Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 8 of about 280 results (0.030 seconds)Rekha and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT653; (2006)142PLR70
R.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a suitable writ, order or direction primarily claiming reasonable amount of compensation in regard to the custodial death of Sushil Kumar. The petitioner had earlier approached the Supreme Court with a similar prayer, but the Supreme Court dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to move this court.2. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent the factum of above-named person having died on account of injuries caused to him at the hands of the police officials namely S.I. Rajbir Singh, H.C. Kesar Singh, Constables Jai Prakash, Robin and Rohtas is not disputed and it is stated that those police officials are facing trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge for the offences committed by them. Having regard to the Supreme Court decisions starting from the case of Neelbati Behra, there is no denial of the legal position that the state under public law is vicar...
Tag this Judgment!H.K. Goods Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Ramesh Chander Bammi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT404; 2006(86)DRJ620
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Code') seeking recall of the Order dated 01.12.2005 dismissing the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the present application may be treated as an application under Order XI Rule 4 of the Code.2. In pursuance to the summons issued in the suit, the defendants entered appearance through counsel and on 17.01.2002 time was granted to file the written statement. The written statement was, however, not filed and, thus, the right to file the written statement was closed on 04.12.2002. The plaintiff was permitted to lead ex parte evidence. The affidavit of evidence was, however, not filed. The defendants have thereafter been appearing on some occasions, but have remained unrepresented on a number of other occasions. The failure of the plaintiff to file affidavit of ex parte evidence resulted in the matter being li...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1863; 127(2006)DLT287; 2006(86)DRJ469
R.C. Jain, J.1. Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner, who is an advocate by profession, seeks a direction/writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents Rs. 1 and 2 to register a case against respondents Rs. 3 and 4 and their accomplices who have been party to the illegal acts of stealing his car on 23.10.2004 from road- side parking of Kailash Colony, New Delhi and other offences like criminal breach of trust, extortion etc. and to take up the investigation in the matter. Yet another direction sought for on respondents Rs. 1 and 2 is to recover the car and the valuable goods which were lying in the car and; lastly, for award of suitable compensation to the petitioner for the inconvenience, harassment and humiliation suffered by him at the hands of respondents Rs. 3 and 4.2. The petition has been filed with the averments and allegations that in the month of December, 2000 the petitioner purchased a Marut...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sol Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(2006)BC533
Anil Kumar, J.1. Plaintiff has filed this suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs. 66,11,726/- with interest pendentilite and future at 36% per annum. The summons under Order 37 were served on Ms. Pamela Kumar, Advocate as she had written a letter to the plaintiff that processes in respect of the suit in the name of the defendants could be served on them through her though she did not held any vakalatnama or authority on behalf of either of the defendants to receive the processes in their name.2. The service of summons on the defendants through Ms. Pamela Kumar, thereforee, by order dated 26.9.2001 was held to be not proper service on the defendants through Ms. Pamela Kumar as she did not have proper authorization from the defendants and the summons could not be served on them through her and thereforee fresh summons under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the defendants were ordered.3. During the pendency of the suit an official liquidator was ap...
Tag this Judgment!Data Access India Ltd. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT617
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The prayer in these writ petitions is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to adjust all the payments received by them by way of encased Bank Guarantees submitted by the Petitioners on a First In First Out basis. In CW 4652/2005 the amount in question is Rs. 6,20,00,000/- and in CW 4709/2005 is Rs. 50,09,50,000/-.2. The facts pertaining to these transactions, briefly stated, are that the parties had entered into Interconnect Agreements in July 2002, in terms of which sundry Bank Guarantees favoring the Respondent were made available by the Petitioner. Towards the end of 2003 the Petitioner encountered financial difficulties. To overcome this, fresh infusion of capital was sought to be located and procured. A Shareholders Agreement was entered into on 26.8.2004 which, according to the contention of the Petitioners, superseded all previous Agreements. The new investors were assured that the total liabi...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1198; 126(2006)DLT406; 2006(86)DRJ420
ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner prays that sentences given to the petitioner for two offences should be ordered to be run concurrently.2. I have heard Mr. C.M. Sanon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.N. Dudeja learned counsel for the State on the point of admission and have gone through the copies of the documents placed on the file. Briefly the facts are that Lakhi son of Radhey Shyam and Madan son of Lakhi were neighbours of the petitioners (convicts). Some dispute between them was pending in the court. There was a confrontation on 9.8.1986 at about 9.00 P.M. when Lakhi (deceased) pleaded with the 3 accused persons that his son had been falsely implicated in the case at which accused Mangal Singh exhorted to kill Lakhi. Bhagwan Dass and Mangal Singh secured (caught) Lakhi while third accused Vinod @ Binna @ Dada assaulted him with a knife (dagger) on his back (spinal cord), left thigh and left leg. Mean...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Rani Dhanda Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT221; 2006(86)DRJ450
R.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner-M/s Raj Rani Dhanda has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking directions on respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. Respondent No. 1-Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Respondent No. 2-Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, Houz Khas, New Delhi and Respondent No. 3-S.H.O. Police Station Sarita Vihar to register a case of cheating against respondents No. 4 to 8 and after registration of the case to carry out the investigation in the matter.2. The petition has been filed with the averments and allegations that on 13.7.2003 the petitioner had booked a Skoda Octavia Elegance Car Sea Blue Colour with Continental Auto Services, A-13, Mohan Coop. Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Opp. Sarita Vihar, New Delhi and deposited a draft for Rs. 3,77,000/- and the Company promised to effect the delivery of the car on 18.7.2003. Respondent No. 4-Sh.J.S. Bhasin and Respondent No. 6-Sh. Nee...
Tag this Judgment!Hora Sales Agencies and ors. Vs. Quest Components (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(2007)BC345; 2006CriLJ1445; 126(2006)DLT514; 2006(86)DRJ417
ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing complaint No. 58/2001 under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi and the notice issued under section 251 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to the petitioner. I have heard Ms. Sonia Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission and have gone through the copies of the documents placed on the file.2. In the compliant it is alleged that against the loan taken by the petitioner (accused) from the complainant the accused had issued two cheques dated 28.8.2000 for Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 1,25,000/- with the assurance that the same would be honoured on presentation. The petitioner-accused time and again requested the complainant not to present the cheques as he was facing financial difficulties and only on 20.2.2001 agreed that the cheques...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Aay Cee Engineering Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC329
1. The revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved of the order of the Commissioner (appeals) dated 29.7.05. The respondents in this case M/s. Aay Cee Engineering Works were issued a show cause notice on the basis of five invoices, against which the party had charged for conversion/remelting/modification/repair. The Assistant Commissioner, who adjudicated the matter made the following observations: In the instant case, the noticee have undertaken the process of machining, welding, teeth cutting, drilling etc. on the worn out machining parts of different designs supplied by the sugar mills. These worn out machinery parts having no commercial use, were sent to the noticee for transforming into new items having of different designs, dimensions and having commercial use and value by undertaking the process of machining, welding, teeth cutting, drilling etc. Since by applying the said processes, the noticee have brought into existence a new item having commercial use as well as commercia...
Tag this Judgment!India Colour Lab Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC594
1. The appeal is admitted. The applicants were providing photography services. They were providing the service to the customers and they were also receiving exposed photographic films from other dealers for developing. They have paid the service tax on the charges received from the customers to whom photography service is provided. They have shown the amount of developing of exposed films received from the dealers in the ST-3 returns but they have not paid any tax on this service although the amount was shown in Col.5 of their Return as they were under the impression that the service tax will be paid by the dealers who had sent the exposed films to them. Since the amount which they have collected from the customers is shown in Col.5 of ST-3 Return, therefore, extended period may not be applicable as they have not suppressed the facts. This plea of the applicant was opposed by the Revenue on the ground that Col.5 of the Return is for "amount of service tax adjusted in terms of Sub-rule...
Tag this Judgment!