Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments

Ashok Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT269; 2005(81)DRJ749

Manju Goel, J.1. In case FIR No. 428/99 registered at police station Malviya Nagar under Sections 393/457/34 Ashok Kumar and Rajinder Kumar were prosecuted for offences under Section 393/457 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner , Ashok Kumar, in addition was also prosecuted for the offence under Section 27 of Arms Act. 2. Both the accused entered the house of the complainant, Madan Lal Arora in the night of 20.12.1989 and attempted to rob Madan Arora and his relative Tara Chand. Ashok, with knife in his hand, approached the complainant and advised the co-accused Raju to take care of Tara Chand. Ashok is alleged to have threatened the complainant of murder unless he complied with the demands of the robbers. The attempt to rob was resisted successfully. One of the accused was apprehended at the spot and the other was subsequently arrested on the disclosure statement of the first. The conviction for the offence of lurking house trespass and for the attempt to commit robbery have been ...

S.N. Panigrahi Vs. Andhra Bank

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This appeal raises interesting dispute as to the ancient language of this land, namely, Sanskrit acknowledged as one of the languages in the Constitution of India. The appellant was having a Bank Account with the respondent Bank and according to him, he had been signing and filling up the cheques in Sanskrit language since 1987 and suddenly in 1991, one Bank official from the southern part of the country raised objection to the cheques having been signed in Sanskrit and declined to honour the said cheques. On 31.12.1991, the appellant applied for UTI Master Plus and enclosed five cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each duly signed in Sanskrit but on the insistence of the said official appellant filled up the cheque in Hindi language also. Still these cheques were not cleared by the respondent on the ground that official language of communication as prescribed by the official language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rule, 1976 was either Hindi of English and not...

Buffalo Networks Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Manish JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT489; 2005(30)PTC242(Del)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Defendants were proceeded ex parte. Plaintiffs have led affidavit by way of evidence. Case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff, by virtue of an agreement dated 20.7.2000 took over the operations of plaintiff No. 2 as a going concern. Plaintiff No. 2 had a news portal 'www.tehelka.com'. Since plaintiff No. 2 faced difficulties in registering the domain name from India, one of its employees, Aniruddha Bahal requested his cousin, Ashish Mehra to register the domain name, 'www.tehelka.com' with the understanding that at a future date, domain name would be assigned to the plaintiffs. Domain name was registered with the registering authority. 'Register.com.Inc/ Subsequently, Mr. Ashish Mehra assigned the domain name to plaintiff No. 2 in March 2000.2. It is accordingly claimed that in view of the agreement dated 20.7.2000 between the plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 1 has become the absolute owner and proprietor of the domain name, 'www.tehelka.com.'3. It is stated...

Jindal Petro Foam Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT92TriDel

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of Polyurethane Foam. This foam is cut to several sizes and shapes to suit in various uses like seats, beds, etc. Part of the goods were categorised by the appellants as second and third grade and were sold at lower prices. Under the impugned order, the duty was confirmed on the basis that the appellants claim about second and third grades is not permissible.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the record of the case does not bring out any material evidence that the grading had been wrongly done or that the goods had been sold at a higher price. The learned Counsel has also submitted that it is common in this industry that part of the goods arise as lower grade and this remains accepted by the Tribunal in the case of Lili Foam Industries (P) Ltd v. CCE [1990 (46) E.L.T. 462] wherein quantity up to 36.5% was allowed, treated as third, grade. The learned Counsel has pointed out that in the appellants case, only 32% (by we...

Cce Vs. Sham Udyog Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the above captioned appeals, the Revenue has contested the reduction in penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) through different orders on the respondents. This order will dispose of both the appeals as the issue involved is common.2. The learned SDR has contended that reduction in penalty, when there was lapse on the part of the respondents in depositing the duty under Section 3A of the Act in time, was not proper and legal, the penalty should have been equal to the duty amount defaulted. On the other hand, the earned Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. We find that the dispute relates to the period October 1998 to December, 1998 when the respondents were required to deposit the duty of Rs. 15 lakhs but they deposited only Rs. 7 lakhs. The demand raised against them was of the short paid duty of Rs. 8 lakhs, but the respondents had preferred abatement claims on account of closure of their factory during the period October, 1998 to December, 1998, the ...

Hpl Socomac Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT191TriDel

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of electricity meters. It had a contract with Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. for supply of 65,000 meters upto 31-3-2002. The delivery was to be completed in a phased manner. The appellants could deliver 31,000 meters only within the contracted period. Accordingly, it is seen from the letter dated 11-4-2002 of buyer that a penalty upto 5% of the value was imposed on the appellants for delayed delivery. After completion of delivery of the entire consignment, the appellants filed refund claim on 20-11-2002 claiming assessment of the delayed quantity at a reduced price (5%).The lower authorities rejected the claim. The appellant is before us in appeal against the rejection.2. We have perused the records and heard both the sides. It is noted that the original assessment, and payment of duty took place at the contracted price. The change in the amount paid is on account of imposition of penalty for delayed period. The penalty is separate from the ...

Shri Rajiv Oberoi and ors. Vs. Sh. Santosh Kumar Oberoi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(80)DRJ120

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. This is a suit for partition, rendition of accounts and declaration. Plaintiff's claim 9/24th share in property bearing No.E-231, East of Kailash. Partition of said property is prayed for. Declaration sought is for nullification of mutation obtained by defendants 1 to 5 in their favor in records of DDA. Rendition of accounts is sought against defendants 1 to 5.2. Recorded owner of the suit property was late Shri Amolak Ram. Wife of late Shri Amolak Ram had pre-deceased him, having died in the year 1947 (a fact stated by counsel for the parties at the bar). Shri Amolak Ram was blessed with two sons named Shri Raj Kumar Oberoi and Shri Santosh Kumar Oberoi (Defendant No.1). He had six daughters. Defendants 6 to 11 are the daughters of late Shri Amolak Ram. Defendant No.1, Shri Santosh Oberoi is the son of late Shri Amolak Ram. Defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. Defendants 3 to 5 are the children of defendants1 and 2. Plaintiff No.1 is the son of late Sh...

Kanha Credit and Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Janacim Electronics

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi415; 2005(1)ARBLR338(Delhi); 117(2005)DLT564; 2005(80)DRJ151

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. On 24.5.1996, an agreement for sale of immovable property at Rs.3,50,11,000/- was made between the petitioner/objector and the respondent. Pursuant to the above agreement, the respondent made an initial payment of Rs.70,11,000/- and the balance consideration of Rs.2,80,00,000/- remained to be paid. On 26th August, 1998, the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 24th May, 1996 with an alternate prayer for refund of the amount of Rs.70,11,000/- with interest and damages. In the meanwhile, on 25th August, 1999 the property in question was sold by the petitioner for Rs.3,30,00,000/- to Dheer Industries, third party by the petitioner. By an order dated 19th July, 2000, during the pendency of the suit Justice J.K. Mehra, was appointed as the sole arbitrator, with the consent of the parties as the sole arbitrator.2. The Arbitrator by his impugned award dated 31st May, 2002 held as follows:-(i) The contention raised in the counter cl...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ajay Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT614; 2005(80)DRJ360; 2006(1)SLJ193(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the impugned Award dated 18th January, 2001, passed in I.D. No. 153/98 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI, Delhi in which reference for adjudication was made in the following terms:-'Whether the services of Sh Ajay Kumar, daily rated ward boy posted in Hindu Rao Hospital have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiable by the mgt., and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'The award was delivered on the basis of the violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the `ID Act') and Rule 77 to 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 (in short the `Rules'), directing the reinstatement of the respondent/workman with full back wages in view of the violation of Section 25G, 25H of the ID Act and Rules 77 to 78 of the Rules.2. The respondent/workman had joined as a Ward Boy in Hindu Rao Hospital of MCD on 12th December, 1995 and his servic...

Naraian Singh @ Lala Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT298; 2005(79)DRJ697

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. By this judgment and order we propose to dispose of the aforesaid four appeals which arise out of judgment and orders of conviction and sentence dated November 3, 2001 and November 8, 2001 respectively, in Sessions Case No. 188 of 1999.2. The First Information Report was registered as FIR No. 94 of 1999 on the basis of Rukka, i.e., DD No. 20A dated June 5, 1999. It is recorded in the said First Information Report that when the informant, the Inspector, along with Constable Naresh Pal, was present for patrolling in the area, an information was received that a dead body had been recovered. The said informant Inspector immediately on receipt of of the information proceeded to the place of occurrence of the crime known as Suri Farm House in Village Bamnoli where Sub Inspector Brij Mohan Bahuguna together with Constable Jitender were already present at the spot. He had also stated that some blood was found scattered in the field of Suri Farm House and some struggle m...