Delhi Court October 2005 Judgments

S.D. Siddhiqui Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT152

ORDERED4. There is a distinction between ordering a recount, directing discovery of documents which is essentially a fact finding exercise, and inspection of ballots papers by the Court with a view to satisfy itself of the correctness and legal propriety of the practice adopted by the Election Officer and the validity of his decision on a particular issue. Mr. Narula has drawn attention to the following passage from Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind, : AIR1975SC2117 :''Thus on a close and careful consideration of the various authorities of this Court from time to time it is manifest that the following conditions are imperative before a Court can grant inspection, or for that matter sample inspection, of the ballot papers:(1) That it is important to maintain the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct and should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations;(2) That before inspection is allowed, the allegations made against the elected candidate must be clear and sp...

Ravi Kumar Vs. the State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT1; II(2005)DMC731

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common judgment, the above petitions filed in the nature of Habeas Corpus and seeking other reliefs are being decided. 2. Ingenious but discredited, Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon wrote in his essays, as far back as, in the 16th Century 'You cannot love and be wise.' There are other adages 'Love is Blind' and 'All is fair in love and war' etc. 3. The cases at hand amply demonstrate the truth of the above adages and the resistance thereto from societal norms. 4. The hardships and oppressions entailed to the parties is sought to be mitigated by exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and by obviating the need of separate petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) for quashing of criminal proceedings.Ravi Kumar v. State and Anr., WP(Crl.).942/05Shikha Sharma v. State and Anr., WP(Crl.).1446/055. Here are the facts:- Ravi Kumar, petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) No.942/2005, seeks...

Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]128CompCas787(Delhi); 124(2005)DLT353

Manju Goel, J.1. These are two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between the same parties involving the same question of law and facts and are accordingly being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts in the two cases are given below:Crl. M.C. 3690/2001 titled Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. State and Ors. The petitioner filed the complaint against the respondents 2 and 3 who were the Chairman and Vice Chairman of M/s Dalmia Industries Ltd. as well as against M/s Dalmia Industries Ltd. and its three others who were the Director (Technical), Executive Director and Senior General Manager (Finance). It was alleged that the respondents 2 and 3 herein as well as the other Directors named in the complaint were in charge of and responsible to the company M/s Dalmia Industries Ltd. for the conduct of the business of the company and were liable to make the payment for the cheque in question in that complaint. The subject matter of the complaint were certain ch...

H.B. Chaturvedi Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)52; (2006)142PLR42

Manju Goel, J.1. This petition invokes the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short `Cr.P.C.') for quashing the order dated 22.8.2003 whereby the petitioner was summoned to stand trial as an accused in the Complaint Case No. 1372/1 titled Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. v. Shamken Cotsyn Ltd. and Ors.2. The copy of the complaint has been placed on the record. The principle accused in this case is M/s. Shamken Cotsyn Ltd. The petitioner, H.B. Chaturvedi, is accused No. 2 and is described as the Chairman of M/s. Shamken Cotsyn Ltd. The other accused are the Joint Managing Director and Directors of the accused No. 1. The complainant, Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd., sanctioned a term loan of Rs.500 lakhs under a loan agreement dated 31.5.2000. By way of part payment of dues, accused No. 1 issued cheques bearing Nos. 318204 and 318206 dated 8.7.2003 and 30.6.2003 amounting to Rs.3 lakhs each drawn on City Bank, New Delhi in ...

Vogel Medial International Gmbh and anr. Vs. Jasu Shan and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(31)PTC578(Del)

R.C. Jain, J.1. Defendants have made this application under Order 6 Rule 7, Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC with the following prayers--(i) that the amended plaint filed on 10th December, 2004 by the companies Vogel Burda Holding GmbH and Vogel Communication GmbH (not being the plaintiffs) be not taken and/or ordered to be taken off the record and/or;(ii) that the names of Vogel Burda Holding GmbH and Vogel Communications GmbH having been improperly substituted as Plaintiffs be struck out from the amended plaint in terms of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10, CPC;(iii) that the pleadings containing new grounds of claims or the allegation of facts made in the amended plaint filed on 10th December, 2004 as are inconsistent with the original plaint be ordered to be struck off; and(iv) that the name of Jasubhai Media Pvt. Ltd. improperly joined as defendant No. 2 in the amended plaint be ordered to be struck off in terms of Order 1 Rule 10.2. In brief the fact...

Senior Citizen Home Complex Welfare Society Vs. Sushila Ambika

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant is a Senior Citizen Home Complex Welfare Society. It offered built up flats to senior citizens at Dehradun, which was to be completed by 1996. Respondent being senior citizen applied for A type flat by paying total cost of Rs. 2,20,000. However, vide its letter dated 30.5.2000 the appellant offered to its member the option of surrendering the flats allotted to them and in case the offer is accepted the surrendering value of the flat Rs. 3,25,000 will be paid. 2. Inspite of having accepted such an offer the respondent was denied the aforesaid payment and accordingly she approached the District Forum and obtained the impugned order dated 9.2.2004 directing the appellant to pay Rs. 3,25,000 with interest @ 9% w.e.f. 4.9.2000 till payment. 3. Through this appeal the appellant society has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the appellant was not liable to pay the interest on the amount which was payable in excess on surrendering of the ...

Satish Kumar Vs. Hutchison Essar Telecome Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Main grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 15.4.2005, passed by the District Forum, whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in not re-activating the mobile telephone for 21 days in two intermission was dismissed is that the District Forum has not taken into consideration the allegation for which he had adduced sufficient proof that the telephone was firstly re-activated after 9 days after receiving the payment of the cash card and again after 13 days. 2. We have perused the impugned order and find that the District Forum had dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the ground that the original activation of the telephone was made on 13.7.2004 and it was reactivated on 21.7.2004 and it appears that some fault might have occurred between 13.7.2004 to 21.7.2004 and since it was temporary intermission service no harassment was caused attr...

Karamveer Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(194)ELT234TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 5-9-2003 wherein redemption fine has been imposed on the Appellants on ground of excess raw material found in their factory and duty has been charged in respect of goods which were cleared by earlier company and duty has been charged on the scrap. (i) In respect of the excess raw material found in the Appellant's factory is not correct inasmuch as the said raw material was not purchased by them, nor they have availed any Modvat credit. This raw material, in fact, was brought from unit No. 1 since in their unit as unit No. 1 was having some problem of flood. Admittedly unit No. 1 did not follow any procedure in respect of transporting this material to unit No. 2. He submits that in any case the confiscation of the goods and the subsequent redemption fine has to be imposed upon unit No. 1 and not on the appellants. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal, and (ii) In respect of demand of duty on the clandestine removal of t...

Dhar Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. By these applications, the applicants referring to the Order dated 10.3.2005 made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court prayed for re-considering the appeals and fixing their final hearing. The Tribunal had on 11.9.2003 directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 21,78,016/-by 15.11.2003. The matter was posted on 24.11.2003 for reporting compliance of the conditions on which interim stay was granted. Since the applicants did not comply with the order, all the appeals came to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by Order dated 24.11.2003.2. It appears that thereafter the applicants approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In the paragraph 3 of the Order of the High Court the only contention that was raised before the High court was that since the appellant's unit is declared as sick industrial unit by the BIFR by Order dated 14.3.2002, the applicants cannot be compelled to deposit the duty/penalty, which was the subject matter of...

Gurpal Singh and ors. Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT184

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioners, in this case, have been working for long periods of time, in some cases up to 10 years, with the respondents (hereafter referred to as Indian Airlines). They have been discharging the functions of Carpenter and Painter. They are aggrieved by the process initiated for recruiting personnel as Carpenters and Painters on a regular basis by the Indian Airlines.2. The Indian Airlines issued a notification in The Employment News on 8th April 2003 inviting applications from qualified persons for various posts. 5 posts of Training Technician (Painter) and 5 posts of Training Technician (Carpenter) were advertised in this process. Eligibility prescribed for Training Technician (Painter) was a Middle class passed in the event of the candidate holding an ITI certificate , the experience prescribed was five years after the qualification and in the event of other eventualities, it was Middle class passed with seven years experience after obtaining qualificatio...