Delhi Court September 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.
Gopal Singh Vs. Sheila Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT758
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM(M) 711/2001 is directed against the Judgment dated 9th November, 2001, of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in RCA No. 694/2001, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner herein on the ground that order of the Rent Controller on an application under Section 144 CPC is not appealable under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and thereforee, he has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.2. The facts of the case are that by a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act the landlord had sought eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. In reply thereto, the tenant had contested the ownership as also the rate of rent. The tenant contended that it was Rs. 300/- per month while the landlord contended that it was Rs. 500/-. The court while adjudicating under Section 15(1), as an interim measure, directed the tenant to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month, which the te...
Sanjay Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4761; 114(2004)DLT132; 2005(79)DRJ488
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Since all the above appeals arise out of a common judgment, this order shall dispose of all the above-mentioned appeals.2. Nobody appears for the appellant-Virender Singh. I appoint Mr. P.R. Thakur, Advocate, who is present in Court, as amices Curiae for Virender Singh to assist me in this case.3. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 10th August, 1999 of the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 159/1998, whereby the learned Judge had held the appellants guilty under Sections 304(11)/34, IPC as also under Sections 452/427/323/34, IPC and vide separate order dated 16th August, 1999, sentenced them under Sections 304(11)/34 to Undergo RI for five years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for three months. They were further sentenced under Sections 323/34, IPC to RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for one month. All the convicts were further sen...
Friends Colony Residents Association Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT587; 2004(77)DRJ530
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The Residents Welfare Association of Friends Colony has knocked at the doors of this court drawing attention that the DDA and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi are closing their eyes to rampant encroachment by slum lords on a parcel of land stated to be a park as per the approved lay out plan of the colony. The park in question is adjoining B-Block of Friends Colony (West), New Delhi.2. Site plan filed by the petitioner shows that after the last row of houses on B-block towards its southern side is a 45 feet wide road making a 'T' junction with the 130 feet wide Mathura Road on the Western side of B-Block. Further South of B-block across the 45 feet road is a strip of land. An electrical sub-station stands constructed. Towards the Eastern side of the land of the sub-station is a passage which joins the 45 feet wide road towards the southern boundary of B-block. Further east along part of the said passage next to the electric sub Station 5, residential plots of ...
Montari Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT416; (2005)139PLR31
R.C. Chopra, J.1. These three revision petitions are directed against the impugned orders dated 29.4.2004 and 1.6.2004 passed by the learned Trial Magistrate in three complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners and others.2. The impugned orders dated 29.4.2004 disposed of the petitioners applications under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. for directing the complainant to admit or deny the documents being filed by the petitioners. These applications were rejected mainly on the ground that these had been moved at a belated stage and as such, were not maintainable. It was also observed that these applications had been moved in order to delay the trial of the cases.3. Considering the history of the cases and the order sheets, a copy of which has been placed before this Court by learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, this Court finds that the petitioners have been taking repeated adjournments and trying to delay the disposal of c...
Madan Gopal Hargopal Vs. Padam Chand Vaish
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT324
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.11.2003 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCT No.23/2002 whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal as having abated.2. The facts of the case as noted by the Tribunal are as under:-'The appellant is a firm 'M/s. Madan Gopal Har Gopal'. The respondent Sh.Padam Chand Vaish had filed an eviction case against the appellant seeking its eviction U/s 14(1)(a) (b), and (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. However, the ld. Trial court decreed the respondent's eviction suit against the appellant only U/s. 14(1)(a) (b) and (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act vide its impugned eviction order dated 3.8.2002.As per respondent's case in the eviction petition, the appellant was sued stating it to be a partnership firm but in the written statement filed on behalf of appellant, the plea was taken in para 3 of the preliminary objections that the appellant was a sole proprietor ship firm of M/s Har Gopal Berry. The app...
Kamla Electrodes and Shri B.D. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC441
1. M/s. Kamla Electrodes are engaged in the manufacture of welding electrodes, flux, drawn wire and steel scrap and availing the benefit of small scale exemption during the period 1995 to 1998. They sell their goods to their customers both in Meerut and customers in other parts of the country. The price for customers in Meerut are somewhat lower than those for customers in other areas in view of the fact that additional costs have to be incurred for outstation customers. They took certain amounts as security deposits/advances from two of their customers, M/s. Tirupati Electrodes and M/s. Kamla Electrodes P. Ltd. and after receiving the full consideration for sale, security amount/advances are returned to these customers. Notice dated 9.2.2000 was issued to them alleging that the advances/deposits received from the above named customers have been utilised in investment which earned notional interest @ 18% per annum and thus the notional interest so earned was additional consideration a...
U.P. Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT369TriDel
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on them by affirming the order-in-original.2. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. They have prayed for decision on merits.4. From the record, it is evident that the appellants are trading in the excisable goods. They purchased the goods from M/s Ram Kishore Chemical (P) Ltd., who at that time was neither manufacturer of those goods nor even a registered dealer. Therefore, they could not issue modvatable invoices to any third party under the law.5. The plea of the appellants that the goods were purchased by them under the transit sale and as such the sale was to be treated to had been made by the manufacturer, in my view, has been rightly rejected by the authorities below. The manufacturer of the goods was, M/s National Peroxide Ltd. They from their factory premises cleared the goods in favour of M/s Ram Kis...
Royal Foundry Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR209(Delhi); 114(2004)DLT471; 2004(77)DRJ579
R.C. Jain, J.1. The above named petitioner has filed this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') a direction on the respondent to file the Arbitration Agreement in the court and for referring the disputes between the parties to an Arbitrator which may be appointed by this Court. 2. The petition has been filed with the averments and allegations that the petitioner is a partnership firm duly registered under the Partnership Act and is engaged in the manufacture and supply of machinery and equipment for industrial purposes inter-alia including radial drilling machines. Vide a Contract Agreement dated 2.4.1992, the respondent No. 2 awarded a contract to the petitioner for supply of 22 Nos. of radial drilling machines at different destinations. However, the formal Agreement on the contract form was executed on 29.9.1992. After the award of the work and completing the requisite formalities the petitioner undertook the manufacturing of ...
Dr. V.P. Mainra Vs. Dawsons Leasing Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT457; 2004(77)DRJ727; [2005]58SCL254(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. In CP No. 323/99 filed by Dr. V.P. Mainra (petitioner) against M/s Dawson Leasing Limited, Provisional Liquidator was appointed on 9th November, 2000 and the petition was admitted to hearing. The Provisional Liquidator was also asked to take in his possession the assets, records and books of accounts of the respondent company (hereinafter referred to as `the company') He has taken charge of the liquidation affairs of the company since then, although final winding up orders have not been passed in this case. It may be mentioned that statement of ex-Directors is recorded under Rule 130 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. They have also filed the statement of affairs. Since there are certain deficiencies therein, ex-Directors are called upon to remove those deficiencies. 2. While that is the present status of the winding up proceedings, these Case are filed which primarily relate to transfer of certain cases and execution proceedings pending before the Consumer Dispute...
Siel Ltd., Modi Sugar Industries and Rb NaraIn Singh Sugar Mills and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT446; (2004)138PLR51
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The challenge to the right of the Food Corporation of India to adjust the amounts on account of wet and short supply of levy sugar in the past from the amount to be paid at the current period of time has given rise to these petitions filed by three different sugar mills. 2. The contours of the controversy revolve around levy sugar. Sugar is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and under Section 3(2)(f) of the said Act, the Central Government has the power to require any manufacturer of sugar to sell sugar produced by it to the Central Government, or the State Government or to a Corporation owned or controlled by such Government for purposes of making available sugar at fair price. This is known as the levy sugar. The price payable for such levy sugar is fixed by the Central Government by an order made under Section 3(3C) of the said Act. Such levy sugar price is fixed from year to year. 3. It is stated in the petition that though the...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »