Delhi Court November 2004 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.
Prasad Enterprise Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC62
2. The appellants made an import of Plastic Sheets in rolls, Paper Adhesive Rolls, PP Sheets and Self Adhesive Papers. The value declared by the appellants was not accepted by the Custom Authorities and enhanced on the basis of prevalent price in the International market.3. The contention of the appellants is that the value was enhanced without any evidence. The Revenue is not relying any import made by any other importer or on the basis of any price list etc. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mohan Sales (India) v. C.C., ICD, TKD, New Delhi, 2004 (91) ECC 682 (Tri.). 4. The contention of the Revenue is that, before the Adjudicating authority, the appellants accepted the price enhanced by the Customs. Therefore, now they cannot challenge the value aspect of the imported goods. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vikas Spinners v. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow, 2001 (73) ECC 206 (T) : 2001 (128) ELT 143 (Tri.-Del.)...
Shri Ramesh Chand Vs. Shri Tek Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT193; 2005(80)DRJ166
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Succinctly stated, the case of the Plaintiff is that the suit property bearing Municipal No.15-C, Vijay Nagar, Delhi is joint Hindu family (HUF) property, having been acquired/adjusted against the value of properties left behind in Pakistan, as a consequence of the Partition. For this purpose reliance has been placed on a letter dated 8.12.1958 addressed by the father of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, namely, Late Shri Gosain Lachman Gir to the Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi in which he has inter alias stated that - '' the amount, equal to the value of House No.15-C, Vijay Nagar, Delhi-9 under occupation of my son Shri Tek Chand, may kindly be transferred in his name enabling him to purchase that house''. The Plaintiff asserts that being HUF property it is of little consequence that it stands in the exclusive name of his brother, Shri Tek Chand (Defendant No.1), and the Defendant is entitled to enforce his share thereto. 2. Defendant No.1 is the only brother...
Sunder Singh Gahlawat and anr. Vs. D.D.A. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT378; 2005(79)DRJ127
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. One Mani Ram S/O.Ramji Lal resident of Village Kishan Garh, Mehrauli was the owner of agricultural land in village Mehrauli. Part of his land was acquired. As per policy of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi,1961 he was entitled to be allotted a residential plot. 2. Claim and entitlement had to be decided by the Land and Building Department of Delhi Administration. On 26.4.1983, Land and Building Department of Delhi Administration recommended to D.D.A. that a 250 sq. yards residential plot be allotted to Shri Mani Ram. Copy of said letter was sent to Mani Ram. The letter reads as under:-''No.F.32[45]/7/81/LandB/Alt./13071 Dated : 8.10.85 To The Deputy Director (Residential),Delhi Development Authority,Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. Subject : Allotment of alternative plot under the Scheme of ''Large Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of land in Delhi, 1961.'' Sir, I am directed to request you to allot a plot measuring 250 sq....
Sh. Mahender Singh Chhabra Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT174; I(2005)DMC17
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as `the Code' only) has been filed by an unfortunate father of a married girl, who died at her in-laws house on 7th October, 1994. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner's daughter, late Manjeet Kaur, was married to Jaspal Singh Narula in the year 1982. According to the petitioner, soon after marriage, the harassment of his daughter started on account of dowry demands. She was tortured physically as well as mentally to extract money and valuables from the petitioner. The petitioner kept on fulfilling the demands to the extent possible. However, on 7th October, 1994 at about 11.00 P.M., the petitioner was informed that his daughter, Manjeet Kaur, had died. He along with other family members immediately rushed to the matrimonial house of her daughter and found his daughter lying dead with one e...
Shree Rajmoti Industries Vs. Rajmoti Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT212; 2005(30)PTC38(Del)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This application on behalf of defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeks rejection of the plaint on the plea of want of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the defendant has raised objections based on territorial jurisdiction by submitting that Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 20(2) of the Civil Procedure Code(hereinafter referred to as the `Cr. Act', `T.M. Act' and the `Code') indicate the place where the plaintiff 'carries on business' which is the common determinative factor in all these Sections. He has further submitted that the expression 'carries on business' is a sine qua non for attracting the territorial jurisdiction of this Court under Section 62(2) of Cr Act and Section 134(2) of the T.M. Act which proposition the learned counsel for the plaintiff does not dispute at all. 3. The principal submission, advanced by the defendant's counsel is based upon the jud...
Manmohan Suri and anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Arora and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi269; 115(2004)DLT508
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Guardian Judge in Guardianship Petition No.191/2003, whereby the learned Judge vide its judgment and order dated 9th August, 2004, has declined to entertain the petition on the ground that he has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter since the minor lives beyond his jurisdiction, namely, in Ludhiana. 2. The facts of the case, as has been noted, by the Guardian Judge, are as under : ''The relevant facts are that daughter of petitioners named Sumita (since deceased) was married to respondent No.1 on 12.9.1999 at Delhi. After the marriage, respondents No. 2 and 3 always pressurised the daughter of petitioners to shift to Punjab permanently. The respondent No.3 started poisoning the ears of deceased daughter of the petitioners in order to blackmail her to shift to Punjab. The deceased was under mental stress and pressure due to the acts of family of her husband. The deceased daughter suffered from two miscar...
Amrik Singh S/O Shri Ch. Hira Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT592; 2006(2)SLJ236(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. While admitting this second appeal on 2nd August, 1979, it was observed that the appeal involves a substantial question of law as to whether the suit filed by the Appellant was within time.2. The broad facts of the case are that the Appellant was working as a Terminal Tax Clerk with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). He was placed under suspension on 1st February, 1969 on the allegation of having committed some irregularity. After a departmental inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, MCD passed an order on 21st February, 1970 ordering stoppage of two increments with future effect. The Appellant filed a departmental appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner, MCD on 27th July, 1970.This order was communicated to the Appellant on 4th August, 1970.3. In terms of Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (the Act), the period of limitation for challenging an order such as the above is six months. Section 478 of the Act reads as follows:- '478. Noti...
Smt. Neelam Makhija and anr. Vs. Sh. Lumber Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT293
R.S. Sodhi, J.CM.642/2003:1. Delay condoned. Application disposed of.2. FAO 298/2003:FAO 298/2003 is directed against the judgment dated 26.11.2002 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Suit No.608/96 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- on account of death of Baby Shalokha who died in the accident on 18.2.1996. 3. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are as follows:- ''As per averments in claim petition of Suit No.608/96 jointly filed by Neelam Makhija and Ravinder Makhija on 18.2.1996, at about 12 noon, Shri Ravinder Makhija was driving a two wheeler scooter No.DL-IS-A-2118. Smt.Neelam Makhija was seated on its pill on seat and their only child, Baby Shalokha, who at that time was 2 + years old was sitting in her lap. They were going from their residence towards Connaught Place. When they reached at the round about of Link Road - Punchkuian Road, opposite Cremation Ground, a bus No.RJ-02 P-0525 which was being driven by its driv...
Narender Kumar Vs. North Delhi Power Limited and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT273; [2005(105)FLR484]
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, an Assistant Engineer with erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board, now Assistant Manager with respondent has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the order dated 8.1.2004, by which inquiry officer was appointed to act as an inquiring authority in the disciplinary proceedings for major penalty initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum No.VC-266/2001/SPC/16 dated 10th October, 2003. Petitioner in the alternative seeks a stay of departmental inquiry proceedings till the decision of the criminal case against the petitioner. 2. A complaint had been received against the petitioner for demanding bribe of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant's grievance was that he had completed all the formalities for 11 KV transformer and connection. It had been sanctioned but was not being energized. The petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/- for energizing the connection. FIR No.64/2001 under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered on 13th November, 2...
Anil Kumar Sharma and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi97; II(2005)BC297; 115(2004)DLT75
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Public auction for plot No:19, site No.4, Block No.5 Geeta Colony was held on 24.9.1996. Petitioners were the highest bidders. Bid in sum of Rs.10,70,045/- was confirmed. Petitioners paid the bid amount as per time granted. Full payment was made on 9.12.1996. Possession of the plot was handed over on 19.12.1997. 2. Auction of the plot was on 'as is where is basis'. Bidders were thus presumed to have acquainted themselves with the site. 3. According to the petitioners, when they visited the site in January 1998 they found that Delhi Jal Board (DJB) authorities were constructing a sewer plant on the western side of the plot with some part of the foundations inside the plot. Sewer pipes and angles were lying scattered all around. Petitioners claim to have met officials of DDA with a request that site of the plot be relocated. Since personal interaction was not yielding the desired result, on 9.9.1999 petition No.1 wrote a letter as under: ''To The Commissioner,Land...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »