard to claim No. 1(c), claim No. 2 and claim No. 11 as award in respect of remaining claims is based upon material and evidence produced by the parties and is thereforee on factual matrix.3. It is a settled law that findings on facts returned by the Arbitrator should not be disturbed until and unless the Arbitrator is alleged to have ignored the material document or perversity is writ large and there is an error of fact and law apparent on the face. The court does not sit in appeal and as such should refrain from reassessing or re-appreciating the evidence and the material before the Arbitrator.4. The scope of challenge to the award is very limited. The award can be set aside if the Arbi...
Manish Chandra Pathak Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)222; 98(2002)DLT679; 2002(65)DRJ348
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. The petitioner, a student of LLB IInd year in Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, feels aggrieved by the non-allotment of a room (seat) to him in P.G. Men's Hostel, University of Delhi. According to him the respondent No. 3, the Provost of the said hostel, has acted illegally and in an arbitrary, malafide and discriminatory manner in refusing a seat to him in as much as he has been objecting to allotment of seats to certain ineligible students. It isalso pleaded by way of filing an additional affidavit that one room belonging to the quota of Faculty of Law has been illegally and unauthorizedly transferred to the Department of Philosophy under the foreign quota although there are more rooms available under the foreign quota of other Faculties. It is submitted that this was done only with a view to deprive the petitioner of a seat in the Hostel in question.2. The respondents in their counter affidavit, as well as additional affidavit have denied that the respondent...
Mr. Amar Deep Singh Narula Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi397; 98(2002)DLT353
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue duplicate Indira Vikas Patra certificates to the petitioner, in lieu of the certificates lost by the petitioner or in the alternative release the maturity amount of the Indira Vikas Patras, which matured on 1.12.1999.2. Petitioner claims to have purchased 8 Indira Vikas Patras during the financial year 1994-95 with a total value of Rs. 20,000/-. The said Indira Vikas Patra had the maturity date as 1.12.1999. Unfortunately the petitioner states he lost the Indira Vikas Patras and the same are not traceable.3. Petitioner claims to be the bonafide owner of the said Indira Vikas Patras, having purchased them and having duly declared the same in his tax returns. Petitioner claims to have availed of the standard deduction in his tax returns. The photo copies of the said Indira Vikas Patras have also been produced with the petition. Petitioner had lodged an FIR regarding the loss ...
Indian Contractors of Builders (Cpwd/Pwd) Association (Regd), Through ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ6
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioners have been found to be eligible for carrying out the works up to 5 lacs or for the works more than 20 lacs and have been enlisted, it is not permissible for the respondent to prepare a further Select List out of these contractors for maintenance work to be carried out in the VIP/VVIP areas. Petitioner, thereforee, had impugned notification dated 28.1.1999, inviting application for Select List.3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the writ petition has become infrustuous, as the challenge in this writ petition is to the Select List of 1999, which was to be prepared in pursuance to the advertisement dated 28.6.1999. Hew submits not only that Select List was prepared,, its validity has since expired. Further that in 2001, similar advertisement was issued, pursuance to which Select List for the year 2002 was a...
Laser Recyling and Harish B. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC201
1. Arguing the stay petition Shri K. Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Commissioner of Customs has imposed penalty both on the proprietor as well as of the proprietory concern. He submits that penalty cannot be imposed both on proprietor and the proprietor firm.2. Learned Counsel submits that the applicants had a good case and the balance of convenience lies in their favour. He submits that certain goods arrived in the name of the applicant. He submits that the applicant had never negotiated for these goods and the goods were not claimed nor were there any indication except bill of lading that the goods were ordered by the applicant. He submits that the bank documents were never released from the bank by the applicant. He submits that since the applicant had not ordered for the goods nor is he claiming the ownership there was no question of levy of penalty on the applicant.3. Learned Counsel also submits that financial condition of the appli...
Orient Ceramics and Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC792
1. P.S. Bajaj, Member (J). - This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Original, dated 12-6-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The appellants are importer of Porcelain tiles. They filed bill of entry dated 24-10-2000 through CHA for the clearance of the goods declaring the same as unglazed porcelain tiles (in short the goods) valued at Rs. 18,27,955/-. They claimed classification of the goods under Tariff Heading 6907.90 of the CTA and sought clearance without licence under Para 5.1 of the EXIM Policy, 1997-2002. The bill of entry was assessed as per declaration made by them; and after payment of duty, so assessed, the bill of entry was presented in the import shed for physical examination where the goods were examined in the presence of the appellant's representative. On examination, it appeared that the goods were glazed tiles. Such tiles were classifiable under Heading 6908.90 of the tariff and being restricted for importation as per ...
Kwality Zipper Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT296TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-appeal dated 14-8-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the order-in-original dated 27-2-2001 passed by the Joint Commissioner who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 2,87,435/- along with equal amount of penalty and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants.2. The appellant-company is engaged in the manufacture of slide fastner and parts thereof. The amalgamation of the company took place with M/s.Shamil Industries (P) Ltd. An intimation regarding this amalgamation was given by the appellant-company to the excise department vide letter dated 27-12-99. But after examining the copy resolution of amalgamation, it revealed that the amalgamation of the two companies was effective from 1-4-99. Therefore, the clearances of the company M/s. Shamil Industries were to be clubbed with that of the appellant-company, from 1-4-99. But the appellant company concealed this ...
Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)225; 98(2002)DLT764; 2002(64)DRJ68; (2002)IIILLJ447Del
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashment of the complaint filed on 29th October 1997 by the State (through Inspector of Factories), respondent No. 2 and the summons dated 18th November 1997 issued by a Metropolitan Magistrate, respondent No. 4. 2. Complaint (copy at pages 69 to 70 on the file) was filed by respondent No. 2 against N.K. Chaubey alleging that Container Corporation of India Ltd is a factory under section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') and N.K. Chaubey, accused being proprietor/ partner/director thereof is an occupier within the meaning of section 2(n) of the Act. Factory situated at Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi was inspected by the Inspector of Factories on 29th September 1997 at 12 noon and breaches as detailed in para 4 of the complaint were noticed. Accused was, thus, guilty of contravening Rule 11-A of Delhi Factories Rules, 1950 read with Sections 6 and...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »