Delhi Court February 2003 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.
Ravinder Sharma Vs. Mirza Tanners Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2005(30)PTC31(Del)
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings arising out of the complaint case in FIR No DD No. 7A under Sections 78 and 79 of the TMM Act registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi pending before the Court of Shri S.S. Rathi, MM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that parties have mutually settled the matter.3. Statement of Shri S. Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner without SA and Shri Arvind Verma, Marketing Manager of the respondent No. 1 on SA have been recorded separately.4. In view of statement of learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 1 recorded separately, I am satisfied that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and there is no point in continuing the proceedings arising out of the complaint case in FIR DD No. 7A dated 19th may, 1999. Accordingly, in the interest of justice this petition is allowed and proceedings arising out of the complai...
Kamra Bottling Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT487TriDel
1. These are three appeals filed by M/s. Kamra Bottling Company (in short M/s. KBC) against a common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in three appeals preferred by M/s. KBC against three orders-in-original passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner.2. One of the three orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner was on a classification dispute while the remaining two orders were passed by him in adjudication of show-cause notices demanding duty of excise. It appears from the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the classification determined by the original authority was not challenged by M/s. KBC. It was, apparently, only the demands of duty as confirmed by the original authority that were challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), who affirmed the decision of the lower authority.Accordingly, demands of duty of Rs. 33,851/- and Rs. 98,035/- have been affirmed by the lower appellate authority for the periods September, 1994 to February, 1995 and March,...
Rishi Prakash Tyagi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ105CAT
1. Shri Rishi Prakash Tyagi, applicant in this O.A. challenges respondents' Order No. 52216-40/CB-I, dated 26.6.2000, intimating that his case among those of a few others have been placed in the sealed cover and seeks that he be promoted to the Grade II of DANIPS, after opening the sealed cover and granted all consequential benefits.2. During the oral submissions the applicant was represented by Mr.Arun Bhardwaj while the respondents were heard through Mr. N.S. Mehta, Sr. Standing Counsel alongwith Mrs. Sumedha Sharma.3. The applicant who joined as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police on 25.3.66, became an Inspector on 19.8.80 and was confirmed as such on 28.6.85. A criminal complaint was filed against him, along with a few others including another Inspector K.P. Singh on 26.11.87. Applicant was summoned on 2.4.94, by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 2.4.94, and his revision application against the same was rejected on 7.4.98, but the same order was stayed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 30...
Manjit Kumar Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC84
1. This is an application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") for waiver of the deposit to be made in terms of this section.2. Final order dated 7.1.2002 was passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi-I (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') ordering the appellants/defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 9,19,01,443/- to the respondent/plaintiff-Bank with costs, pendente lite and future 'interest at 18.36% per annum with quarterly rests.3. The application of the appellants/defendants for recalling/reviewing the abovesaid order, and for granting them time to file written statement was also dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by his order dated 16.1.2002. Aggrieved by both the orders, the appellants/defendants have filed the appeal. They had also filed Miscellaneous Application 82/2002 under Section 21 of the Act for waiver of the deposit. The appellants...
Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain, Vs. Mr. A.R. Marwah (Now Dead Through Lrs):
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)277; 103(2003)DLT193; 2003(67)DRJ290
S.N. Kapoor, J. 1. Heard.2. This appeal is directed against an order of dismissal of a suit of Mr. Vijay Kumar Jain, a tenant. The brief facts giving an occasion to filing of this appeal are as under.3. Sh. Sant Ram Marwah was landlord of the premises in dispute. He filed an eviction petition and that eviction petition was allowed on 9th October, 1972. Three years time was granted to vacate the shop. Sh. Sant Ram Marwah died on 27th May, 1984 leaving behind respondents No. 1 to 4 as his legal heirs and representatives. Out of these four legal representatives, Sh. A. R. Marwah for himself and on behalf of respondent No. 2, Sh. N. C. Marwah accepted Rs.105/- towards monthly rent from June 1974, and agreed to create a fresh tenancy at the rate of Rs.250/- per month with effect from 1st October, 1975 and accordingly a rent receipt for a sum of Rs.250/- was issued on 4th October, 1975. Sh. D. B. Marwah, respondent No. 3 proceeded with the execution despite the fact that a fresh tenancy was ...
Shri Ashwni Kumar Khanna Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)634; 105(2003)DLT98; 2003(69)DRJ628
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A sub-lease deed was executed in respect of plot No. E-5/8, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in favor of Smt. Kalan on 19.07.1972. The property was sold on a Power of Attorney basis to the petitioner herein on 28.04.1978, though the nature of transaction was of an agreement for construction along with a General Power of Attorney and Will with a provision that on the failure of the perpetual sub-lease deed to pay the amount in terms of the construction agreement, the property would vest with the petitioner. The agreement to sell was entered into on 20.12.1980 for an amount of Rs. 5.50 lacs and Smt. Kalan applied to the respondent for permission to sell the property to the petitioner in 1980. 2. The petitioner let out the property to one Shri Balbir Singh on 23.01.1981, who started running a guest house in a portion of the property in question. In the meantime on 18.08.1981, the respondent replied to Smt. Kalan in pursuance to her request for permission to transfer statin...
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT564; 2004(76)DRJ13; [2004(101)FLR302]; (2004)IILLJ603Del; 2004(2)SLJ491(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. RULE. 2. With the consent of the parties matter has been heard and disposed of by this order. 3. Petitioner was working as Executive Engineer with the respondent when he applied for two years extra-ordinary leave for higher studies abroad. Respondent considered the request of the petitioner favorably and granted extra-ordinary leave for two years for studies w.e.f. 15th July, 1994. Petitioner, after the expiry of the period of two years, did not return to India and instead wrote a letter dated 20th June, 1994 from California, USA with a request to sanction extra-ordinary leave for a further period of two years. The respondent duly considered the request of the petitioner and allowed further extra-ordinary leave for period of two years w.e.f. 15th July, 1996 to complete studies of M.S. in Electrical Engineering from West Coast University, Los Angeles, USA. A request dated 25th June, 1998 was again received from the petitioner for extension of extra-ordinary leave by ...
Exphar Sa and ors. Vs. Bharat Shah and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC461(Del)
Devinder Gupta, ACJ. 1. Both appeals arise out of an order passed on 28.9.1999 by learned Single Judge disposing of is Nos. 9365/98 and 10313/98. FAO (OS) No. 306/99 is plaintiffs appeal against a part of the order on the ground that when plaintiff No. 1 was held to be the proprietor of trade mark MALOXINE, temporary injunction, as prayed for in the application, ought to have been granted and ought not have been declined on the ground of delay in bringing the action. FAO (OS) No. 331/99 is defendants' appeal against that part of the impugned order by which learned Single Judge restrained it from using the colour combination holding that prima facie plaintiff No. 1 had got right herein under Section 17(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and as regards the finding of learned Single Judge that prima facie plaintiff is the proprietors of trade mark MALOXINE and owner of copyright in the carton.2. Facts in brief are that the plaintiff on 26.10.1998 filed a suit claiming decree for permanent proh...
Mool Chand and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ453
Devinder Gupta, A.G.J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing the possession proceeding dated 27.3.2001, copy of which has been attached as Annexure P-6 and has also prayed for directions to quash notifications/notices issued under Sections 4, 6, 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. There are nine petitioners in this case, who claim to be the owners of land comprised in khasra Nos. 985 (4-16); 986 (4-16); 987 (3-12), 978/1 (4-06), 991/2 (1-08); 959 (1-12); 960 (1-18); 961/1 (3-7); 961/2 (1-09); 962/1 (2-08); 973/1 (2-08); 974 (3-15), 976 (1-03); 977/1 (1-12); 984/2 (1-03) and 979/1 (0-01) situate within revenue estate of village Mahipalpur, which land is stated to be built up area.3. It is alleged by the petitioners that on 23.1.1965, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued notifying the intention of the Government to acquire land in the revenue estate of v...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahesh Kumar Modi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: [2004]266ITR192(Delhi)
D. K. Jain J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ('the Tribunal' for short), has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following questions for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in limiting the value of the perquisite in respect of the residential accommodation at Modinagar to the value fixed by the prescribed authority under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in reducing the value of perquisites in respect of concessional electricity and water supplied to the assessed to Rs. 1,000 only and thereby ignoring the provisions of Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?' 2. We have heard Mr. R. C. Pandey, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. S. K. Aggarwal, learned counsel fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »