Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments

Municipal Corp. of Faridabad Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT364

Manju Goel, J.1. The present petition is filed by the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad through its Director-cum-Commissioner, Town & Country Planning, Haryana as an intervener seeking quashing of orders dated 23.7.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge (in short `ASJ') directing release of bank guarantees executed in favor of the petitioner by the accused. The order was passed in a revision petition challenging the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 29th May, 2002 releasing the bank guarantees. Before coming to the order it will be appropriate to narrate the background in which the FIR was filed.2. On 6.12.1991, an agreement was entered into between respondent No. 2, Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. claiming to be the owner in possession of land mentioned in the annexure to the agreement with the Governor of Haryana through Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the `Director') for grant of license for carrying out and completing development work for se...

Rachna Gera and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT412

ORDERManju Goel, J.1. This petition seeks quashment of FIR No. 768/2000 under Sections 406/420/468/471/34, IPC registered at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi registered at the instance of the respondent No. 2 namely, The Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., (HSBC). The petitioners, namely, Mrs. Rachna Gera and Mr. Lalit Gera obtained loan from the complainant bank for purchase of a car under a Hire Purchase Agreement and the petitioners appear to have committed defaults in paying the Installments. In the FIR, it is alleged that the complainant demanded the vehicle when the defaults in paying the Installments were made and the petitioners failed to produce the vehicle giving rise to a suspicion in the mind of the complainant that the vehicle has been sold away to some third party and that for doing so a written consent of the complainant bank may have been forged.2. The complainant/respondent No. 2 bank and the petitioners have compromised. The petitioners, thereforee...

R.R. Financial Consultants Ltd. Vs. Sunil Malhotra and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant is engaged in the business of financing the vehicles. Respondent availed the service of the appellant to purchase a Santro Deluxe Car on hire purchase agreement. Insurance cover note was to be provided by the appellant in spite of having received requisite premium from respondent No. 1 the cheque issued by the appellant in favour of Insurance Company bounced. During the period of insurance mentioned in the cover note the vehicle of respondent No. 1 met with an accident. The claim of the respondent was repudiated by the Insurance Company (respondent No. 2) on account of there being no concluded contract in existence. Vide impugned order dated 19.2.2003 the appellant alone has been held liable on account of deficiency in service in not making the payment of premium of insurance as per term of the contract. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has directed this appeal. 2. As a matter of fact appellant R.R. Financial Consultants Ltd. is the sub-agent of main...

Sh. Rajiv Kumar Meharwal and Shri Vs. Cc (Air Cargo)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides and perused the records. The appellants are officers of the Department. The impugned order has imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Rajiv Kumar and Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri B K Pabri, Superintendent of Customs. The finding of the Commissioner with regard to the officers is to be found in paragraph 25 and 26 of the order which read as under: 25. Shri B K Pabri who was posted as Superintendent in Central Registration Unit has admitted that processing of DEPB cum Drawback shipping bills was not part of his duty but he still processed the shipping bills, supposedly at the request of the CHA. In fact this is only a claim to try and defend his action. This is borne out by his other related actions. He not only unauthorisedly processed the manual shipping bills but also gave manual Let Export Order when such manual Let Export Order is to be given only in case of shipping bills filed in EDI system. In the case of manual shipping bills the Let Export Order is given on shippi...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hexacom India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Hexacom India Ltd. is a cellular operator in Rajasthan. It was liable to pay service tax in regard to service provided by it and had paid tax also. On 13.12.2002, Central Excise authorities issued notice to it alleging that an amount of about Rs. 1,17,000 had not been paid during the period October, 1997 to December, 1997. In adjudication, that allegation was upheld. The substance of the allegation was that the appellant had made certain excess payment of tax which it adjusted towards tax during the later period. The contention of the authorities was that such adjustment by the taxpayer is not permissible and refund should have been claimed. Thus, essentially, the respondent had paid full amount of tax. When the matter went before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner set aside the order on the ground that he demand had been made belatedly.2. I have perused the records and heard both sides. As already noted the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand on the basis of...

H and R Jhonson (India) Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority Ministry of

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT125TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, challenging the final findings of the Designated authority given on 30.1.2004 and the Notification No. 80/2004-Cus. Dated 28.7.2004 accepting the recommendation that o anti-dumping duty be imposed on imports of vitrified/porcelain titles falling under Chapter 69 of the Tariff Act, produced by M/s. Nanhai Shagyuan Oulin Construction Co. Ltd. China PR (now known as M/s. Foshan Qualin Construction Ceramic Ltd.) and exported from M/s. Prestige General Trading, Dubai, UAE, After the Notification of the final findings was issue on 4.2.2003 in which the Designated Authority came to the conclusion that vitrified/porcelain tiles were exported by UAE and China PR to India below the "normal value", resulting in dumping, that the domestic industry had suffered material injury, and that, the injury had been caused cumulatively by the imports from the subject countries, and recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty on...

S.K. Mutreja Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT499; 2005(82)DRJ380

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner has prayed inter alias for the quashing of the appointment of Cmde. R.B. Prabhavalkar, Respondent No.5 as the Director (Operations) in Goa Shipyard Ltd., Goa, viz. Respondent No.4. This is the second round of litigation. The earlier Petition being Writ Petition (C) No.15851/2004 was disposed of with certain directions by Hon'ble Justice Manmohan Sarin dated 19th January, 2005. In those proceedings as well as in the present case the Petitioner has contended that he is presently appointed as Chief General Manager with Respondent No.4. He was empanelled for appointment to the said post of Director (Operations). The nothings in the file as narrated by my learned brother Manmohan Sarin, J were as follows:The stumbling block faced by the petitioner is that petitioner figured in List-B in the year 1997, in List-A in the year 1998-99 and in 2000. He was under surveillance for these years. His name appeared in List-C again in the year 2001. The CBI had also r...

Hegedus Lahel Csaba Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT341; 2005(82)DRJ374

R.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.5.2000 and order dated 24.5.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, thereby convicting the appellant-Hegedus Lahel Csaba, a British National for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii) and Section 23 read with Section 24 of the Narcotics Drug and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act') and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine of Rupees one lac, or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months.2. The appellant herein was prosecuted by the Customs Department for the above offences on the allegations that on the intervening night of 26/27, June 1997 while he was bound for Amsterdam from the IGI Airport, New Delhi, he was found to be in illegal and unlawful possession of 13.476 kgs of charas in contravention of the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, which drug he was attempting to export out of the country. According to the p...

Sh. Jagdish S/O Sh. Puran and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector/Adm

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(83)DRJ425

ORDERReference U/s 18 of the L.A. Act made By Shri Om Prakash and Ors, S/o Shri Puran resident of Vill. New Usmanpur, Delhi-53 against Award No. 13/92-93 dated 19/6/92 of Village Garhi Mandu has been considered by the Competent Authority.The Award was announced on 19-6-92. The reference U/s 18 of L.A. Act was made on 17-09-04. thereforee, the reference was not made within 6 months of Award as provided in the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus the reference is 'Time Barred'.Hence the reference filed by Shri Om Prakash and Ors. is hereby rejected.(C.R. GARG)LAND ACQUISITION COLLECtor/A.D.M. (NORTH EAST)Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri PuranR/o H. No. 164, New Usmanpur,Delhi-110053.'4. In the application dated 17th September, 2004, which was admittedly received by the Receiving Officer of the Department on the very same day, it has been averred by the petitioner that 'he had filed a petition under Section 18 on 27th July, 1992 and the applicant tried to find out the positi...

Brahm Singh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT395

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the father-in-law of the main accused, Manoj. Manoj and his brothers including the deceased had a dispute over the property in which they were residing. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out from the statement of the wife of the deceased that the present petitioner along with other elder members of the family had tried to sort out the dispute among the brothers and a compromise was worked out about two months ago. She further submitted that the petitioner is not at all involved in the incident which occurred on 19.12.2004 whereby the deceased, Virender Pal, received burn injuries and succumbed to the same. The deceased, Virender Pal, made two statements.One on 19.12.2004 itself and one subsequently around 20.12.2004 In the first statement, the name of the present petitioner does not figure at all and the accusations are against Manoj and the other brothers and one neig...