Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments

Smt. Durga Devi @ Smt. Asha Rani Vs. Vinod Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT484; 2005(81)DRJ496

Manju Goel, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.6.2000 by which Shri R.S.Verma, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi acquitted the respondents 1 to 3 in case FIR No. 217/91 P.S. Civil Lines under Sections 302/364/201/34 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, Durga Devi, is the complainant who lodged the FIR reporting that her brother, Prem Kumar Dua, who left her house on 11.6.1991 along with respondent No. 1, Vinod Kumar, had disappeared and the respondent No. 1 on enquiry from him declined to give any information about her brother. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302/364/201/34 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after trial and examination of the respondents under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the `Code') acquitted the respondents 1 to 3 holding that the prosecution case was not free from all reasonable doubts. In the revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ram Phal Singh Rana

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT81; (2005)IIILLJ418Del

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. These writ petitions are directed against the judgment and order dated 28.4.2004 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1274/2003. A disciplinary proceeding was instituted against Shri Ram Phal Singh Rana on the charge which is specifically set out in the memorandum of articles. An enquiry was conducted into the said charge by the disciplinary authority by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 28.12.1998. In the enquiry report, the enquiry officer gave his conclusions that the delinquent official had not contracted second marriage in conformity with the rites and that it was admitted by the delinquent official that Smt.Yashwanti is living with him, who is holding out to be his wife because of social bindings. 2. After going through the said report and records of the departmental proceedings, an order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 18.8.1999 disagreeing with the aforesaid findings recorded...

Devinder Singh Negi and ors. Vs. Sunil Bhandari and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT746; I(2005)DMC688; 2005(81)DRJ740

Manju Goel, J.1. This petition seeks consolidation of FIR No. 452/1997 under Sections 498A/201 and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of Smt.Swaran Kanta Mehra, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi with the complaint case No. 149/2001 under Sections 406 & 120B titled Sunil Bhandari v. Devender Singh Negi and Ors. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Kotdwar, District Pouri Gharwal, Uttranchal.2. The petitioners invoke the provisions of Sections 186 & 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short `Code') and says that the court in Delhi and that in Kotdwar have taken cognizance of the same offence and, thereforee, they ought to be enquired into or tried by the same court. Further it is prayed that an order should be made that the Delhi court should try the two matters mentioned above. 3. From the nature of the two matters, the FIR and the complaint case mentioned above, it is clear that the FIR in Delhi was in respect of an offen...

Amrit Lal Batra Vs. Divakar Pandey and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT160; 2005(81)DRJ353

Manju Goel, J.1. The petition seeks quashing of the complaint u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code and the order dated 23.4.2001 by which petitioner along with others have been summoned to stand trial for an offence u/s 499 & 500 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant/Respondent No. 1 Diwakar Pandey filed the complaint alleging inter alias that he was serving in the Adya Katyayani Shakti Peeth Mandir as a pujari, that the services of the complainant and some of his colleagues were terminated by the Adya Katyayani Shakti Peeth Mandir Trust/accused No. 1 that the complainant and his peers approached the trustees of the temple including the petitioner (being the Chairman of the Trust) for fulfillment of some legitimate demands, that the trustees nurtured a grudge against the petitioner and his colleagues because of those demands, that because of such grudge the complainant was roped in a case u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. and another under The Scheduled ...

Chinar Trust Vs. Usha Rectifier Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(30)PTC441(Del)

B.A. Khan, J.1. All these appeals arises out of a common order dated 24.4.2000 allowing the CM (M) Nos. 252, 253 & 254/1990 filed by respondent holding that he is entitled to extension of time in submitting evidence in the opposition filed by him against Appellant's application for registration of Trademark (Usha Shriram) under number 427541 in Class 7.2. Appellant has filed application for registration of the Trademark (Usha Shriram) under numbers 427541, 427533 and 427532 in Classes 7, 9 and 11 and respondent filed notice of opposition against these. Respondent was required to file evidence in support of its opposition under Rule 53 of Trademark Rules, but is said to have dragged its feet by filing three times requests on Form TM 56 seeking extension of time of file evidence on 4.10.1988, 28.11.1988 and 30.1.1989. After availing of these extension, this respondent again sought extension of time on 21.3.1989 by two months more up to 6.6.1989 on the ground that it was still in the proc...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Kumar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Vide impugned order dated 13.1.2005 the appellant-Insurance Company has been directed to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- towards insurance amount of the vehicle against the claim of theft of the vehicle. 2. Through this appeal the impugned order has been mainly assailed on the ground that the complaint filed by the respondent was time barred inasmuch as his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 11.4.2001 whereas the complaint was filed on 15.9.2003 i.e., beyond the prescribed period of two years. Apart from this the appellant has also taken the plea that the market value of the vehicle assessed by the Surveyor was not taken into consideration while assessing the loss. 3. As regards the first objection we do not find any merit as the letter dated 11.4.2001 was not towards the rejection of the claim but was only an intimation that due to non-cooperation of the respondent and non-production of documents the claim cannot be considered. 4. As regards the plea that the market ...

Alcom Enterprises and Hindustan Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC120

1. These two appeals have been filed by the respective appellants challenging the penalty imposed on them.3. Shri P.M. Rao, learned JDR pleaded that penalty of Rs. 2,500 each has been imposed on the appellants on the ground that they have issued modvatable invoices without supply of goods. On the basis of invoices issued by both these appellants, M/s. Genus Overseas has taken modvat credit. Show cause notice was also issued to them and under common Adjudication order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur, credit was denied to M/s. Genus Overseas and penalty was also imposed on M/s. Genus Overseas and also on the present appellants. M/s. Genus Overseas had not filed any appeal against the Order-in-Original and thus the same has become final in their case. The Commissioner (Appeals) also reduced penalty on the present appellants from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 2,500. Since violation of rule by issuing modvatable invoices without sending the goods has also been established a...

Royale Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT71TriDel

1. The issue involved in these stay applications are same. They being disposed off by this common order.2. Consequent to a remand order of this Tribunal No.C-I/1596-1620/WZB/2002, dated 30-5-2002, the issues involved in these appeals have been re-determined. Vide the above said remand order it was directed that if valuation of the goods was arrived at USD 300PMT, then offer of SIL was to be accepted and the goods were therefore to be released without the liability of a violation of EXIM Policy.3. Since the issues in each case have to be heard and on a prima facie conclusion it appears that the Commissioner cannot raise the valuation to levels of USD 300 PMT and thereafter also hold that there was a violation of Section 111(d) and then impose redemption fine and penalty, such orders are not sustainable. Full waiver of pre-deposit requirement is therefore to be ordered and the recovery stayed pending the final decision in these appeals.4. Considering the issues involved it is directed t...

Kalyani Ferrous Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT105TriDel

1. M/s. Kalyani Ferrous Industries, have filed this Appeal against confirmation of demand and Central Excise duty and imposition of equivalent amount of penalty.2. Shri A.G. Kulkarni, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that the Appellants manufacture pig iron on their account and also on conversion basis out of raw material supplied by the principal manufacturer namely Mukand Ltd. and M/s. Kalyani Steels Ltd.; that the South Regional Bench at Bangalore of Appellate Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 390-94/2002, dated 15-3-2002 [2002 (148) E.L.T. 341 (T)] ordered issued that the valuation is required to be determined on the basis of costing data as per the Ujagar Prints - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.) and not as per the sale price of goods sold on account of M/s. Kalyani Steel Ltd. by the Appellants to other independent buyers, since such prices would include the element of traders profit which can not be included in the assessable value to be determined on job work, goods as per clari...

Vijay Traders and ors. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT272TriDel

1. The value of old and used photocopiers imported by the appellants herein has been enhanced and goods have been confiscated for the reason that they are consumer goods requiring valid licence for their clearance which the appellants did not possess; option to redeem the goods on payment of fine has been extended; penalties have been imposed. Details of the appeal are as under :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------S. No.Name of Appeal No. Value Value Enhanced Fine Penalty---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.Vijay Traders E/136/05-A 32,04,109.47 37,87,801.00 10,00,000/- 10,00,000/-2 Tushar Impex E/137/05-A 30,80,207.95 35,27,429.30 10,00,000/- 10,00,000/-3.Tushar Impex E/138/05-A 30,81,390.81 36,20,541.87 10,00,000/- 10,00,000/- Machines E/156/05-A 50,19,077.31 62,01,053.15 20,00,000/- 15,00,000/-5.J.N. Enterprise E/157/05-A 22,31,583.76 26,62,409.78 15,00,000/- 10,00,000/-6.H.S. Enter...