Delhi Court August 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.
Malvika Apparels and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas335(Delhi); [2003]42SCL85(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing of the notice dated 2.8.2002 issued by respondent No. 2 on the ground that it does not conform to Section 169 of Companies Act and does not cover the agenda for which the extraordinary general body meeting was called.2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioners had sent a requisition under Section 169 of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), requiring certain issues, which are listed in para 27. The same is reproduced as under:(1) Issue pertaining to the BG/EMC Refunds pending since several years be settled immediately:------------------------------------------- 'Resolved that the outstanding BG/EMC cases pending with the AEPC and the Textile Ministry be cleared within 1 month. The BG/EMC collected is in violation of the Garment Export Entitlement Policy and the same must be refunded in full to the garment exporter failing which an alternative scheme on the lines of Samadhan be pr...
Chander Pal Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ804
S.B. Sinha, c.J.1. This reference has been made to a Larger Bench by a Division Bench of this Court doubting the correctness of a judgment dated 18.10.2001 in C.W.P. No. 6672 of 2000 and other connected matters whereby and whereunder an order of the appellate authority had been set aside only on the ground that purportedly on similar charges, the appellate authority itself had set aside orders of punishment.Having regard to the point involved in these matters, it is not necessary to notice the fact of the matter in great detail.1.1 The basic fact of the matter, however, is not in dispute. The petitioners were appointed as 'Constables'. Indisputably the terms and conditions of service of the Constables are governed by the provisions of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (in short, 'the said Act'). In terms of the provisions of the said Act, rules were framed known as Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 (in short, 'the Appointment Rules') and Delhi Police (Punishment and Appea...
Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi509; 100(2002)DLT259
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Constitutionality of a part of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called for the sake of brevity 'the said Act' for short) is in question in these writ petitions. BACKGROUND FACTS :-2. The petitioners are owners of the premises in question. The said premises had originally been leased out to Delhi Improvement Trust by an Indenture dated 18th August 1953. The said leasehold rights were purchased by the petitioner in 1973.Clause 4(c) of the said Indenture reads thus:'4(c) The lessee shall not use the said land and building that may be erected thereon during the said terms for any other purpose than for purpose of a residential house, without the consent in writing of the Lesser.'3. The petitioner asserted that the second respondent/tenant had not been using the premises for residential purposes and the user had been permitted by the lesser in terms of the lease deed. She filed an application for eviction of the respondent No.2 from the t...
Virumal Parveen Kumar Vs. Gokal Chand Hari Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(25)PTC672(Del)
S. Mukerjee, J.1. This is a suit for perpetual injunction for restraining the use of trade mark '555', passing of and rendition of accounts etc. In brief, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff adopted the trade mark '555' Along with the device of Swan with a distinctive colour combination in 1989 for buttons, safety pins, hooks, eye-lets, fasteners etc. On account of continuous and long user the plaintiff has acquired proprietary rights in the above trade mark and the above trade mark is generally associated with name of the plaintiff and is considered as a standard of quality of goods. The plaintiff is stated to have built up a huge reputation and good-will in the market in respect of the above products under the said trade mark. The plaintiff is also stated to be lawful proprietor of the said trade mark under application number, 555498 dated 30th July, 1991 under class 26. The plaintiff is stated to be first adopter, originator, author and owner of the copy rights in the la...
Baldev Raj Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)SLJ499(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the correctness of an Award dated 20th July, 1999 passed by Labour Court No. 1 in ID No. 044/84 (old) and ID No. 548/ 91 (new). Learned Counsel has confined his submissions only to the quantum of punishment.2. The matter has been called out twice but there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.3. The petitioner (since deceased) was alleged to have been willfully absent from duty from 15th June, 1979 to 30th June, 1979. It is alleged that he was a habitual absentee.4. A departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner in which he was found guilty and dismissed from service. The petitioner thereafter raised an industrial dispute. The matter was then referred to the Labour Court on the question whether the dismissal of the petitioner from service is illegal or unjustified. The respondents abstained from participating in the proceedings from 10th January, 1996.5. A preliminary issue had been framed on 24th April, 1989 whether ...
Parasmal Bam Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT717TriDel
1. The appeal arises from rejection of refund claim of service tax paid. The appellants were subjected to service tax as Management Consultant. It is the contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the appellant did not possess any professional qualification in the area of management and that he was engaged as a Consultant mainly because he had served as Managing Director of M/s. Kasyap Sweet-ners Ltd. He took us to the terms of the engagement and submitted that from Para--3 of the order of engagement it would be clear that the appointment was not for any particular consultancy services but only to ensure that the confidential information gained by the appellant during his services as Managing Director stayed with him and is not divulged.2. As against this, ld. SDR has referred to Consultancy Bill dated 31-1-1999 and pointed out that the payment has been made to the appellant for providing consultancy on various matters related to the company's affairs for the period from Dec...
Tankeshwar Singh Nimbekar and Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC782
1. The above-captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common order-in-original dated 31.8.2001 vide which the Commissioner had ordered for the confiscation of the currency of the foreign worth Rs. 30,70,450 and imposed penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on Shri Tankeshwar Singh, appellant, and of Rs. 6 lakhs on Shri Vikas Mohan Singhal, appellant.2. The facts are not much in dispute. On interception of Shri Tankeshwar Singh, appellant, at IGI Airport on 19.8.1999 by the DRI Officers, foreign currency wrapped in polythene and kept below the soles of his each foot, covered with socks was recovered. The currency recovered from his left foot was, Deutsches Mark - 1000 while from the right foot was (D) Deutsche Mark - 400 & (2) Swiss Frank - 1000, valued in the Indian currency, Rs. 30,70,450 (sic). He in his statement admitted the recovery of the foreign currency, but further averted that he was working as an employee of Shri Vikas Mohan Singhal, appellant, and the foreign c...
Roop Kamal Maheswari and anr. Vs. Andhra Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC78
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the records on file. Appellants have approached this Tribunal with this appeal against the order dated 18.1.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Delhi, dismissing their applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and for setting aside the final order passed in O.A.505/97.2. Concededly, the final order was passed on 20.11.1998. The application to set aside that order was filed on 15.10.1999, nearly after a period of 11 months. A perusal of the order of the learned Presiding Officer shows that even on 9.11.1998, no one had appeared on behalf of the appellants herein (who were defendants 2 and 3 before the DRT) and they were proceeded ex parte. The final order was not passed immediately. It is seen that on 10.11.1998, Counsel for the appellants had appeared before the DRT. Yet no steps had been taken for setting aside the order proceeding ex parte. Consequently, the final order came to be passed. These facts...
Anil Jindal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT398
Usha Mehra, J. 1. Petitioner was apprehended by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) of the Custom Department for over-invoicing the export value and misdeclaration of the description of the items. 2. Brief facts for purposes of deciding this writ are that petitioner and his companions declared 'Brick Powder' as 'Magnetite Ramming Mass' (in short MRM). The petitioner in connivance with others did this in order to avail higher Duty Exemption Pass Book (in short DEPB) credit. The prevalent price of most commonly used MGM was approximately Rs. 12/- per Kg. The Government of India in its Export Import Policy announced DEPB Scheme by virtue of which the exporter becomes eligible to claim credit at a specified percentage of F.O.B. Value of exports made in freely 'convertible currency'. 3. M/s Vikas Trading Corporation exported different consignments on different dates to M/s Fairdeal Building Chemicals, Sharjah, U.A.E. declaring the goods as Magnetite Ramming Mass/Magneti...
Narender Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ410
R.C. Jain, J. 1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to assail the order of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi dated 31st October, 201 thereby ordering the detention of the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to prevent him from action in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The basis for making the said order, as would be apparent from the grounds of detention are that as many as 12 criminal cases fully enlisted in the grounds of detention some for serious offence such as extortion and robbery, murder attempt to murder etc, were registered against the detenu during the period 1990 to 20th August, 2001. Some of these cases have already ended up in acquitted or discharge of the detenu while only two cases, one arising out of FIR 268 under Section 392/34 IPC and Arms Act PS Model Town and another FIR No. 187 under Section 3...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »