Delhi Court February 2003 Judgments

Meenu Sharma and anr. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)114; AIR2003Delhi334; 104(2003)DLT370; I(2003)DMC717; 2003(68)DRJ368; 2003(2)JCC819

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. In a war of wits between husband and wife, child is made a pawn. Petitioner No. 1 is the wife and respondent No. 4 is her husband. Relations between them have soured; may be beyond repairs. Respondent No. 4 is accusing wife of illicit relations with one Ajay Singh who is Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police. Respondent No. 4 has filed a petition for divorce against the petitioner No. 1, inter alia, on the grounds of cruelty and adultery and illicit relationship between petitioner No. 1 and SI Ajay Singh amounting to cruelty. Parties have two children; one is named Aakriti who is a daughter aged 13 years and is arrayed as petitioner No. 2 in this petition. Another child is son aged 9 years. Both the children are with father. Petitioner No. 1 has filed petition for custody of these children which is also pending adjudication. 2. However, we are not concerned, in this petition, with any matrimonial dispute between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 4. The acrimonious relations...

V.S. Rahi Vs. the Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)448; 109(2004)DLT644; 2004(3)SLJ65(Delhi); 2003(6)SLR702

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Petitioner was employed as Senior Art Teacher with respondent No.3 school. Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.1990. Petitioner was contributing to the provident fund and was the member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. An advertisement was issued by the Directorate of Education in June, 1990 that the employees of the recognised private unaided schools in Delhi and New Delhi were eligible to have the privileges, facilities, entitlements and rights pursuant to the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and the Rules made there under. The facilities and privileges to which the employees of recognised private unaided schools were allegedly entitled in terms of the said advertisement, issued by the Directorate of Education included medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits. Acting on this advertisement, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court for issue of a direction to the res...

Shri Sanjay Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)317; 104(2003)DLT542; 2003(71)DRJ521

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner being an Arjuna Awardee applied for allotment of a flat on out of turn basis to the respondent in the year 2000 and the request of the petitioner was considered favorably. The petitioner was issued an allotment letter dated 20.06.2001 allotting flat No. 8785, Pocket 8, Sector C, Category III, Ground Floor, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi at the disposable cost of Rs. 17,60,703/-. The petitioner was aggrieved by the cost of the flat on the ground that the flat was built in the SFS Scheme on 1984, which were constructed for allotment of the registrants of V, VI and VI-A SFS Scheme and two and a half per cent of the total flats constructed were to be allotted on out of turn basis. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. Firstly, charging of the current cost and secondly, the surcharge of 20% over the disposable price for the flats in South Delhi. 3. The petitioner, however, paid a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- vide challans dated 25.09.2001 and 03.10.2001 an...

Harish Chander Narula and ors. Vs. Regional Povident Fund Commissioner ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)49; 104(2003)DLT574; 2003(68)DRJ344; (2003)IILLJ1131Del

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1.This petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the legality of the order dated 30.12.1982 passed by the respondent under the provisions of Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter in short called 'the Act'). By the aforesaid order, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi upheld the coverage of the petitioners' establishment under the aforesaid Act with effect from 30.11.1966 and then ordering for the inquiry to be continued for determination of the dues payable by the petitioners.2.On the allegation that M/s Indian Art Fabrics of which the petitioners were partners failed to deposit the provident fund dues for the period during December 1966 to December 1969, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner initiated a proceeding under Section 7A of the Act for determination of the dues payable by the establishment for the aforesaid period under the Act. Pursuant to the said notice issued, the petitione...

Chemi Tech and Engineering Pvt. Limited Vs. Geo Millers Company Limite ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 104(2003)DLT500; 2003(68)DRJ401; (2003)135PLR29; [2004]50SCL278(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Sections 433 & 434 of the Companies Act for winding up the respondent company, inter alias on the following grounds: (a) The petitioner undertook the project for various sewage projects for Government Departments inter-alia in U.P., Haryana and Delhi and the respondent was the environmental consultant and supplier of various equipments. (b) The winding up petition arises from a proposed purchase by the petitioner from the respondent of a mechanical bar screen for the Sewage Pumping Station at UEED, Jammu. On 14th December, 1997, the purchase order was placed with the respondent which required Rs. 25,000/- to be paid in advance against the purchase order and Rs. 25,000/- after 30 days of the order. The balance amount along with taxes was to be paid through the letter of credit of 45 days with certain benefits for pre-payment. Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the respondent by the petitioner on 16th January, 1998. The respondent vide its le...

Zile Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 103(2003)DLT737

ORDER1. Notice has been served on the respondents but nobody has appeared on their behalf. 2. This civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC is directed against an order of an Additional District Judge dated 24.7.2002 by which while allowing an application of the petitioners for their substitution in place of claimant, Zile Singh deceased, in a proceeding under Section 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act, has further directed that the petitioners will not be entitled to claim interest for the period from 29.1.2000 to 6.8.2000. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that they have been denied interest for the aforesaid period in violation of their legal right. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that there is some typographical error in describing the period for which the interest has been denied and the period is actually from 29.1.2000 to 6.8.2001 which appears from reading the first paragraph of the order. According to him 29.1.2000 seems to be the date on which the 90 d...

Gopi Chand and anr. Vs. D.S.C. Finance Dev. Corpn. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)309; 108(2003)DLT41

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. All these writ petitions are preferred in common factual background and the legal issues raised are also, thereforee, common. thereforee these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. All the petitioners belong to SC/ST/Weaker section of the society. There is a scheme for financing the vehicles which may be purchased by them. Under this scheme, the petitioners purchased, except in CWP Nos. 5065, 5088 and 5105/2002, tempo travelers on hypothecation basis for which finance was provided by the respondent. As far as petitioners in CWP Nos. 5065, 5088 & 5105/2002 are concerned, they purchased diesel buses. Loan agreements were entered into between these petitioners and respondent as per which finance vehicles were hypothecated in favor of the respondent and loans were to be repaid in monthly Installments stipulated therein. To ensure timely repayment of the Installment, the petitioners handed over post-dated cheques to the respondent. 3. It is...

Anil Kumar Bhayana Vs. Ashok G. Navaney and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. These 8 appeals have been filed against a common order dated 12.1.2001 passed by District Forum-II, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi, in Complaint Case Nos. 1747/1999-entitled Shri Ashok G. Navaney v. Shri Anil Kumar Bhayana; Complaint Case No. 378/1998-entitled Smt. Shakuntla Rani v. Anil Kumar Bhayana; 379/1999-entitled Shri R.N. Arya v. Shri Anil Kumar Bhayana; 1796/1998-entitled Smt. Janki Devi Bhatia v. Shri Anil Kumar Bhayana; 1795/1998-entitled Mrs. Pushpa G. Navaney v. Shri Anil Kumar Bhayana; 2431/1998-entitled Km. Pooja Navaney v. Shri Anil Kumar Bhayana and 2430/1998-entitled Smt. Meenu Navaney v. Shri Anil Kumar Bhayana. 2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all the above eight appeals, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The appellant had filed a consolidated appeal against all the respondents being Appeal No. 526/2001. However, the...

Oswal Yarns Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC317

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh dated 28.3.2002. Under the above order the Commissioner had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 27,03,952 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Act. He also imposed a penalty of an equal amount and directed to pay interest under Section 11AB. Aggrieved by the above'the assessee has come up in appeal.2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of woollen yarn in their Unit No. II from March 1995. The dispute relates to Unit No. I where they were undertaking manufacture of shoddy yarn out of mutilated synthetic rags, hosiery cuttings. They had not taken Central Excise registration in respect of Unit No. I and had been effecting clearances thereof without payment of Central Excise duty. Pursuant to visit by the Central Excise officers, show cause notice dated 16.3.99 was issued. It is alleged therein that shoddy yarn being m...

R.P.G. Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT273TriDel

1. Applicants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the demand of Rs. 20,87,680/- was confirmed. A penalty of Rs. 12 lakhs was imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and penalty of Rs. 10,34,043/- was imposed under the provisions of Rule 57-I(4) read with the provisions of Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Wires and Cables and were availing the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of final product. During the scrutiny of the record of the appellant's Firm, it was found that in the Cost Audit Report, the appellants had written off the inputs valued at Rs. 20,87,680/-. The appellants had not reversed the credit in respect of the inputs which was written off in Cost Audit Report. A show cause notice was issued for disallowing the Modvat credit on the above mentioned amount and for imposition ...