Delhi Court April 2003 Judgments

Ramesh Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)377; 106(2003)DLT534; II(2003)DMC484; 2003(69)DRJ416

1. The Division Bench was called upon to quash the First Information Report No. 220/98, registered for an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 alleged to have been committed by the husband, on the ground that the husband and wife compromised the disputes. The Court was requested to accept the settlement and permit the parties to compound the offence.2. It was submitted by learned counsel for the State that mere amicable settlement was no ground for compounding a non-compoundable offence. On the basis of the Full Bench decision in case of Gurcharan Singh v. State and Anr., 2002 (1) A.D. (Delhi) 576, it was contended before the Division Bench that mere amicable settlement of a matrimonial dispute is no ground to allow the parties to compound the offence which is non compoundable. On the other hand, on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in case of Mahesh Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, : 1988CriLJ121 , as also the case of Suresh Babu v. State of A...

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Pawan Aggarwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 106(2003)DLT460; 2003(3)RAJ425

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Union of India has come up in this writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 24th March, 2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. By said order, the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi allowed the application of the respondent herein filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and directed the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House to appoint Arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause contained in the General terms of the contract entered into between the parties within 90 days from the date of the said order. Since pure legal issue is involved which is to be decided in this writ petition, facts in brief and relevant to the context only are noted. 2. On 27th September, 1985 the petitioners had awarded the contract for extension of IRCA building at Chelmsford Road, New Delhi to the respondent. This contract was completed in all respect in the year 1986 and the final bill was prepared in the year 1987....

Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Y.S. Bisht

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(89)ECC541; 2004(165)ELT139(Del)

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. Petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal complaint filed against him by the respondent for his prosecution for offence under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of Customs Act and Section 85(i) and (ii) of the Gold Control Act 1968 by invoking power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.2. Shorn of unnecessary details the relevant facts are that the Customs Officer apprehended a car driven by the petitioner on 7.11.1986 and recovered Indian currency of the value of Rs. 1.80 lacs which was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was taken into custody. His statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was also recorded, where after the officers of the DRI again searched the car of the accused and allegedly recovered 50 gold biscuits bearing foreign markings of 24 curatepurity of 10 tolas each Along with Rs. 10,000 in one polythene bag. The total value of the gold biscuits was Rs. 13,88,135. A criminal complaint was filed on 7.11.1986 for petitione...

Gangabhishan JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)211; 107(2003)DLT749

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (hereinafter referred to as 'S.S.S. Pension' for short). The petitioner claims to be a freedom fighter having participated in the freedom struggle of the country. He claims that on account of his patriotic activities he was arrested and tried under Rule 38(5) of the defense of India Rules, 1939 and a criminal case was registered against him by the Nasik Police and was tried by the Court of District Magistrate, Nasik. In connection with the case he was arrested and put on trial. He underwent imprisonment for 12.10.1943 to 19.2.1944 at Nanded District Jail and subsequently from 20.2.1944 to 25.5.1944 at Nasik Jail. In this manner, according to him, his total period of imprisonment was 7 months and 14 days.2. It is a matter of record that during 25th Anniversary i.e. Silver Jubilee of Independence, the Government of India introduced a scheme known as Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme,...

Shobha and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2006)ACC145

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The opening remarks of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Smt. Santra reported in 2000 (3) Supreme 520 ably apply to the fact-situation prevailing in these two writ petitions. This is what the Supreme Court observed in the beginning of the aforesaid judgment:Medical negligence plays its game in strange ways. Sometimes it plays with life; sometimes it gifts an 'Unwanted child' as in the instant case where the respondent a poor labourer woman, who already had many children and had opted for sterilization, developed pregnancy and ultimately gave birth to a female child in spite of sterilisation operation which, obviously, had failed.Civil Writ Petition No. 7715 of 2001:2. Civil Writ Petition No. 7715/2001 was heard and judgment reserved. Before this judgment could be pronounced Writ Petition No. 7515 of 2000 came up for hearing on 18th March, 2003. During the arguments it was noticed that the issue involved in this case was identical to the issu...

Dowarka Nath Lohtia Vs. Itc Limited and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 18.2.2003, passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/1012/2002entitled Shri Dowarka Nath Lohtia v. M/s. I.T.C. Limited and Another. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Shri Dowarka Nath Lohtia had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, before the District Forum, the grievance of the appellant, in nut shell, was with regard to non-payment of interest for the delayed redemption payment in respect of redeemable bonds, floated by the respondent No. 1 under Folio No. SL 380 and SL 340. Alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents, it was prayed by the a...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Peema Ram and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC589

1. In these 20 appeals, arising out of common Order-in-Appeal and filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the duty of Customs is leviable on the goods received as gift by post from abroad and redeemed on payment of a fine.2. When the matters were called only one Respondent, Shri Ram Lal Bairwa, was present. Another respondent, Shri Ramesh Chand, has requested under his letter dated 2.4.93 to reject the appeal filed by the Revenue, We, therefore, heard Shri V. Valte, learned SDR, and perused the records.3. Learned SDR submitted that the parcels were received in the Foreign Post Office in the name of respondents and as the parcels did not contain the required import documents show cause notices were issued to all the respondents; that the Asst. Commissioner while adjudicating the matters observed that the goods were for personal use 'Gift' which did not meet the requirement of Para 3(1)(i) of the Foreign Trade (Exemption from Application of Rules in certain case) Order, 1993...

Assn. of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2003)ACC114; 2003ACJ1631; 2003IIIAD(Delhi)321; 104(2003)DLT234; 2003(68)DRJ128; 2003RLR333

ORDER'. The film had a patriotic fervor and was based on the 1971 Indo-Pak war. During the matinee show of the film, immediately after the interval, the audience in the cinema hall saw smoke coming out of the side of the screen. Most of the patrons sitting in the hall thought it was some special effect which was a part of the film Realizing little that a fire had broken out in the cinema building. By the time they realised that the smoke had engulfed the hall because of the fire in the building it was too late for many of them to leave the balcony. The entire balcony area and the stairs leading to the balcony were so full of smoke that it had became impossible for many of the patrons to go out of the building and as a result thereof 59 people, which included infants and children, lost their lives because of asphyxiation and about 103 other persons sustained injuries. Immediately after the incident of fire, the Lieutenant Governor vide order dated 14th June, 1997 ordered an enquiry into...

Hamdard (Wakf) Lab. (India) Vs. Sh. K.L. Sehgal, Regional Provident Fu ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)683; 104(2003)DLT897; 2003(68)DRJ567; (2003)IIILLJ439Del

Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1.Being aggrieved by the order dated 9.3.1983 passed by the respondent No. 1, under the provisions of Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the present petition was filed in this court by the petitioner praying for setting aside and quashing the aforesaid order.2.By the aforesaid order it was held by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, respondent No. 1, that M/s. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratory (India), the petitioner herein and the respondent No. 4 institute, constitute one establishment and, thereforee, the employees working in the respondent No. 4 institute would receive the provident fund benefit from the date of its set up.3.M/s.Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Laboratory is a wakf registered under the Muslim Wakf Act. The respondent No. 4 institute, on the other hand, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, initiated a proceeding under Section 7-A of the sai...

Municipal Employee's Union Vs. the Secretary (Labour), GNCTD and Anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)460; 106(2003)DLT47; 2003(71)DRJ737; 2004(1)SLJ192(Delhi)

ORDER In the matter of dispute between the management of M/s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through its Commissioner, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-6 and Shri Raju S/o deceased workman Shri Karan Singh as represented by Municipal Employee's Union, Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi - 110 054. All the documents filed and submissions of the parties and the report of the conciliation officer have been perused and it is found that this is not a fit case for reference to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication for the reasons given below:- 'Admittedly Shri Raju S/o Late Shri Karan Singh has never been in the employment of M.C.D. and is thereforee, not a workman under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.' As required under the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 a copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned. -sd-( A. S. AWASTHI )SECRETARY (LABOUR)GOVT. OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI No. F...