Delhi Court May 2002 Judgments

Ajay Kumar Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)140; 98(2002)DLT315; 2002(64)DRJ84; 2002(82)ECC549

K.S. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18th May 1999 and order dated 19th May 1999 of an Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant-accused under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs & PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo RI for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. In default of payment of fine, appellant is to further undergo SI for one year.2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17th January, 1997 Inspector R.S. Dahiya, PW-5 received secret information that two boys having charas concealed in two plastic tins, would reach Delhi from Patna. This information was recorded in the D.D. at Seriall No. 16-A at 5.30 pm. On instructions of PW-5 a raiding party was organized by SI Chand Ram, PW-10 and HC Gajinder Singh, PW-2, Constable Ayaz Khan, PW-3, Kallu Singh and Rajnath were included therein. On reaching Old Delhi Railway Station, PW-1 Bansi Lal running a book stall there, was also included in the pa...

Living Media India Limited Vs. Jitender V. JaIn and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)161; 98(2002)DLT430

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The short controversy for the limited purpose of an interlocutory injunction is whether the name and style of 'AAJ TAK' and its logo having distinctive features in relation to the News Channel is a generic term and as such is not the monopoly of any particular person either in relation to the news programme or otherwise. Put briefly the relevant facts are as under:-2. The plaintiff is carrying on its business of the production of the programme which is telecast on the Doordarshan Channel and transmitted all over India and is the producer of the news programme in Hindi under the name and style of 'AAJ TAK'. It has been using the said trade name since 1.6.95 though had applied for its registration before the trade mark authorities on 13.9.95. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the layout and the script of words 'AAJ TAK' is an artistic, exclusive and distinctive style and as a consequence the readers have identified the plaintiff's production not only by the tra...

Shri Ishwar Singh and ors. Vs. Shri Lakhmir Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 98(2002)DLT648; 2002(64)DRJ174

R.C. Chopra, J.1. The appellants are the sons and daughters of deceased Smt. Chanda Devi who met with an accident on 18th July, 1983 and sustained fatal injuries. She had suffered he injuries when she was alighting from Bus No. DEP 3006 but the driver-respondent No. 1 had suddenly started the Bus in arash and negligent manner as a result of which she fell down and was crushed under the rear wheels of the same bus. The respondent No. 4 is the husband of the deceased but he never participated in the proceedings and it is stated that he had deserted her much before her death.2. In the Trial Court, the respondent No. 1, driver, was proceeded against ex-parte. The respondent No. 2, owner, of the bus, denied that the deceased was traveling in the Bus in question. In the alternative, he pleaded that she had suffered injuries on account of her own negligence as she hadjumped out of the moving Bus with a view to get down from the bus. The insurer-respondent No. 3 had pleaded that its liability ...

Dr.(Mrs.) Kiran Robinson Vs. Ajeet Malcolm Robinson and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2003Delhi44; 99(2002)DLT111; II(2002)DMC462; 2002(63)DRJ708

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of marriage on behalf of wife-petitioner on the ground of cruelty, desertion and adultery. This trite trinity has been responsible for larger number of broken marriages. Apart from this, there is allegation that respondent is medically unfit to impregnate the petitioner as he is suffering from Polycystic Kidney Disease which means he is capable of sexual intercourse but not able to make the wife conceive.2. The parties entered into wedlock on 7.8.1991. The petitioner possessed postgraduate degree in Chemistry at the time of marriage and completed her Ph.D. after her marriage. She is presently working as P.G.T. in a Government Senior Secondary School. The respondent is a photographer by profession. After marriage she started living with her in laws at 1 B.P., Maurya Enclave, M.I.G. Flats, Pitampura (Poorvi) Delhi. She stayed there from August, 1991 to 2nd week of September, 1991.3. It ...

H.B. Financial Consultants (P) Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Del)1042

ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.The appeal has been directed by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 4-2-2000 pertaining to assessment year 1996-97. 2. Ground of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 9 are general in nature and do not need any adjudication. As these grounds of appeal have not been pressed during the course of hearing, all these grounds of appeal are dismissed.3. Ground No. 4 raised by the assessed relates to the disallowance of capital loss of Rs. 71,03,862 on the sale of investment.4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessed is a non-banking financial company. It was registered with the RBI. Up to the last year, the assessed was only making investments in the purchase of shares, securities and debentures. It was holding certain investments in the shape of shares, debentures. As on 1-4-1996, it had the investment amounting to Rs. 24 crores. It also made purchases of investment amounting to Rs. 36.67 lacs. It sold a part of investment at Rs. 5,06,...

MirajuddIn Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Del)561

Order Dal Veer Bhandari, J. The petitioner in this petition has prayed that the order, dt, 28-6-1978, passed by Commissioner be set aside. He has also prayed that the orders, dated 27-3-1979, and 27-9-1980, passed by Income Tax Officer and Central Board of Direct Taxes respectively be set aside. 2. The controversy involved in the entire case is rather narrow. The petitioner filed a petition under section 273A before Commissioner concerning assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75 praying for waiver/reduction of penalties livable under section 271(1)(a) and interest under section 139(8). It is not disputed that the returns were filed voluntarily and full disclosure was made. It is also incorporated in the order of the Commissioner that the petitioner has cooperated in completion of the assessments and paid the taxes in full. The learned Commissioner mentioned in his order that although the conditions envisaged in section 273A are fulfilled but he declined to waive the penalties and interest ...

i.P. Katyal, Chief Executive, Asim Engineers and Consultants Vs. Poles ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.P. Saberwal, Member: 1. Shri I.P. Katyal, Chief Executive, Asim Engineers and Consultants has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herinafter referred to as the Act) against O.P. Poleservice (Indian Region) praying for direction to the O.P. to pay agreed commission upto 10% of the total amount of $46080/- (Rs. 16,12,800/- in Indian currency taking one $=Rs. 35/-). It is stated that complainant was duly authorised by Dr. K. Lastoweicki, Director of the O.P., Poleservice to look after the promotion of their business in the field of crew management for drilling of rigs and allied services vide his letter dated 10.7.1995 (Annexure-II). It is also stated that O.P. had agreed to pay him upto 10% of commission from the received payment vide endorsement dated 16.11.1995 (Copy Annexure II). It is further stated that during the time of issuing him authority letter to look after Poleservice business, a proposal submitted by O.P. directly to M/s. Pee...

Asil Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT206TriDel

1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17/23-7-2001 vide which the Addi. Commissioner (CCO) informed the appellants regarding rejection of their request for the waiver of the interest on the warehoused goods.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the order conveyed is non-speaking and has not been passed by the Chief Commissioner who alone is competent under the law to allow or disallow the waiver of the interest on the warehoused goods. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter be sent back to the competent authority for passing appropriate order after hearing the appellants.3. The learned SDR has simply reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. We have heard both sides. The power to waive or not to waive the interest on the warehouse goods, vests only with the Chief Commissioner under the Customs Act. The appellants, admittedly, applied for the waiver of the interest on the warehoused goods. Therefore, the Chief Commissione...

Golden Iron and Steel Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT330TriDel

1. The appellants manufacture Flanges, forged proof machine products and forged products falling under Tariff Heading No. 7307, 7326 & 7207 respectively. They availed Modvat credit of Rs. 18,026/-. On the strength of invoice No. 490033, dated 13-11-1997 issued by M/s. BHEL, Ramachandra, Hyderabad on the item weld neck flanges. They were however issued a show cause notice by the Superintendent of Central Excise, MOR 15, Central Excise, New Delhi in which it was alleged that the item weld neck flanges on which the party had availed the Modvat credit was their final product and was also not declared by the party as an input item under Rule 57G. On hearing the case of the party, the Asst.Commissioner of Central Excise, MOD-III, New Delhi in Order dated 31-3-1999 observed that indeed the party had declared this item as one of their input in their declaration filed on 18-2-1998. The Asst.Commissioner yet denied the Modvat credit to them on the ground that the flanges were themselves fin...

R.P. Monga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)87ITD287(Delhi)

1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the AO for the block period ending 9th Aug., 1995. A search under s.132 of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out at the residential and business premises of the assessee which was concluded on 9th Aug., 1995 and some incriminating documents and valuables were seized. After examining this material the AO started assessment proceedings under Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee filed return of income declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 30,50,000. The AO, however, completed the assessment on an undisclosed income of Rs. 64,96,000. The assessee has come up before us by taking various grounds of appeal which are being discussed and decided as under : 2. First ground of appeal taken by the assessee is against the addition of undisclosed cash found at the time of search amounting to Rs. 5,69,000. During the course of search carried out at the residence of the assessee 9/8, East Patel Nagar, the cash amounting to Rs...