Delhi Court April 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 14 of about 169 results (0.021 seconds)Chunri Creations and Shri Anuj Kapur, Partner, Chunri Creations Vs. Sm ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT396
Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal inter alias impugns the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 28th February, 2003 dismissing is No. 11624/2002 in Suit No. 604/2000. The appellant in that application had prayed that the copies of the plaint and other documents were not supplied to the defendants/appellants and time to file application for leave to defend be extended. Mr. Kataria learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that no where on record it has been mentioned that copies of the plaint and documents have been supplied to the appellant and, thereforee, there was non-compliance of Rule 3 of Order xxxvII of the CPC. Rule 3 of Order xxxvII CPC is as under:-3. Procedure for the appearance of defendant.-(1) In a suit to which this Order applies, the plaintiff shall, together with the summons under rule 2, serve on the defendant a copy of the plaint and annexures thereto and the defendant may, at any time within ten days of such service, enter an appearance either in...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Bhawna Manchandani Vs. Mr. Swaran Dhawan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT183
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for short ( the 'Act') is directed against order dated 19.10.2000 passed by Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby an eviction order under section 14(1)(b) of the Act was passed, reversing the order dated 25.5.99 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing the petition.2. Briefly narrated, facts leading to the appeal are that the landlady respondent herein filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(b) of the Act on 20.7.87. It was alleged in the eviction petition that the premises in question i.e Flat No. 103, Vaikunth, 82-83, Nehru Place, New Delhi was let out to appellant herein vide agreement dated 18.3.81. The appellant started the business in the name and style of Neelam Computer Data Services as sole proprietor. It was alleged that the appellant had sublet , assigned and /or parted with possession to one Mrs. Renu Manchandani, proprietor Neelam Computer Consultancy as its sole propri...
Tag this Judgment!Food Corporation of India, Through Its Managing Director, Vs. Ram Babu ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT442
Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in suit No. 2870/88 whereby the application of the appellant for leave to defend was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the plea regarding the sales tax which was realised by the respondent was a triable issue. It has also been contended that now the appellant is in a position to supply Form-C to the respondent and, thereforee, there is another triable issue. These submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, in our view, are without any merits and have to be rejected at the threshold itself. Once a suit has been filed under order xxxvII of the C.P.C. invoking summary procedure as prescribed by the legislature, it is the application filed by the defendant in the suit which must disclose the triable issues. Briefly stating the facts are that tenders were invited by the appellant for supply of 1,21,315 wooden crates at various godowns/offices of the appellant at...
Tag this Judgment!Jackson and Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi334; 121(2005)DLT674; 2005(82)DRJ298
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The petitioners, engaged in the business of manufacturing Diesel Generators (hereinafter referred to as DG Set) which are being sold and used in India, have prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, inter alia, to quash Rule 2(c) of the Environment (Protection) Second Amendment Rules, 2002 contained in the notification dated 17.5.2002 published in Extra Ordinary Gazette Part-II.2. The Competent Authority in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made the rules known as The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). By the aforesaid notification in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 6 and 25 of the Act the Rule making authority, made the rules, known as The Environment (Protection) Second Amendment Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Amended Rules). By the said amendment, noise limit of ge...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Rajesh Kumar Vs. Delhi Govt. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT547
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 25th August, 2003 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondent for his compassionate appointment.2. The father of the petitioner herein died on 4th June, 2002 in harness and at the time of his death, he was working with the Directorate of Education as Upper Division Clerk (UDC). On the death of the father of the petitioner, the terminal benefits were paid to the family. A sum of Rs. 5,45,816/- was received by his family as terminal benefits. The wife of the deceased is also receiving a family pension of Rs. 2,350/- plus dearness allowance. After about six months of the death of the father, the elder son of the deceased filed an application praying for his compassionate appointment. The said request of the petitioner was considered by the respondent. But the same was rejected ...
Tag this Judgment!Geep Batteries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gillette India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR316(Delhi); 120(2005)DLT387; 2005(30)PTC597(Del)
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (for short 'the Act') M/s. Geep Batteries (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred, as 'petitioner/buyer') has prayed for an interim injunction restraining M/s. Gillette India Ltd. (hereinafter referred as 'respondent/ seller'), from disposing of or alienating or encumbering its Intellectual Property Assets, covenanted to be transferred to the petitioners, in terms of agreement dated 28.12.2002.2. Facts essential for disposal of this petition are as follows --The respondent (seller) is engaged, inter alias in the business of manufacturing and distribution of blades, razors, toiletries, dry cell batteries, oral care products and small electrical appliances. In 1998 the respondent acquired Geep business, comprising Geep brand name and Distribution Network from M/s. Shervani Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (hereinafter 'SISL'). They also entered into a long term sourcing agreement with SISL, for supply ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dwarkadhish Financial Services
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Del)202
ORDER1. CM 3834 of 2005For the reasons stated in the application which are supported by an affidavit, we condone the delay in refiling the appeal.2. CM is disposed of. ITA 225 of 20053. The challenge in this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) is to the order passed by the Tribunal, dt. 26th Feb., 2002, in relation to asst. yr. 1997-98, inter alia, on the following grounds :(a) That the AO had no jurisdiction and power to look into and investigate the source. In other words, investigate the identity of the shareholders.(b) The onus was on the assessed to establish that the transaction of the share application money was a genuine transaction.4. As far as first proposition of law is concerned, the judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court are clear and there cannot be a dispute that the identity of shareholder can be looked into by the AO. However, this aspect of the matter would primarily be a finding of fact and not a question of law.5. T...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income Tax Vs. Andhra Educational Society
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Del)573
ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant at some length. Challenge in this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act is to the order of the Tribunal, dt. 19th July, 2004. The relevant finding recorded by the Tribunal reads as under :'Shri R.R. Prasad appeared for the Department. He relied on the orders of the AO. Shri B.L. Goyal, Chartered Accountant, appeared for the assessed. He pointed out that the assessed's society was running several schools in the last 40-50 years. He argued that under the Delhi School Education Act, the educational society would take donations as the development fund as long as they kept separate account for the same. These donations could be spent for construction of a building, etc. Since the Government gave only grant of 9.5 per cent of the teacher's salary, the society in order to meet other expenditure and construct building took donations from members of the public including parents whose children were studying in the school. He also relied o...
Tag this Judgment!Al-falah Blossoms Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT333TriDel
2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,77,61,571/- and Rs. 4,05,785/- and penalty of Rs. 50 lakh and Rs. 10,000/-. The contention of the applicant is that they are 100% Export Oriented Unit and letter of permission was issued on 16th August, 1996 to import capital goods on the condition that applicant will export 100% of their production. The licence was for a period of 10 years. The contention is that in the licence there was no condition that they will export specific value of goods each year. The contention is that due to certain reason behind the control of appellant the production stopped, therefore, they could not export the goods. The contention is also that Managing Director and other Directors were in jail during the adjudication proceeding and could not appear before the adjudicating authority hence ex parts order is passed.3. The contention of the Revenue is that appellant stopped manufacturing of goods hence the duty was rightly ...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT462; II(2005)DMC44
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 27.3.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 243/2/97 arising out of FIR No. 395/97, Police Station, Subzi Mandi, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 498 IPC but convicted him under Section 302 IPC. Further, by order dated 30.3.2002, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof further rigorous imprisonment for five months.2. The case of the prosecution, as put up in its charge-sheet and as noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is that :' on 23.7.1997 ASI Jagdish Chand, with Ct. Santokh Singh was present in the area when Ct. Rama Shanker met him and handed over DD No.7A to the effect that quarrel was going on in H.No.426. On this, ASI with his accompanying Ct. reached H.No.426 and learnt that Smt. Meera had been removed to the hospital by her husband/accused. After ...
Tag this Judgment!