Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 3 of about 296 results (0.021 seconds)Empire Industries Ltd. Vs. Wigan and Leigh College (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT406
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The respondent i.e. Wigan & Leigh College (India) Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as 'the company'] inter alia, carries out the business of running educational institutions/college for imparting training and education. Various courses are undertaken by it. It also appoints franchise and agents for running these courses. An agreement dated 21st July, 2000 was entered into between the petitioner and the company. Under this agreement, courses in (a) fashion technology, (b) advertising and graphic design, and (c) business management awarded by Wigan and Leigh College, UK were to be conducted by the petitioner under the license from the company. This agreement was for a period of one year on revenue share basis. The agreement also provided for resolution of disputes by means of arbitration between the parties. It may be mentioned that Wigan & Leigh College, UK had entered into an arrangement with the company by virtue of which the company had been given the license to set up ...
Tag this Judgment!Ankit Filaments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC598
2. The appellants have filed these appeals against the common order-in-original whereby the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E.was denied on the ground the final products manufactured by the appellants are classifiable under Tariff Heading 5806.39 which is not covered by the provisions of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. Hence the appellants are to pay duty on the yarn used in the manufacture of goods falling under 5806.39 of the Tariff.3. The contention of the appellants is that they are not disputing the classification of their final product as held by the lower authorities.Their goods are classifiable under Tariff Heading 5806.39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act which are exempted for payment of duty under Notification No. 22/96-C.E.5. In this case, the appellants are claiming benefit under Notification No. 22/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996 which provides exemption to the goods captively consumed in the manufacture of certain fabrics falling under sub-headings 58.01, 58.02, 58.06 of the Ce...
Tag this Judgment!Yashbir Sharma S/O Late Shri Balbir Singh and Sudesh Sharma S/O Late S ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT52; 2005(80)DRJ637
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellants, particularly Appellant No.1, are aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 31st May, 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in an appeal being RCA No.143/2002.2. The premises in question, namely, the first floor of D-35-A, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi were let out by one Smt. Tara H.K. Lal to Balbir Singh, the father of the Appellants and proforma Respondents No.5 and 6. After the death of Smt. Tara H.K. Lal, the suit premises came to the share of late Lt. Col. Man Mohan Lal, the father of Respondents No.2 to 4 and the husband of Respondent No.1. Another portion of the premises on the ground floor and a servants quarter on the terrace floor went to the share of Respondents No.7 and 8. This portion of the property is not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to the first floor consisting of a drawing-cum-dining room, three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a kitchen along with one big room, bath and toilet. 3. There is no dispute that Balbir...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Malik Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT288; 2005(81)DRJ199; [2005(105)FLR1031]; (2005)IILLJ968Del
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The question that arises in this Petition is whether the Petitioner is entitled to payment of wages/salary for the period commencing on 07.07.1999 which is the date of the termination of his services predicated of his conviction under Section 148-A, IPC and ending on 3.10.2001 when Petitioner joined duties. On 28.7.2001 he had been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge.2. Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank states that the Bank is statutorily bound to terminate the services of any of its employees who has been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude, as per Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore vs . Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and Anr., : (1997)IILLJ683SC where the Court observed as follows:3. The reinstatement of the petitioner into the service has already been ordered by the High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Siemens Public Communication Networ ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR369(Delhi); 118(2005)DLT293; 2005(80)DRJ584
R.C. Jain, J.1. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ( in short the 'Act) praying for setting aside the Award dated 28.11.2002. In fact, what is sought to be set aside is an undated majority Award rendered by the two Arbitrators namely Justice D. R. Khanna (Retd.) and Justice M. H. Kania (Retd.) because the petitioner herein actually supports the Award rendered by Mr. Justice R. C. Srivastava (Retd.) on 28.11.2000.2. This petition presents a rare and somewhat piquant situation arising out of the arbitral proceedings and the Award, thereforee, it is necessary to recapitulate them in some greater details than which is generally noted while disposing of an application/objections under Section 34 of the Act in normal cases. The undisputed facts are that in the month of May, 1993, the petitioner-Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) floated a Tender, bearing Tender Enquiry No.MTNL/20-95(5), 93-MM, dated 25.5.1993 for supply of 105 Nos. of 565 Mb...
Tag this Judgment!Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium Vs. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR443(Delhi); III(2005)BC47; 118(2005)DLT69; 2005(80)DRJ574
R.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner M/s.Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium (for short M/s. JHC) has filed this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act), read with Section 151 CPC for grant of an ad interim order restraining the respondent M/s. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited (earlier known as Nathpa Jhakri Hydro Power Corporation in short known as M/s. SJVN) from encashing the bank guarantees, i.e., the performance guarantees and guarantees in lieu of the retention money aggregating to a sum of Rupees 75 crores in order to effect recovery of their alleged claim of Rs.53.12 crores till the claims of the JHC are finally settled in accordance with the modified clause 67 of the General Conditions of Contract and from implementing its decision contained in the communication dated 30.5.2003.2. The relevant facts which may be noticed for deciding the present petition are that M/s. JHC, an Indian Company incorporated under the laws of India engaged in th...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Pal Malik and ors. Vs. Mcd and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT462; 2005(81)DRJ196
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. These Writ Petitions have brought to light yet another case of employees continuing to work on ad hoc or work-charged or temporary basis for almost one decade. In W.P.(C) 6335-45/2004 titled Anil Singh and Ors. versus N.D.M.C. decided on 11.2.2005 I had observed, not just with little anguish, that ad hocism has become the norm and not the exception.2. Shri Nanak Chand, the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 3330/2001, was appointed as a Section Officer in 1986, consequent upon the death of his Father, that is, on compassionate ground. It is his contention that whilst his was a regular appointment, the other persons who had been promoted as Section Officers in 1983 on ad hoc basis could not be placed on the same footing as the Petitioner. Shri Nanak Chand had filed a Writ Petition No. 1853/1997 which was disposed of by Orders dated 9.5.1997 issuing directions to the MCD to consider the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Director (Horticulture) along with other ...
Tag this Judgment!Piyush Aggarwal and anr. Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT345; 2005(81)DRJ186
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their application for refund of stamp duty by the impugned order dated 14th June, 2004 passed by the Collector of Stamps. The order is a short one and may be reproduced for facility of reference:-Sub: Refund of Stamp Duty in r/oFlat No. 6061/3, Sect-D, Pkt-6,Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.Sir,With reference to your letter No. nil dated 25.9.03 and subsequent reminder on the subject cited above. Your case for refund was examined and rejected by the competent authority being not admissible under the provision of u/s 49 of the Indian Stamps Act 1899.2. The facts giving rise to the petition may be briefly noted:-(i) Petitioners had applied for allotment of a SFS flat. It was allotted to the petitioners. Petitioners duly paid consideration amount of Rs. 14,28,043/- (Rs. Fourteen lacs twenty eight thousand forty three only). Additionally, petitioners deposited stamp and transfer duty @ 13% i.e. 8% + 5% respectively, amounting to Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Srivardhan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT676; 2005(81)DRJ71
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th February, 1984, of the Special Judge, Delhi, in Corruption Case No. 2/81, whereby the learned Judge has declined to proceed with the matter on the ground that the accused is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code to bring him within the mischief of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 since the Delhi High Court by a judgment of a Division Bench in Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors. Vs . Delhi Development Authority and Ors. has ruled that a bank employee is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Special Judge, are as under :'In this case, accused Srivardhan Along with his real brother Deepak Chaudhary running a commercial firm in the name of Wood shapers was charged under Section 420/468/471/ and 477A IPC and Section 5 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act a...
Tag this Judgment!State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Dayal Dass
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT590; 2005(81)DRJ211
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th August, 1984, of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent herein in Crl. A. 238/1983, which appeal was directed against the judgment and order dated 12.9.1983 and 14.9.1983 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, whereby the learned Magistrate has convicted the respondent herein under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and has sentenced him to undergo SI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further SI for 1-1/2 months. 2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are as under :'that a sample of Dhania powder was taken for analysis by FI P.C. Tewari form the appellant at his shop situated at 8 Nangloi, Delhi on 5.8.81 at about 2 p.m. The sample was analysed by the Public Analyst and later on the counterpart of the sample was sent...
Tag this Judgment!