Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 19 of about 280 results (0.022 seconds)Ramjee Power Construction Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR570(Delhi); 127(2006)DLT346; 2006(86)DRJ304
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this Writ Petition it has been prayed that the letter dated 27.7.2005 issued by RITES Ltd. to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (`JSEB' in short) be quashed calling upon them to freeze all payments due to the Petitioner in respect of an on-going project of JSEB. Similar prayers have also been made in respect of the letter dated 2.8.2005 issued on behalf of the JSEB instructing all banks to stop all payments made to the Petitioner. It is further been prayed that letters issued to various parties be held in abeyance calling upon them not to award contract to the Petitioner. Prayers have also been made for re-evaluating the amount of securities furnished by the Petitioner on the project.2. The Petition had been rejected by me on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Subsequently, an application was made for reviewing the decision. Mr. Seth, learned counsel appearing for RITES has waived all objections on this score and instead had sought a decision o...
Tag this Judgment!Happy Anand @ Prabhjot Singh Vs. Baby Deepali (Minor)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(2006)DMC520
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Petition No. 199/2003, which was filed by the respondent who is a minor against her father seeking maintenance under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.2. The respondent herein was born on 5th December, 1996 and she was about seven years old when the aforesaid petition was filed by her against her father. She is now living under the care and custody of her mother, namely, Ms. Anju @ Dolly. The parents of the respondent have obtained decree of divorce under order dated 22nd May, 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi. The respondent along with her mother are now residing with the respondent's grand-father, who allegedly bore the expenses relating to delivery and post natal care of her mother. It was stated before the Additional District Judge that the monthly income of the petitioner was Rs. 20,000 per month but despite the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Satwant Nanua Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Reported in: II(2006)BC226
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment in OA No. 229/1995 dated 6.7.2004 made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I(DRT-I) Delhi. This appellant is arrayed as 5th defendant in the OA. The OA was filed by the respondent-Bank herein on 7.8.1995 for recovery of certain amounts against nine defendants including this appellant who is arrayed as 5th defendant. The allegation against this appellant is that she stood guarantor for respondent No. 2 herein and had executed an agreement of guarantee dated 1.4.12.1992 for the limits allowed to the respondent No. 2 and that the appellant had deposited title deeds of the property bearing plot No. 75, Blook-FA, Mansarovar Garden, Basai Darapur, Delhi measuring 220 sq. yards and created an equitable mortgage of the same in favour of the respondent-Bank. Decree for recovery of Rs, 33,32,5327- along with pendentelite and future interest @2 3.25% p.a.from the date of filing the OA till realisation with costs had been prayed for against this appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT597
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. On an application under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excise Act,1944, the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'CEGAT') referred the following question to us for our opinion:-Whether Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, as amended, applies to cases where though an order has been passed directing refund, implementation of the order is pending?3. The proceedings arose out of applications for refund filed by the assessed before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Trichy for the years 1970 to 1978. These refund applications were rejected by the orders of the Assistant Collector on 16.10.1979, 7.3.1980 and 1.8.1980. Appeals against these orders were also dismissed by the Appellate Collector vide orders dated 1.12.1980 and 6.12.1980. Further appeals were filed by the assessed before the CEGAT and these were allowed vide orders dated 1.6.1989 and 6.6.1989. By these two or...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Lal Mehta Vs. D.G. of Revenue Int. and Invest. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1016; 126(2006)DLT41; 2006(86)DRJ227
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition, under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the petitioner alleges willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(C). No. 7586/2003 and seeks directions to the respondents to re-quantify and pay to the petitioner with interest the amount of final reward due to him, in terms of the reward policy. The petition has been filed in the following circumstances:2. The petitioner claims to have provided specific information in regard to evasion of duty by M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. on certain imports made by the said company at Calcutta. It is not in dispute that the information furnished by the petitioner resulted in the discovery of evasion of duty by the company and a claim for payment of a reward to the former in terms of the reward rules/policy framed by the Government. Dissatisfied with the treatment given by the respondents to his claim for reward, the petitioner filed W.P(C). No. 7586/2003 in this Court for a mandamus, di...
Tag this Judgment!Cisco Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT263; 2009(234)ELT618(Del)
T.S. Thakur, J.1. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Delhi by an interim order, impugned in this writ petition, passed under Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962 directed the petitioner to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 5 crores, while waiving the remainder of the duty amount held recoverable from it. Dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and prayed for a complete waiver of the pre-deposit.2. The petitioner company is a subsidiary of M/s. Cisco Systems Management B.V. (Netherlands), which in turn, is a subsidiary of M/s. Cisco Inc., USA. The latter of the two companies has entered into agreements with the petitioner for supply of equipment broadly classified into the following four different categories:a) import of equipment for use in the STP unit;b) import of equipment for internal use;c) import of demonstration equipment on loan/returnable basis; andd) import of spare parts for supply to the customers of Cisco Inc. to support replacemen...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sivadasan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT338
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition for a writ of mandamus, the petitioner prays for a nation-wide inquiry into the alleged evasion of taxes by Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL for short) and its sister concerns, in connivance with responsible Government officers. A mandamus, directing an inquiry against the officers responsible for inaction against Hindustan Lever Ltd. has also been prayed for, apart from a mandamus, directing the Union of India to grant a reward to the petitioner for furnishing information leading to the detection of the alleged evasion of taxes and duties by the said company. Since the prayers made by the petitioner are somewhat novel in nature, the same may be extracted at the outset:i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the first respondent to conduct a Nation-wide inquiry into the illegal activities of the H.L.L. and its sister concerns in evading various taxes and the involvement of the responsible officers of the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!S. Darshan Singh Vs. S. Didar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ569
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. RSA 11/2003 is directed against the order dated 24.12.2002 of the Additional District Judge in RCA 12/2001 whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order of the trial court dated 31.07.2001 whereby the learned Judge has decreed the suit for declaration and consequential relief of perpetual injunction.2. Facts of the case as noted by the Civil Judge are as follows:-In brief, the case of the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint is that S.Sant Singh, defendant No. 2, father of the plaintiff as well as of the defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 was a displaced person from Pakistan. He had left property in West Pakistan and in lieu thereof he was granted compensation by the Rehabilitation Department. He was also given a Refugee Card by the Government.In Delhi he started a milk shop after migration and settled initially at Siddi Pura and thereafter at Moti Nagar on the allotment of Property No. F-18(A.B.), Moti Nagar, New Delhi. Defendant No. 1 was employed as an attendant in the Agricu...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Partap Takwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT20; 2006(86)DRJ107
R.C. Jain, J.Crl.M.A. 2222/20051. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. made on behalf of the State seeking condensation of 46 days delay in filing the appeal and application for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 13.6.2003 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The application has been made with the averments that the concerned APP after examination of the impugned judgment on 26.7.2003 opined for the first time that it was a fit case for appeal and forwarded the file to the Public Prosecutor through Chief Prosecutor/NE P.P. Delhi. After examining the reports of the APP and Chief Prosecutor/NE viewed the case as not sound on merit to be challenged in appeal and forwarded the file to the Secretary, Law and Judicial of NCT of Delhi on 27.8.2003 and after the matter was processed in the Law Department and at different levels, the file was sent back to the Director of Prosecution on 25.9.2003, who in turn fo...
Tag this Judgment!Sergerant R.M. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT615; 2006(86)DRJ219; 2007(2)SLJ131(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally.2. In this writ petition the action of the respondents in discharging the petitioner from the service is with effect from 31st January, 2001 has been questioned. The petitioner claims that he had the right to be extended in the service pursuant to the policies of the respondents.3. The petitioner joined the services and was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 2nd January, 1981. He applied for extension and in June, 1999 for a period of six years and it is stated that this application was in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject. This request was rejected as the petitioner had not passed or qualified in the Junior Warrant Officer's Promotion Examination.4. He accordingly applied and appeared in the Junior Warrant Officer's Promotion Examination held in April-Sep 2000. The result of the said examination was declared on 16th October, 2000.5. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!