Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 2 of about 296 results (0.026 seconds)Patel Engineering Ltd. and anr. Vs. National Highways Authority of Ind ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi298; 2005(1)CTLJ377(Del); 118(2005)DLT623; 2005(80)DRJ458
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, appropriate directions have been sought against the National Highway Authority of India (a statutory body, hereafter called 'NHAI'); the petitioners seek directions to the effect that two pre-qualifying bids/applications made by them, which rely upon experience certificates issued by NHAI, should be processed, and considered on merits.I Facts as per pleadings and documents2. The petitioner No 1 (hereafter called 'Patel Engineering') claim to be a leading Civil Engineering company, who have executed several important public works within the country, and abroad. It entered into Joint Venture Agreement (JV) some time in 1999, with LG C&E;, a company incorporated under the laws of South Korea. The shares of LG and Patel Engineering, respectively, in the JV, were 75%:25%.3. The JV bid and was awarded a work known as 'The SURAT-MANOR TOLLWAY PROJECT', by the NHAI. The JV entered into an agreement on 16.10.2000...
Tag this Judgment!RobIn Singh Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT168; 2005(80)DRJ449
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This order shall dispose of two bail applications - one of Robin Singh and the other of Kesar Singh.2. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 20.10.2003 at about 11.35 p.m. five to six police officials in plain clothes came to the STD shop of the Complainant (Krishan Kumar) on the ground floor and it is stated that all these police officials were in a drunken state. It is further the case of the prosecution that there were three other persons who accompanied these police officials. The names of the police officials as indicated in the FIR are Rajbir Singh, Constable Robin Singh, Constable Jai Prakash both of Police Station Madipur and Constable Rohtas of Police Station Punjabi Bagh. In the FIR it is clearly indicated that the names of the other police officials were not known to the informant but that he could identify all of them. It is the case of the prosecution that some of these persons came in an Indica car and three others came on foot. They...
Tag this Judgment!The Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT19; 2005(81)DRJ266
Vijender Jain, J.1. This writ petition, inter alia, raises the question as to whether the incentive scheme which was initially declared by the respondent on 6.12.1975, as modified on 17.12.1979 and revised on 15.11.1980 as contained in Annexure A, available to a new sugar factory, can be denied to the already existing (but re-modeled) factory of the petitioner? Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner's factory was altogether a new unit, having invested a sum of Rs.8.30 crores. It is argued that the petitioner was entitled to the incentive on the basis of the cost which worked out to be Rs.6.56 crores. It has been contended before us by Mr. Shanti Bhushan that the objective of the scheme was to have more production of sugar and the scheme was formulated by the respondent keeping in view the fact that the sugar plants in the country had become obsolete. They required new capital as well as modernisation of plants and machinery. Learned cou...
Tag this Judgment!Virender Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2644; 120(2005)DLT249
Manju Goel, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate on 26.6.2004 in case FIR No.31/2002 police station Chandni Chowk under Sections 186/341/353/355/504 of Indian Penal Code. Vide an order dated 8.7.2004 he was sentenced to RI for 18 months under Section 353 IPC and RI for one year under Section 355 IPC. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Further a compensation of Rs.15,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. was awarded for the victim of the crime, namely, S.P.Agarwal. No separate sentence was imposed for the offence punishable under Sections 186/34 of the IPC. The court of Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and the sentence vide a judgment dated 6.11.2004. Hence the revision petition.2. The facts of the case are as under:On 4.2.2002 at around 12.05 p.m. the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short `MCD') accompanied by his PSO Constable Jai Kishan was passing through the varanda of Commissioner's office at Tow...
Tag this Judgment!Kusum Malik Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT433
Manju Goel, J.1. This criminal revision petition arises from an order of acquittal. The revision petition is filed by the prosecutrix in a case of rape.2. The first thing to be decided in this case is the scope of the revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Briksh Singh and Ors. v. Ambika Yadav and Anr.; 2004 (1) JCC 665. In this case, in a similar revision, the order of acquittal was set aside and the case was sent back by the High Court to the Trial Court on the ground that material available on record has not been considered by the Trial Court. It was a case of murder. There was no eye witness. The prosecution case depended upon circumstantial evidence. However, there were three witnesses who had noticed, the deceased being dragged and the investigating officer who found the body of the deceased in the courtyard of the house of the accused in a mutilated condition. High Court also found that the evide...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod JaIn Vs. Winter Misra Diamond Tools
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT293; 2005(81)DRJ757
Manju Goel, J.1. This is a revision petition under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 18.1.2003 by Shri Yogesh Khanna, ASJ dismissing the application for discharge filed by the petitioner.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raises two points. The first point is that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, in which the impugned order was passed, was filed by an attorney on the behalf of the respondent company, namely, M/s. Winter Misra Diamond Tools Ltd., but no resolution has actually been placed on the record evincing the decision of the company to appoint the attorney or to file the complaint. Secondly it is submitted that in respect of the three cheques, namely, dated 28.2.1996, 15.3.1996 & 31.3.1996, the complaint was barred by limitation prescribed by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 3. So far as the first contention is concerned, the power of attorney admittedly mentions that it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Sheetal Fabrics Vs. Coir Cushions Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT693
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner, by means of this petition, is seeking winding up of the respondent company. The petition is filed under the provisions of Section 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. However, primary ground is that the respondent company is indebted to the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 3,52,471/-and is unable to pay the debt.2. According to the petitioner, it is running the business of cloth i.e. furnishing fabrics, etc. Orders were placed by the respondent company on the petitioner firm from time-to-time with effect from 3rd June, 1992 to 1st August, 1995 for supply of this material. The material for a total value of Rs. 5,49,221/- was supplied against various invoices/bills. Out of this amount, the respondent company paid only a sum of Rs. 1,96,750/- thus leaving a balance of Rs. 3,52,471/-. It is stated that the payment of Rs. 1,96,750/- made by the respondent company to the petitioner included last payment of Rs. 24,467/- which was made on 15th September,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Northern Aromatics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)479
ORDER1. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at some length. The argument before us is that the assessed had received a sum of Rs. 5,61,700 on account of processing charges and as such they were not involved in the activity of manufacturing. Thus, the benefit of Section 80-IA would not be available to the assessed. This question is primarily- a question of fact and has been answered by the Tribunal as follows :'The assessed was deriving processing charges as a result of products manufactured on job work basis for outsiders. The only grievance of the Revenue is that the processing charges so received would be outside the purview of the Section 80-IA in so much as that the manufacturing activity which resulted in receipt of such charges was not done by the assessed for itself but for others. The stand of the Revenue is clearly in variance with the views of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nu-look (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1986]157ITR253(Delhi) . The activity o...
Tag this Judgment!Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)4CompLJ583(Del)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. Ten writ petitions were filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying to set aside two orders passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (for short hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 17.11.2004 and 14.1.2005.2. So far as LPA Nos. 464/05, 466/05 and 467/05 are concerned, learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that in view of the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge in later part of the order about the maintainability, the matter was not required to be agitated on merits. It may be noted that a common question was raised in all the petitions and counsel argued the matter on merits and thereforee learned single Judge was required to decide on the merits. However the learned single made a specific reference to this in paragraph 32, which is reproduced below:'In the view of my conclusions in the preceding paragraphs I am of the opinion that the present petition cannot be ...
Tag this Judgment!Engineering and Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(82)DRJ416
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 18.10.2000 passed by the Addl. District Judge declining to grant injunction to the petitioner.2. The petitioner filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondent from interfering in the possession of the petitioner in respect of plot Nos. ED/11 to ED/15 and C/10, 12, 15 to 21, 34, 37-A, 39, 39-A, 36, 54 and 35 situated at Inderpuri Colony, New Delhi. Along with the suit, an application for interim injunction was also filed. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. The appeal filed against the order of the Trial Court was accepted by the learned Addl. District Judge on 24.11.1998.3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another suit for injunction restraining respondent from interfering with the possession, demolition of structure and taking possession of plots No. ED-7 to ED-10 being part of Khasra No. 1652, located in Inderpuri Colony, New Delhi. The application for interim injunction was dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!