Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 6 of about 296 results (0.009 seconds)Shri Mulakh Raj, S/O Shri Wadhaya Ram Vs. Smt. Shashi Rani, W/O Late S ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi374; 2006(2)ARBLR126(Delhi); 118(2005)DLT316; 2005(81)DRJ193; (2005)141PLR2
Vijender Jain, J.1. This petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The ground of rejection of the application for non-supply of the vacancy of an arbitrator was that the firm of which the husband of the respondent and petitioner were partners, was an unregistered firm. thereforee, it was held by the learned Additional District Judge that in view of the disability envisaged under Section 69 of Partnership Act, the petitioner could not maintain an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. 2. As a preliminary objection, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the remedy of writ petition is not available to the petitioner. We see no force in the objection of the learned counsel. In Konkan Railways Corporation Ltd. Vs . Mehul Construction Co. : AIR2000SC2821 , the Supreme Court of India has...
Tag this Judgment!State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Mange Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT455; 2005(81)DRJ26
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd April, 1985, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Session Case No. 669/81, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent herein of the offence/charge under Sections 452/308 IPC.2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are as under :'Prosecution case is that Chandgi Ram S/o Shri Chunni Lal R/o Village Surera, P.S. Najafgarh, Delhi came to the police station at 1150 p.m. on 2.5.1981 and reported that he was residing in that village with his family; that at 11 p.m. Mange Ram S/o Ram Phal opened the gate of his house, which was situated at the road and entered the house; after hearing the sound of his steps, two pups which were sitting beside him, started barking and at their barking, he got up from his bed and asked as to who he was. At this, Mange Ram was armed with an iron rod gave a blow with it to him, which he took on his left hand and th...
Tag this Judgment!State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Ramesh Chand Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT416
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th April, 1985, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Crl . A. No. 48/1985, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused and has allowed the appeal directed against the judgment dated 29th May, 1984, and the order dated 31st May, 1984, of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, vide which the respondent herein was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for three years with a fine of Rs.6000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for six months.2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Additional Sessions Judge, are as under :'the prosecution case started on the basis of a complaint dated 25.8.80 filed by Shri R.N. Gujral, Asstt. Municipal Prosecutor, M.C.D. On behalf of the Delhi Administration.4. It is alleged in the complaint that on 14.4.80 at about 2 p.m. accused Ramesh Chand Jain, proprietor of M/s. Khairati ...
Tag this Judgment!State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Partap Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT464
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12th May, 1981, of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, in Case No. 85/2, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the respondent herein of the offence/charge under Section 379 IPC.2. The facts of this case are that an FIR Ex.Pw1/A was lodged by PW-2 that on 30.5.78 he had parked his motor-cycle DHT 4461 at Community Centre, East of Kailash, which was stolen. On the following day, he was present at Lajpat Nagar, where he saw his motor-cycle and the accused was ready to start that motor-cycle but was apprehended by the police. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution has examined PW-2 Suresh Sarvaria. The accused denied the prosecution's case and stated that he did not know how to drive the motor-cycle and that he was taking tea and was just resting his hand on the motor-cycle and has been wrongly implicated. The accused has examined DW-1 in his defense, who supported the version of the accused....
Tag this Judgment!State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Inderjit Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT504; 2005(81)DRJ54
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th May, 1985, of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, in Case No. 272/83, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the respondents herein of the offence/charge under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act.2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, are as under :'that on 1-10-83 at about 4-15 P.M. Rajpal Singh, Food Inspector purchased a sample of Maida for analysis under the PFA Act/Rules from accused Inderjit Singh at the premises of Khairati Lal, 1080-A Darshan Bhawan, Railway Road, Shahdara, Delhi. One counter-part of the sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst who declared the sample to be adulterated on the ground that it contained alcoholic acidity to the extent of 0-14 per cent as against of 0.12 per cent besides containing 83 per kg of the living and 194 per kg of the dead insects. After the receipt of the public analyst report consent Ex PW4/A was...
Tag this Judgment!State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Rajpal Singh Shastri
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(81)DRJ209
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3rd August, 1984, of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the respondent herein of the offence/charge under Sections 153, 295 and 505 IPC.2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, are as under :'Rajpal Shastri S/o Surya Dev, hereinafter referred to as accused was challaned by Crime Branch, Central District for offences under Section 153, 295 and 505 IPC on the allegations that he being editor of Hindi monthly journal titled 'Madhur Lok' printed and published articles with a view to promote enmity and hatred between Muslims and Sikhs and also insulted the muslims by writing such articles in the issue of September and October, 1981. Both these magazines containing alleged offending articles have been placed on record as Ex P-1 and Ex P-2.2. Accused on appearance was given copies of documents and c...
Tag this Judgment!Seiko Brushware (India) Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC453
1. In this appeal, the challenge has been made to the impugned order in original by the appellants vide which the adjudicating authority (Commissioner of Customs) has confirmed the duty demand with interest against them, as detailed therein.2. The issue in this appeal relates to the denial of benefit of Notification No. 34/98-Cus. dated 13.6.1998 to the appellants under which they imported into India bristles without payment of Special Additional Duty of Customs (hereinafter referred to as SAD). The ground on which the benefit of this notification has been denied to the appellants as put forth by the Revenue is that they had violated the condition contained therein in the form of declaration that the sale of the goods shall not be effected from the place located in an area where no tax is chargeable on sale or purchase of the goods. This condition is said to had been accepted by the appellants at the time of clearance of the goods by furnishing declaration to that effect. They have vi...
Tag this Judgment!Veer Bahadur Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT396TriDel
1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who ordered the confiscation of the goods, confirmed duty and imposed penalties on the appellants, as detailed therein.2. The duty demand of Rs. 18,34,560/- has been confirmed against the appellant No. 1, M/s. Veer Bahadur Products, which is a proprietorship concern of appellant No. 4, on account of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods, namely, Shri Ram Chhap Mainpuri Tobacco-Gutkha, after procuring huge quantity of supari, tobacco, pouches, piperment, without bills from appellant No. 3, who is a Proprietor of the firm, appellant No. 2, whereas penalties have been imposed on all other appellants. The confiscation of the goods recovered from the premises of the appellants have also been ordered.3. The learned Counsel has contended that there is no cogent and tangible evidence on r...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Punjab Chemicals and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC119
1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. The case was adjourned once at the request of the respondents, therefore, is being taken up for hearing.2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents on the ground that duty was paid prior to issuance of show-cause notice, after relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE, 2004 (163) ELT A. 53.3. We find that in this case the respondents were clearing the goods by suppressing the price to their related person. The respondents evaded the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,58,329. The contention of the Revenue regarding suppression of price of the goods cleared to the related persons is admitted by the respondents. In these circumstances, as there was a clear intent on the part of the respondent to evade payment of Central Excise duty. T...
Tag this Judgment!Shri M.L. Gupta Vs. Sh. Saheb Singh Verma and Sh. Rajesh Gahlot
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT57; 2005(80)DRJ488
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. By instant application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the plaintiff seeks an interim order to the following effect:-''(a) pass an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them from holding any extraordinary meeting of the General Council on 23.02.2005 or on any other dates in terms of letter dated 8.2.2005.(b) stay the operation of the letter dated 8th February, 2005 issued by defendant No. 1 and direct defendants not to create any further obstacles or hurdles in the conduct of the 27th National Championship on 24th to 27th February, 2005 at Avadi(Chennai).(c) to issue mandatory directions, directing defendant No. 2 to release the grant-in-aid in favor of the host State, i.e., Shooting Ball Association of Tamilnadu(Regd.) by issuing a demand draft from the Federation's bank account for a sum of Rs.8 lacs apart of the expenses to be incurred by the host State in conducting the 27th National Championship o...
Tag this Judgment!