Delhi Court August 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.
Jitender Narottam Das Mehrotra and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC517; 107(2003)DLT152; 2003(71)DRJ43
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Both the above petition nos. Crl.M(M) 3168/2003 and Crl.M (M) 3171/2003 stand disposed of by the following common order as not only the parties are common, but the question of law and facts involved therein are identical.2. Short question involved for determination is whether in a complaint case or for that purpose in a case filed on the police report, Court can split the trial in respect of those accused persons who are appearing before the Court and simultaneously continue the proceedings against those whose presence is still being procured through some process or the other. In other words can the court create multiple stages in one trial. 3. Impugned order dated 2nd June, 2003 passed by Sh.S.N. Dhingra, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi has been challenged as to the mode of trial adopted by the learned ASJ, as out of as many as ten accused persons, notice of offence was given to three of them and after they entered into the plea of not guilty, the learned Additi...
Smt. Rampyaribai Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)394; 108(2003)DLT506
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The petitioner is a widow of late Shri Babu Singh Rajput who, allegedly, was a Freedom Fighter. The main grievance is that the widow i.e. the petitioner is not being granted the Freedom Fighter Pension although she is entitled to the same under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. It is alleged that late Shri Babu Singh participated in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement in 1947-48. The scheme specifies the persons who are eligible for the Samman Pension. Paragraph 2.3 of the salient features of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said scheme) relates to persons, who on account of their participation in their freedom struggle remained underground for more than six months. Such persons, subject to their complying with the conditions mentioned in paragraph 2.3 of the Scheme, are eligible for the Samman Pension. It is the petitioner's contention that her late husband was such a person who, on account of his...
Smt. Gayatri Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT471; 2004(75)DRJ353
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final arguments and disposal. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 9.1.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in PPA 542/2000. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 1 to regularise the Quarter No. 55 /C-1, Chhota More Sarai, Delhi in the name of the petitioner from the date she is allegedly entitled under Circular No. 15.1.1990 issued by the Railway Board. A writ has also been sought directing the respondent to charge normal rent from the petitioner for the period from 8.6.1990 to the date of regularisation.2. Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad, husband of the petitioner was allotted Railway Quarter No. 55 /C-1, Chhota More Sarai, Delhi during his service. He was transferred to Jind (Haryana) and due to his transfer, the allotment of the quarter in question was cancelled w.e.f. 28.6.1990. The ...
Vijay Solvex Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC528
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Vijay Solvex Ltd., the issue involved is whether the duty is payable by them on the quantity of imported goods received short in their factory.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil; that they import Crude Palm Oil, Rape Seed Oil, Crude Degummed Soyabean Oil from abroad and avail concessional rate of Customs duty after complying with the conditions of the Notification and also after complying with the procedure as laid down in the `Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty on the ground that the quantity of oil received in the factory was less than the quantity cleared under Bill of Entry. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the imported goods being in liquid form are transported in tankers; that at the port the oil is transferred from ship to the storage tanks of the port authority and thereafter into tankers for transportation; that such type of handling at the port nec...
Cce Vs. Jagdambey Castings Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC314
1. In both these appeals, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 23.11.2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of ingots/billets of non-alloy steel. The goods manufactured by them being notified goods, they were required to pay the duty under the compound levy scheme. The annual capacity of their furnace was determined by the Commissioner vide order dated 29.9.1997 at 9600 MT for the purpose of discharging the duty. They were accordingly required to deposit the duty of Rs. 5 lakh per month under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules. Having failed to discharge the duty, accordingly, the demand was raised from them of the differential duty through a show cause notice wherein penalty was also proposed to be imposed on them. After getting their reply and affording them personal hearing, the Joint Commissioner through the Order-in-Original confirmed the duty for the period 1.4.1998 t...
Manju Bala Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)66; 106(2003)DLT56; 2003(71)DRJ680
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Reliance is being placed on the Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 203 of 1998 dated 20th July, 1998 entitled as Karandeep Singh and Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors., and in particular to the following paragraph: 'In the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, we direct the Director General, Health Services to examine the cases of all these petitioners and unless there are candidates, who have secured marks higher than the petitioner and are interested to peruse the Post Graduate courses in the concerned colleges, to grant them admission against the vacant seats available in different medical colleges of the country. The petitioners shall approach the Director General, Health Services within one week from today for a follow up action.' 2. It is on this basis that learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that notwithstanding the Petitioner's specific waiver of the right to be considered in the State of Rajasthan, and assuming that...
VipIn Mehra and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)501; 2003(70)DRJ205; 2003(3)JCC1427; 2003RLR546
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. The short question involved for determination in this petition, through which the order dated 19th April, 2001, passed by Shri S.N.Dhingra, learned ASJ has been assailed, is whether the court has a judicial discretion or power either under Section 437 or 438 CrPC while considering the question of grant or refusal of bail to impose a condition directing the accused to furnish bank guarantee or deposit an amount of money. 2. In the instant case the bail was granted subject to the condition that the petitioners will submit bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.10 lacs in the court concerned within one week. There is no gain saying the fact that every criminal court is a creature of Criminal Procedure Code. It is neither above it nor can it rise above it. It has to strictly remain within the precincts of CrPC even while exercising the discretionary powers. Even the discretionary powers are to be exercised judicially and not whimsically or capriciously. 3. While justifying the ...
Ajay Khandelwal Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)485; 106(2003)DLT195; 2003(70)DRJ32; 2003(3)JCC1426
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 21.7.2001 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide which he was summoned as accused without any basis and proceeding on the erroneous premise that the complainant has disclosed a triable case against him. It is pertinent to mention that the learned MM ordered the police for investigation into the allegations of complaint by invoking the provisions of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C vesting the M.M with the power to order for such an investigation. 2. I am afraid after having failed to act upon the report of the Investigating Officer received by Metropolitan Magistrate by way of investigation ordered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was precluded from acting upon the implicate allegations of the complainant made in the complaint which according to him at the first instance required investigation by the police. It was in the fitness of things to allow the application of the complainant for fur...
Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2003
Reported in: 106(2003)DLT315; 2003(71)DRJ744; (2003)IIILLJ1031Del; (2003)135PLR52
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This order will dispose of this application for interim relief filed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petition challenges the order dated 20th July, 1999 of the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board and the consequent order dated 18th April, 2002 of the Government of India declining to abolish the contract labour system at domestic and international airports qua the trolley retrievers. 3. This writ petition is in respect of the 115 trolley retrievers and 12 supervisors of the domestic and international airports, Delhi where the some of the petitioners have been averred to be working from 1993. According to the petitioners, the trolley retriever system began in 1984 and is still continued. Even though some of the petitioners were working from 1993 they were given a fresh appointment letter in 1996. The chart (Annex P-1) annexed to the writ petition shows that the petitioners have started working from dates varying from 1993-1998. The petit...
Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT478TriDel
1. M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. manufacture a syrup which is a mixture of soft drink concentrate and sugar. This syrup is liable to central excise duty under hearing 2108 of the Central Excise Tariff.The syrup in question is packed in Bag in Box (BIB) containing 20 liters per BIB and is dispensed to consumers after dilution and carbonation by retailers through dispensing machines. The appellants sell the syrup to their marketing subsidiary M/s. Pepsi Cola India Marketing Company and the marketing subsidiary sells to retailers. Part (2-3%) of the syrup produced is also sold ex-factory to two independent distributors M/s. Sheena Agencies, Kalyan (West) and Thirst Quenchers Karjat.2. The issue raised in this appeal is the valuation of the syrup to central excise duty. The dispute turns on two elements. The central excise authorities have held that the assessable value should be fixed at the sale price of the marketing subsidiary of the manufacturing company, that too without all...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »