Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 16 of about 273 results (0.018 seconds)Suraj Dev S/O Nankesar Vs. the State (Delhi Admn)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT507; 2005(81)DRJ4
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. As against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30th October, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting Suraj Dev and Raj Kumar under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, two appeals were filed in this court by the accused appellants which are registered as Criminal Appeal Nos. 103/1997 and 127/1997. Since the facts and the issues arising for consideration in both the appeals are the same, we propose to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment and order.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25th February, 1993 at about 4.30 P.M., when Naval Singh went to the place of occurrence on a cycle rickshaw of Ram Parvesh and as he was entering the said place from where the kabari business was being carried out on partnership basis, Suraj Dev got annoyed on seeing Naval Singh and in an angry mood he asked Naval Singh as to why he had come to the plot. On that there was exchange of hot words between Naval Singh and Suraj Dev w...
Tag this Judgment!N.P.S.C. Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. Delhi Dev ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT585
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This order shall dispose of the application registered as R.A. No. 8561/2000 as also C.M. No. 8561/2000 which are filed by the respondent-DDA praying for review of the order dated 4th April, 2000.2. It is stated in the application that there was concealment of material facts by the petitioners while fling the application C.M. No. 6012/97 which has resulted in passing the aforesaid order dated 4th April, 2000. It is stated that due to the aforesaid order, grave and irreparable loss would result to the respondent and that the said order would have a far reaching effect as the same would be cited against the D.D.A. in all cases where allottees commit breach of the terms of the letter of allotment.3. The writ petition was filed in this court challenging the notification dated 21st October, 1992 issued by the respondent No.2 and also the virus of Rule 41A of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 on the ground that the price of the land to be allotted was on the...
Tag this Judgment!M.C.D. Vs. G.D. Builders
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT658; 2005(81)DRJ310
T.S. Thakur, J.1. A common question of law arises for consideration in all these applications seeking condensation of delay in the filing of the petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The factual backdrop, which too is common to all the cases may be summarised thus :2. The awards made by the arbitrators in all these cases were received on behalf of the petitioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereafter referred to as 'the Corporation') on 15th July, 2003. An application under Section 34 of the Act aforementioned was filed by the Corporation in each one of the cases on 15th November, 2003. Since the petitions were admittedly beyond the period of three months reckoned from the 15th July, 2003, the petitioner filed applications seeking condensation of the delay in the filing of the petitions under sub-section 3 of Section 34 of the Act. The petitioner's case in these applications which are accompanied by affidavits of the Executive Engineer of the Corp...
Tag this Judgment!Motorpresse International Verlagsgeselischaft Holding Mbh and Co. Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT99; 2005(30)PTC489(Del)
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner prays for an injunction restraining the respondent from using the trademark and logo 'Auto Motor and Sport' or any substantial reproduction/imitation thereof in relation to any product or services so as to constitute infringement of the petitioner's trade mark and logo. The petition also prays for an injunction restraining the respondent from using any material or article of the petitioner made available to the respondent under the Syndication and Licensing Agreement apart from appointment of a Local Commissioner for making an inventory of the products/magazine published by the respondent under the title 'Auto Motor and Sport.'2. Briefly stated, the petitioner's case is as under:-3. The petitioner is a company established and organized under the laws of Germany. It is engaged in the publication of nearly 100 magazines and journals in nearly 17 countries most of which relate ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saroj Bala Vs. Rajive Stock Brokers Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR162(Delhi); 118(2005)DLT472; 2005(81)DRJ143
T.S. Thakur, J.1. The respondent company is a member of the National Stock Exchange while the petitioner is a constituent who deals in stocks and shares. Disputes between the petitioner and the respondent company having arisen, the same were referred for adjudication to Col. Gujral G. Singh. who was appointed an arbitrator in terms of the bye-laws, rules and regulations of the stock exchange. Before the arbitrator as against the petitioner's claim for a sum of Rs.24,30,794/-, the respondent company made a counter claim of Rs. 3,33,691/-. By his award dated 25.02.2002, the arbitrator has rejected both the claims. While the petitioner's claim has been rejected on the ground that the same has not been substantiated, the claim made by the respondent has been turned down on the ground that the same is beyond the period of limitation prescribed for the same. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the award on several grounds in so far as the same rejects her claim. The respondent company h...
Tag this Judgment!Air Travel Bureau Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: III(2005)BC7; 118(2005)DLT126
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been issued a show cause notice on 15.2.2005 giving him 30 days time for reply. The said period is not yet over. The allegation against the petitioner is that it has failed to meet the export obligation with regard to the benefit taken of concessional duty for import of BMW Cars. Petitioner submits that his reply to the show cause notice is yet to be given and before the expiry of the time respondents have written to the bank invoking the bank guarantee.2. Issue notice to respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued. Notice in the application also. Mr. Rahul Kaushik appears on behalf of respondents and waives services of notice.3. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that this step was taken by way of abundant precaution as the bank guarantee had been executed for a period of six months, which was to expire on 12.2.2005. Without going into any further controversy, Counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!Malwa Fastners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC603
1. In this appeal, the appellants have made a challenge to the Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the adjudicating authority, who confirmed duty demand of Rs. 67,275 with penalty of Rs. 5,000 against them.2. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. They have prayed for decision on merits. We have heard Ms. Charul Baranwal, SDR and gone through the record.3. The facts are not much in dispute. During the period in dispute, April 1996 to June 1997, the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of tubes, pipes and plastics. The waste the scrap of plastics generated during the manufacture of these products were consumed captively by them in the manufacture of plastic granules, which they cleared without payment of duty.4. The main issued involved in this appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE or not.5. The bare perusal of the Notification makes it quite clear that it...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kapil Steel Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT321TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has made challenge to the impugned order vide which the adjudicating authority has failed to confirm the duty demand as per the terms of the show cause notice, but only ordered that the Asstt. Commissioner's order dated 31-8-2001 regarding the duty and penalty would be followed.2. The ld. SDR has contended that the Asstt. Commissioner earlier passed the order by exercising the powers conferred vide Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise (No. 2), Rules, 2001 as there was a default by making a payment of duty by the respondents during the fortnight ending 31-10-2000 and as per that order, the respondents were liable to pay the duty from the account current for two months from the date of the order, winch is 29-8-2001, but they failed to discharge the duty liability in terms of this order and rather paid the same from RG 23, therefore, clearances made by the respondents during the months of September and October, 2001, in terms of the said order of the Asstt.Commi...
Tag this Judgment!St-cms Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT149TriDel
2. The duty amount involved is of Rs. 47,02,274/- with penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/-, which has been confirmed against the appellants for the period March, 2003 - October, 2003 by the adjudicating authority by denying them the benefit of Notification no. 6/2002-C.E., which provides exemption to the LSHS used by the Generating Company, who had obtained licence under Part-II of the Indian Electricity Act, or obtained sanction under the Section 28 of the said Act.3. From the record, we find that the appellants are Electricity Generating Company and prima facie, falls within the definition of the said Company as defined in the explanation appended to the said Notification. They have also got sanction/permission from the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Authority to whom they are supplying the electricity.4. Therefore, prima facie, the appellants, in our view, have a strong case on merits. That being so, we allow the waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts and stay the recovery ...
Tag this Judgment!Neha Sharma Vs. the Vice Chancellor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT518
Gita Mittal, J.1. The present petition has challenged action taken by respondent No. 1 in forfeiting 75% of the deposit made by her towards tuition fee at the time of her admission to a course being conducted by respondent No. 3, which is affiliated to the respondent No. 1. The facts giving arise to the present petition are within a narrow compass and are not disputed by the respondents.2. The petitioner completed her Senior Secondary Examination from the Air Force Golden Jublee School (Delhi Board) and applied for admission to several universities including the University of Delhi and the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi. The petitioner has stated that in the first instance, she was offered admission by the Indraprastha College for Women affiliated to the Delhi University which she had joined.Thereafter she was called for counseling by the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi on 31.7.2000 and she had opted to join the Bachelor of Information Systems which i...
Tag this Judgment!