Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments

State Vs. Surjit Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT308; II(2005)DMC12; 2005(83)DRJ168

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. By this judgment Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 1982 and Criminal Revision 210 of 1982 are being disposed of since they seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 31.3.1982 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 7/79, arising out of FIR No. 469/75, Police Station, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused persons of all charges framed against them.2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are as follows :'1. ........2. ...... Kulwant Kaur (hereinafter to be referred as deceased) daughter of Ujjagar Singh complainant was married to one Kuldeep Singh about 17 years back. She was residing with her in laws at premises No. D-147, Ajay Enclave within the jurisdiction of P.S. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. On 12-5-75 she was admitted in Willingdon Hospital at about 10.45 a.m. with cent-percent burns on her body. She was got admitted in the hospital by accused, Surjit Singh and Gurdeep Singh. Ac...

Vishnu Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Smt. Sushila Singhal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]130CompCas631(Delhi); 120(2005)DLT339; 2005(82)DRJ261; (2005)141PLR55

H.R. Malhotra, J.1. By this order, two revision petitions filed by the petitioners are being disposed of together, impugned order being common in both the revision petitions.2. Petitioners in this case stand convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Metropolitan Magistrate while recording conviction, sentenced the petitioners to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- besides directing them to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- respectively in each case, as provided under Section 138 where Magistrate has been empowered to impose fine which may extend twice the amount of the cheque. The conviction and sentence part was assailed by the petitioners by way of preferring appeal before Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioners also made application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail till the disposal of the appeal.The learned Additional Sessions Judge while dealing with that application ordered...

Sh. Deepak Bhatti Vs. Ms. Bhawna Bhatti

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT520; 2005(82)DRJ556

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the counsel and the parties, the petition is taken up today for final hearing.2. This petition under Article 227 challenges the order dated 3rd May, 2005, passed by the Additional District Judge which declined the proponement prayer made by the parties and failed to consider the request 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/husband and the respondent/wife, who are both Hindus, was solemnized on 16th February, 1997. The parties separated in January, 2004 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 3rd March, 2005 under Section 13B(1) of the Act. The impugned order dated 3rd May, 2005 declined to propone the hearing of 30th May, 2005 and to waive the statutory period of 6 months prescribed under Section ...

Z.U. Siddiqui Vs. Bal Kishan Kapoor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT267; 2005(82)DRJ646

Manju Goel, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short `Cr.P.C.') challenges the order dated 11.8.2003 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (in short `ASJ') set aside the order dated 19.1.2001 whereby a complaint against the petitioner was dismissed on account of want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The learned ASJ while setting aside the order of Metropolitan Magistrate held that the question whether the sanction was required be left open and be decided after the conclusion of trial.2. The facts leading to the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be narrated briefly as under:The respondent Bal Kishan Kapoor, is the father of Rekha who died of burn injuries on 12.6.1993. On 13.6.1993, the respondent approached police station Hauz Khas for lodging an FIR. On 14.6.1993, the respondent moved an application for recording his statement and registering the FIR. The statement of the respondent was recorded by the petitioner being the con...

Gujarat Sico Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals raise a common issue, whether the Central Excise Duty is payable on the goods sold by a 100% EOU to Domestic Tariff Area, against payment in foreign exchange, in terms of para 9.10 (b) of the Exim Policy 1997-2002. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, this issue remains covered in favour of the assessee i.e. no duty is attracted, under the orders of the Tribunal in the cases of Maruti Cottex Ltd and Ors. v. CCE, Hyderabad-III, 2005 (120) ECR 32 and Final Order No. 430/05 dated 20.03.2005 in the case of M/s. Jumbo Bag Ltd v. CCE, Chennai, by the Southern Regional Bench of the Tribunal at Chennai. On the other hand, the learned DR, filed a letter dated 5th April, 2005 from the Deputy Commissioner, Noida, addressed to the SDR stating that customs duty was paid at applicable rate on clearances mae by M/s. Morgan Tectronics Ltd. against payment received in foreign currency (Deemed Export).2. It is clear from the orders of this Tribunal, cited b...

V.T. Dolwani and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC45

1. Heard both sides. The main allegation against the appellant is gross under-valuation while clearing the goods by M/s Tekson Ltd. to M/s Teksons Cooling Systems Pvt. Ltd., which were cleared without filing the price declaration under Rule 173-C(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and without disclosing that M/s Teksons Cooling Systems Pvt.Ltd., Jamshedpur, is the subsidiary company of M/s Tekson Ltd., Thane.The issue, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether M/s Tekson Ltd. is related person of M/s Teksons Cooling systems Pvt. Ltd. in terms of Section 4 (4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and were required to pay Central Excise duty on value determined as per Section 4 (1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975.2. For the purpose of reference Section 4 (1) (a), 4 (1) (b), 4 (4)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 6 (b) (ii) and Rule 6 (c) (ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 are reproduced as...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Tirupati Starch and Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC529

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order relating to the classification of the item Dextrose.2. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. The Revenue has sought classification of the above said item under Chapter 29. The specific sub-heading in that chapter relied upon by the Revenue is 29.40. On the other hand, the stand taken up by the respondents is that, their item is classifiable under Chapter 17 (Heading 17.02) being chemically pure glucose.3. After going through the provisions of both these chapters and headings, we are unable to subscribe to the stand of the Revenue.Heading 29.40 covers only Sugars, Chemically pure, other than sucrose, lactose, maltose, glucose and fructose. It nowhere refers to the dextrose or glucose chemically pure, rather excludes these items from its ambit altogether.4. If we revert to the Chapter 17 Heading 17.02, it is quite apparent that the Dextrose which is nothing but a chemically pure glucose, s...

Apex Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT163TriDel

2. The appellants exported goods under 16 shipping bills at Kolkata.The goods were declared as Articles of Hosiery Cotton Industrial Liner Gloves. The export value of the gloves worked out to about Rs. 9.45 per pair. The shipping bills were under Drawback claim and Drawback of about Rs. 1.38 paise per pair was due to the appellant based on the export price. The Customs authorities issued show cause notice alleging that, according to the inquiry conducted by them, the market value of the gloves would be only around Rs. 3 per pair and that the appellant has misdeclared the value so as to fraudulently benefit in additional drawback amount. The appellant resisted the show cause notice, but in adjudication, the Commissioner upheld the charge of overvaluation, ordered the confiscation of the goods under Section 113H(1) and (2) of the Customs Act. Even though, the consignments had been allowed to be exported, the Commissioner imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellants and a p...

R. NaraIn Dyeing and Printing Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Pavindra Diwan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT129; 2005(83)DRJ465

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The subject matter of dispute in the appeal before us is House No. C-58, Friends Colony, New Delhi. It is a house built on a plot of 600 sq. yards comprising of Basement, Ground floor, with garage Block, First Floor and Second floor. It was a bone of contention between Shri Parshinder Singh Uppal and Smt. Pavindra Diwan, who are brother and sister. The sister is no more in the picture although she continues to be a respondent in the appeal. She has settled the dispute with her brother and consequent thereto, she executed a `Relinquishment Deed' in his favor which is dated 10th August, 2004. The property was thereupon sold by the brother by means of three sale deeds dated 17th February, 2005 to Shri Sanjay Sachdev and Shri Nalin Sachdev for a total consideration of Rs. 3 crores, out of which, he received a sum of Rs. 1.50 crore, while the balance was paid to his sister-Smt. Pavindra Diwan.2. Now, the dispute centers around the appellant which is a private limited comp...

Mr. N.K. Rajgarhia S/O Shri C.M. Rajgarhia, Sole Prop. Tecomash Export ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT359; 2005(82)DRJ293; (2005)141PLR57

Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal impugns the order passed by learned Single Judge dated May 21st, 2004 declining the prayer of the appellant for execution of a consent decree. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that after the compromise was arrived at between the parties on 13.9.2001, a sum of Rs. 32,04,222/- was payable by the Judgment Debtor, out of which, principal amount was fixed at Rs. 26,69,110/- and the last payment was to be made by the Judgment Debtor on or before 20.3.2002. Post dated cheques were given and it was a condition that in case any of the post dated cheques were dishonoured, the judgment debtor would be liable not only for contempt for violating the undertaking but the decree holder would also be entitled to execute the 'balance decree' immediately. It is the word 'balance decree' which, according to learned counsel for the appellant, meant that in the event of judgment debtor not fulfilling his part of the compromise the balance amount of t...