Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 6 of about 273 results (0.034 seconds)Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Jagdish Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT598
Manju Goel, J.1. This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 26.6.2002 whereby the learned ACMM, New Delhi held that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case against the present respondents under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and directed that the complaint be returned in original to the complainant/petitioner. The prayer in the revision petition is to reverse the order to hold that the courts in Delhi had the jurisdiction to try the respondents for offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act.2. The facts leading to the present petition are as under:The petitioner/DRI filed a complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the respondents in the court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (in short `ACMM') on 17.3.1989. The facts disclosed in the complaint were that on 17.7.1988 to around 1600 hours the officers of the DRI intercepted a truck bearing No.HNX-1255 at Matheri on Ambala-Hissar road and the truck loaded with cargo ...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Neeraj Sharma Vs. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi345; 2005(82)DRJ189
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Case pleaded by the plaintiff who is the widow of late Gopal Krishan Vohra is that property No.B-1/32, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi was leased in perpetuity to Mrs. Ved Gorwara by the L and DO. Changing hands, property ultimately came to be owned by Smt. Bimla Devi, w/o Shri Vasdev, mother-in-law of the plaintiff, by and under a registered sale deed dated 9.4.1979. On the death of Smt. Bimla Devi on 24.10.1995, as per Will dated 2.8.1995, property was inherited by her son, Gopal Krishan Vohra (plaintiff's husband) and on his death on 22.6.1999, by the plaintiff, as per Will dated 15.3.1999.2. Further case of the plaintiff is that till the year 1985-86, Shri M.L. Bahri, brother of Smt. Bimla Devi resided in the building constructed on the plot and thereafter the building remained vacant as plaintiff and her husband were residing in Khanna, Punjab. The building remained locked.3. It is further stated that defendant No.1 had approached late husband of the plaintiff to ...
Tag this Judgment!M.C.D. and anr. Vs. Naresh Kumar and ors. and Nand Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT376; 2005(83)DRJ412
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. Admit.2. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.3. The matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage at the request of learned counsel for the parties.4. The present appeals are preferred against the Orders made by learned Single Judge in WP (C) Nos. 17804-08/2004 and WP (C) Nos. 17791-803/2004 on 19.11.20045. The dispute has had a chequered history. Thus, it is necessary to set out the facts in that behalf.6. The claim of the squatters / hawkers carrying on business activity in the area within the administrative control of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi came to be considered in Saudan Singh v. N.D.M.C. and Ors., : [1992]2SCR243 . The petitioners in the said petition were persons claiming a right to trade on the pavement situated within the areas under the control of MCD and NDMC in different parts of the city of Delhi. This judgment was a equator to the Constitution Bench judgment in Sodan Singh v. New Del...
Tag this Judgment!Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Kanwarjit Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT290; 2005(81)DRJ752; 2005(186)ELT551(Del)
Manju Goel, J.1. This is a revision petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the `Code') for setting aside the order of ACMM dated 8.12.1998.2. The facts of the case are as under:On 6.1.1988 the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (in short `DRI'), Delhi intercepted the truck bearing No.DIL-1677 at Kundli on Delhi-Haryana border and the truck and the occupants thereof were escorted to the office complex of the DRI where the search of the truck resulted in recovery of 520 gold biscuits worth Rs.2.12 crores. After the conclusion of inquiry under Section 108 of the Customs Act and completion of investigation a complaint for offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85(1)(a) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was filed. The respondent No.1, Kanwarjit Singh, was declared a proclaimed offender on 2.4.1990. During the pendency of the proceedings before the ACMM, New Delhi a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court b...
Tag this Judgment!Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Ishwar Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT280; 2005(189)ELT414(Del)
Manju Goel, J.1. The revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.1999 of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), New Delhi returning the complaint u/s 135 of the Customs Act. The brief facts leading to the revision may be stated as under:On 25.12.1996, at Bahraich, U.P., the officers of the petitioner, i.e., Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted a Maruti Gypsy bearing No.DL-8C-2295 with two occupants, viz., the accused Iswar Singh and Lucky Misra. On preliminary enquiries it was discovered that the contraband goods were being carried in the vehicle. The DRI officers escorted the vehicle and the accused to the CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and 531 foreign marked gold biscuits of total value of Rs.3,13,42,000/- were recovered from them. The accused were eventually challaned u/s 135 of the Customs Act. At the time of framing of charge the accused moved an application for dismissal of the complaint and for discharge of the accused on the ground tha...
Tag this Judgment!Avinash Bhatia and anr. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT1
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in this case the petitioners had already been granted anticipatory bail by an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed on 17th January, 2005. However, he said that while making the said order of anticipatory bail the learned Additional Sessions Judge had made the same conditional upon the applicants paying a sum of Rs. 1 lac to the complainant within two weeks. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners such a condition was unreasonable, onerous and could not at all have been imposed inasmuch as these proceedings could not be converted into recovery proceedings. It is for this reason that the present petitioners are before this Court praying for indulgence under the provision of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The learned counsel for the State argued that the petitioners have already got the benefit of anticipatory bail and the so called condition of paying a su...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT550
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges a notice dated 18-11-1998, issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) demanding an amount of Rs. 27,11,975/- towards allotment of a Self Financing Category (S.F.S.) flat in Motia Khan, Delhi.2. The petitioner had applied for the allotment of an SFS category flat in 1983. She paid installments demanded by DDA. On 15 March 1985, an announcement was made by the DDA that owning to certain unforeseen circumstances, construction of those flats was held up. On the 23rd of October 1997, after a lapse of about 12 years, a Press report was published, stating that out of the original 119 allotters of the Motia Khan SFS category flats, only 84 could be given physical possession. The petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing W.P. 5294/97. The court had directed that one flat ought to be reserved, to await final orders in the proceedings. On 25th Se...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ms. Anita Sharma and Shri Harish Kumar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi365; 119(2005)DLT483; I(2005)DMC857
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the petitioners' counsel the petition is taken up today for final hearing.2. This petition under Article 227 challenges the order dated 17th January, 2005, passed by the Additional District Judge which declined the joint prayer made by the parties to waive the period of six months prescribed under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act(hereinafter referred to as the `Act').3. The marriage between the petitioner/wife and the respondent husband who are both Hindus, was solemnized on 20th November 1999. The parties separated on 28th August 2001 and it is not in dispute that since that date the parties have been staying apart.4. The parties had filed the application for divorce by mutual consent on 15th December 2004 under Section 13B(1) of the Act. The impugned order dated 17th January 2005 declined to waive the statutory period of 6 months prescribed under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act which reads as under:13B. Divorce by mutual c...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Ashok Anand Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: III(2005)BC523; 119(2005)DLT210
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the relief claimed is for direction to the respondent (hereafter referred to as 'SBI') to consider and accept the proposal for settlement given by the petitioner in accordance with certain guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. 2. The petitioner is a borrower; it had sought for various advances and credit facilities from the SBI. The current account of the petitioner was showing a debt balance of Rs. 22,97,791.46 as on 25th January, 2001 due to the devolvement of inland letters of credit . In the meanwhile, the petitioner had apparently given export bills to the tune of Rs. 15,07,117/- to the SBI on 29th December, 2000 drawn under D/P at sight. That was paid on 22nd January, 2001. The SBI credited this amount in the Export Packing Credit, which was showing an outstanding amount of Rs. 34,95,212.32 as on 31st March, 2000.3. The petitioner avers that pursuant to the guidelines formulated by the RBI, f...
Tag this Judgment!Capital Publicity Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Ndmc
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi383
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, reliefs claimed include quashing of a decision taken by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) dated 22nd June 2004 whereby the petitioners request for permission to display two Unipoles advts. were declined. A consequential order has been sought against NDMC, for restraining it from interfering with the display of such Unipoles advts.2. The petitioner avers that it entered into an agreement with the owner of property No. 2, commonly known as Masjid Kasturba Gandhi Marg, for display of two Unipole advertisements. measuring 20 x 20. These advertisements (hereafter called hoardings) were to be placed at a round about on Kasturba Gandhi Marg. The petitioner applied to NDMC for permission to put them up on 5th February 2004. It is claimed that the provisions of Bye laws framed in the year 1992, by the NDMC, required considerion and disposal of the application within 60 days, failing which the consequence pr...
Tag this Judgment!