Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments

Devender Kandhari Vs. Dda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT243

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Whenever a market is constructed by DDA certain percentage of shops is set aside for direct allotment, by draw of lots, at a fixed price to various reserved categories (SC/ST, physically handicapped persons, ex-servicemen etc.). Remaining are sold in the open market through tender and auction. Usually 57% of the shops are sold by auction or tender and 43% are put in the reserved category.2. The price fixation committee of DDA determines the reserve price, i.e., the minimum price above which bids have to be made if shop is sold in the open market. It also determines the price at which shops are offered for sale by draw of lots in the reserved category. Needless to state, when sold in the open market, bids/quotations commence at the reserve price and go up if the bidders submit bids. Market forces come into play and consequently determine the final price. Per force, this price fluctuates from shop to shop. The intending purchaser is guided by the location of the s...

State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT254; 2006(86)DRJ445

Manju Goel, J.1. The judgment assailed is passed in FIR No.645/80 under Sections 307/34 Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC') registered at police station Kingsway Camp, acquitting the four accused, Ashok Kumar, Leelu, Raju & Vinay @ Binny @ Lelin, of the charge of having attempted to commit murder of Jawahar Singh.2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:The four accused, Ashok Kumar, Raju, Vinay @ Binny @ Lelin (mis-spelt in the impugned judgment as Lenin) & Leelu appeared at the tea stall near C.C.Colony Higher Secondary school on the evening of 21.7.1980, where the deceased Jawahar Singh and his brother Attar Singh were taking tea. While Leelu secured Jawahar Singh with his arms the other three accused, Vinay @ Binny, Ashok Kumar & Raju, gave stab blows to Jawahar Singh. The brother, Attar Singh, raised hue and cry as Jawahar Singh fell unconscious. He was removed to the hospital by Attar Singh and their mother. The police sub-inspector who arrived at the hospital recorded t...

Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. and ors. Vs. Mr. Harbhajan Sin ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT473; 2005(31)PTC668(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.IA 10968/20021. This application has now worked itself out and no further orders are necessary. IA stands disposed of.IA 10969/2002On 26.11.2002 ex parte ad interim orders were passed. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants No.1,2 & 3 has no objection to the said order being confirmed as it does not affect the defendants. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, however, submits that the order very well affects the defendants. Leaving aside this controversy, since there is no opposition to this application the order is liable to be confirmed. Accordingly, the application is disposed of by confirming the order dated 26.11.2002. IA 4077/2003This application already stood allowed by an order dated 7.4.2003 and accordingly stands disposed of.IA 11353/2003On 10.1.95 this Court while dealing with this application had observed as under:-'In regard to prayer for breaking open of the locks, the Local Commissioner to make one more attempt to execute the commission and i...

Uco Bank Vs. Ramesh Kumar Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of deficiency in service in issuing a cheque book with wrong code number resulting in the return of the cheque to the respondent by the State Bank with whom the respondent had presented the cheque along with the application for allotment of shares, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 20.2.1995 directed to pay Rs. 3,000 as a token compensation along with Rs. 500 as cost. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant had directed this appeal. At the same time respondent has preferred revision petition feeling dissatisfied with amount of compensation. 2. Relevant facts in brief are as under : The respondent being holder of 1,000 shares in Indo-Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. was offered 100 debentures partly convertible with a right to apply for additional debentures. In response to the offer, the respondent applied for 200 debetures out of which 100 debentures he was to get as a matter of right and the balance 100 debentures applied were under the head addi...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maruti Enterprises

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order dated 9th February, 2005 whereby the appellant Insurance Company have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,36,450 together with interest @ 9% against the claim of theft of articles manufactured by the respondent against insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 45,00,000 the appellant has directed this appeal. 2. Brief facts relevant for our purpose are as under: That the respondent obtained an insurance policy from the appellant vide policy number 311400/46/00/00192 for a total sum of Rs. 45,00,000 for the articles manufactured by them and paid a sum of Rs. 9,880 as premium for the period commencing from 18.8.2000 to 17.8.2001. Said policy covered the risk for burglary and theft, etc. and the policy was being taken by the respondent continuously for the last more than 18 years and no claim was ever filed by them prior to this claim. 3. On the night intervening 22-23.1.2001 a burglary took place at the premises of the respondent...

Relax Safety Industries Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

O.P. Nahar, Chairperson. - These two appeals are filed against common adjudication order Nos. Adj.175 and 176/DD(AKL)/B/2003 dated 21-7-2003 passed by Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs against appellant M/s Relax Safety Industries, a partnership firm, in appeal No. 214/2005 and Rs. 10,10,000 against Jayant H. Maru, appellant partner in Appeal No. 215/2005 for contravention of the provisions of sections 8(1) and 9(1)(c) of FER Act, 1973. While hearing application for dispensation of pre-deposit on 9-5-2005 this Tribunal directed both the appellants to make pre-deposit of 30 per cent of the amount of penalty in their each case within 60 days. Further, it is specifically described in the said order dated 9-5-2005 that in case the appellants fail to make pre-deposit as directed these appeals will be dismissed on this ground alone. 2. Both the appellants did not comply with the order dated 9-5-2005 passed by this Tribunal and did not make any pre-d...

Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appeals No. E/1792-94/2002 are filed by M/s. Garlon Polyfab Industries Limited and Shri Vishal Garg and Shri Vivek Garg who are Managing Director and Executive Director of this Firm respectively.Appeal No. E/683/2003 is filed by the Revenue. Since all these appeals have been filed against the same impugned order of the Commissioner, these are being taken up together.2. The facts in brief are that M/s. Garlon Polyfab Industries Limited is the manufacturer of Polyester Textured Yarn. Based on information that they are indulging in suppression of production, the Central Excise Officers visited their factory as well as their office premises on 29.10.98 and recovered certain records and documents, which were taken in possession for investigation. From one of the file, month-wise production reports and consumable stock reports for the period June, 1996 to March, 1998 (except for the month of Feb., '97. March '97 and Nov. '97) were recovered. It was found that these reports were prepared ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bharat Seats Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the import made by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed benefit of Notification No.23/98-Cus.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents entered into a contract for export of moulding patterns and moulds and foaming line for "Headrest" with the exporter on 18-12-98 and thereafter on 19-1-99, they applied for necessary certificate as required under the Notification No. 23/98-Cus. to the Ministry of Environment and Forest.The respondents made import of the goods and filed Bills of Entries on 23-2-99 claiming the benefit of the Notification No. 23/98. As the respondents were not having the necessary certificate for which they have applied on 19-1-99, the respondent specifically made a request for provisional assessment of the goods. However, this request was rejected by the Custom Authorities and the goods were assessed at the tariff rat...