Delhi Court August 2002 Judgments

Santa Devi and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT604; II(2002)DMC512

Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this criminal revision challenging the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila court), Karkardooma courts, Delhi dated 24.4.2002 by which she has framed charges against these petitioners for offences under Section 498A and 406 IPC.2. Briefly stated the facts are that on the complaint of smt. Renu Sharma a case for commission of the offences under Section 498A & 406 IPC was registered against her husband Hari Kishan Goswami and other members of his family including these petitioners. These petitioners are sisters of Hari Kishan Goswami. They are married and they are staying with their families in Barsana Distt. Mathura.3. The counsel for the petitioner has stated that at the hearing of the charge the Metropolitan Magistrate has framed charges under Section 498A & 406 IPC against five accused namely Hari Kishan Goswami, Vijay Goswami, Smt. Brij Lata Goswami, Ram Kishan Goswami and Smt. Bhagwan Devi. She has framed charges against thes...

Shakuntla Gupta Vs. Registrar of Coop. Society

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT12

ORDER1. Petitioner claims to have purchased fiat No. 24-B at Janyug Apartments from one Usha Arora, an original member of R-2 Society Along with her share certificate and on execution of relevant documents on payment of consideration amount. She says that she thereafter approached the office bearers of R-2 Society for her recognition as owner of the Society. But they demanded Rs. 20,000/- as 'Entry Fee' which was paid by her vide receipts dated 23.6.1997 and 19.7.1997. But despite this office bearers of Society raised one demand after the other against her and threatened her of forcible eviction etc. though, she was regularly paying maintenance and other requisite charges which were payable by the original member (Usha Arora). She had all along approached Society's Committee for transfer of membership rights etc., but no action was taken in the matter. Petitioner's further grievance is that even though charging of 'Entry Fee' of Rs. 20,000/- was in contravention of Registrar's directiv...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pooja Forge Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)539

ORDER1. Heard.We are of the view that the following substantial questions of law arise forconsideration :1. 'Whether the Tribunal has rightly interpreted the scope of jurisdiction of the AO in the block assessment proceedings ?' 2. 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in deleting addition of Rs. 20,146 on alleged job work payment to Madhvi International, Rs. 2,64,926 on account of personal expenditure of directors on traveling, Rs. 6,00,846 on account of alleged job work charges, Rs. 50,000 on account of alleged share capital contributed by Mr. Shiv Shankar, Rs. 2,49,74,975 on account of Manisha Exports and Rs. 46,22,172 on account of disallowance of lease rental, holding that the said additions cannot be made in block assessment proceedings ?' 2. The appellant shall file within three months ten copies of the cyclostyled paper books, containing all documents on which reliance was placed before the Tribunal, including any order/orders, either in the case of the assessed itself or in c...

Pritpal Singh, Ram Babu Choudhary, Surender Kumar, Satya Prakash Sharm ... Overruled

Court: Delhi

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. These writ petitions are directed against Orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby and whereunder the original applications filed by the petitioners herein questioning orders of repatriation to their Parent Departments in substantiative cadre as also directions issued upon the respondents to regularize their services as Material Checking Clerk (in short, 'MCC') in construction division, were dismissed.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. We may, however, notice the fact of the matters from the records of C.W.P. No. 2916 of 2002.The original applicant before the Tribunal is the writ petitioner herein. He was appointed as a casual labour (Wiremen) which is a Group 'D' post on 28.04.1978. He was granted temporary status of Office Khalasi / Store Khalasi w.e.f. 01.01.1983. His services were regularized in Group 'D' w.e.f. 30.05.1990 by DPO, UMB on ad hoc basis. He wa...

Triveni Engg. and Ind. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC810

2. The appellants are manufacturers of various excisable products including molasses. During the period 2-1-99 to 30-11-99, they found a total loss of 784.910 MTs of molasses in their storage tanks and applied for remission of duty on the lost quantity of molasses under Rule 49 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. That application dated 29-2-2000 was submitted to the department on 6-3-2000. As there was no action on their application, the appellants sent reminders. The Supdt. of Central Excise in the office of the jurisdictional Commissioner went on writing to them that their application for remission of duty had not yet been considered by the Commissioner.Meanwhile, the Range Supdt. of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the appellants' factory went on demanding duty of Excise on the above quantity of molasses vide C. No. 20-CE./TEW/KHT/95/Pt.II/70, dated 20-2-2002 and C.No. 20-CE/TEW/KHT/95/Pt. II/77, dated 26-2-2002.Eventually, the appellants received a communication da...

Markfed Oil and Allied Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC860

1. M/s. Markfed Oil & Allied Industries have filed this Appeal against the Order dated 14-12-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise in exercise of powers under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that as per Rule 2(d)(l) xvii of Service Tax Rules, 1994, a person liable to pay freight in relation to the service provided by the goods transport operators was liable to pay the service tax with effect from 16-11-97; that the Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti v. UOI -1999 (112) E.L.T. 365 held the said goods ultra vires of the Finance Act, 1994; that the Superintendent had issued a show cause notice dated 12-5-99 directing them to show cause as to why the penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act may not be levied on account of their failure to file the returns of the service tax; that the Deputy Commissioner under Order dated 14-12-2001 dropped the proceedings in terms of Supreme Court decision in Laghu Udyog Bh...

Swaran Dhawan Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002CriLJ4763; 99(2002)DLT416

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 337/1999 under Section 39/44 the Indian Electricity Act (the Act) and Section 379 IPC and the taking of the cognizance of the offence by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of the charge-sheet filed for prosecution of the petitioner.2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner is owner of premises No. IIA-46 Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. She had four electricity meters installed in this property, one of which electricity meters (meter No. 3194206) was in the name of Amolak Lall, who was the previous owner. On 4.4.1999 the staff of DVB of the respondent conducted a joint raid at the aforesaid premises of the petitioner and detected that both half seal of the meter No. E-3194206 K. No. 016/1497989 were fictitious thereby meaning that there was theft of electricity. A report was lodged with the police and the petitioner was challaned for the offences under Section 39/44 of th...

Mahesh Chander Verma Vs. Lt. Governor of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT52

Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant questions the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12th September, 2001 whereby the writ petition filed by him seeking the following reliefs was dismissed:-(a) quashing of the decision of this court on the administrative side declining reservation for other backward classes (OBC) in Delhi Higher Judicial Service and Delhi Judicial Service.(b) to direct this Court to make provision for reserving 27% posts of Higher Judicial Service for the members of the OBC.(c) quashing the advertisement dated January 2, 1999 issued by this Court for calling applications for the eleven posts for appointment to the posts in Delhi Higher Judicial Service.(d) to quash the recommendations for appointment to the post of Delhi Higher Judicial Service in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement.2. In order to dispose of the appeal the following facts need to be noticed:-3. The Registrar of this Court, by an advertisement dated January 2, 19...

Caterpillar Inc. Vs. Mehtab Ahmed and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT678

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Not only the plaintiff company goes by the name of CATERPILLAR an insect but also manufactures and sells variety of goods under the namesake trademark. Another mark it uses is name of an animal, viz. CAT. It is a company incorporated under he laws of the State of Delaware, United States of America having its principal place of business at 100 NE Adams Street, Peoria, Illinois, 61629, United States of America. It has been using these marks in respect of manufacture for construction, mining, roads, building agriculture industries, footwears and garments etc since 1904. These trademarks are extensively used in relation to footwear besides in respect of wide range of garments including sweaters, jackets, shirts, T-shirts, headwear, sweatshirts and gloves etc.2. Plaintiff has through this suit sought permanent injunction against the defendants from infringing of its copy right and also by way of passing off action as the defendants are selling and offering for sale various...

Smt. Saraswati Devi Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT759

C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. By way of this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the acquisition proceedings in respect of property comprised in Khasra No. 368 measuring 5 bighas 19 bids was in Village Masjid Moth, New Delhi as well as the notification dated 7th March 1962 issued by Delhi Administration and the LAC Case No. 72/85 pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge. (Land Acquisition Court).2. Briefly the facts are, the property comprised of Khasra No. 368, measuring 5 bighas, 19 bids was was notified to be sold as a Government property by public auction on 21.6.1958. The late husband of the petitioner being displaced person bid for the same which was accepted as the highest bid. Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India vide letter dated 31.10.1960 directed delivery of provisional possession of the aforesaid property subject to terms of the Indemnity Bond. No title was given. The husband of the petitioner died on 6th June 1970, A sum of Rs. 14,992/- was demanded by the Ministr...