Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 15 of about 292 results (0.015 seconds)Ms. Raj Mehta Vs. H.P.S. Chawla
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)27; IV(2005)BC1; 121(2005)DLT657; 2005(83)DRJ147
Manju Goel, J.1. Petitioner is one of the accused in criminal complaint No. 139/1995 titled H.P.S. Chawla v. Raj Mehta and Ors. U/s 147/148/323/506 IPC r/w Section 120 IPC filed by the respondent. On the same incident, the petitioner lodged an FIR being No. 292/1994 dated 25.9.1994 u/s 354/34 IPC. It appears that before the incident over which the FIR No. 292/1994 and the complaint case No. 139/1995 were filed there were certain disputes between the parties. Criminal complaints u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were filed by the petitioner, Director of M/s Evita Foods (P) Ltd. against the respondent Director of M/s Earl Chawla & Co.(P) Ltd. They had been doing a business under a memorandum of understanding dated 18.3.1994. Over their business deals some civil proceedings were also pending. Out of one such civil proceedings, an appeal being No. FAO 333/1996 was preferred before this Court by M/s Earl Chawla & Co.(P) Ltd. On 5.8.1998 parties to the FAO No. 333/1996 submitted before t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh L. Aneja @ R.L. Aneja Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT81
Manju Goel, J. 1. The application filed by respondent No.1/state seeks vacation of ex parte order dated 25.4.2005 as well as a direction to carry on with investigation in case FIR No.98/2005 dated 21.4.2005. On 25.4.2005 this court made an order issuing notice to the state as well as staying the operation of the order dated 19.4.2005 of the Metropolitan Magistrate directing registration of a FIR and investigation in accordance with law.2. The proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate had been initiated on a complaint under Section 3(x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short `the Act') against the petitioner, on receipt of the complaint. On 11.4.2005 the Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order as under:'SHO to report on 15/04/05 at 2 PM.'3.On 15.4.2005 the order-sheet of the Metropolitan Magistrate says:'Present: Cl. for Complainant.I.O. in Person.I.O. states that 2 days time may be granted to him, request is allowed. At requ...
Tag this Judgment!Woods and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT314; 2005(82)DRJ644
Manju Goel, J.1. The petition seeks quashment of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners and the order summoning the petitioners dated 30.7.2003. The petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 are the partners of petitioner No. 1. As per the complaint the petitioners obtained a loan from the respondent No. 2 and in discharge of their liability issued three cheques bearing No. 225065 dated 25.4.2003 for Rs.78,833/-, cheque bearing No. 225066 dated 9.4.2003 for Rs.7,833/- and cheque bearing No. 225067dated 18.4.2003 for Rs.7,833/-, all drawn on Bank of India, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi and on presentation for payment the three cheques were returned dishonoured with the remarks ?opayment stopped by drawer'. The complainant further alleges that a notice as prescribed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was duly issued and the petitioners failed to pay the amount of the cheque. 2. In the present petition it is contended that no...
Tag this Judgment!Vora Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT51TriDel
1. There is a duty demand of Rs. 7,92,858/-. This is for the period 1998-99 to 2000-01. We have heard both sides and perused the records.2. The facts leading to the duty demand are that the appellant is a manufacturer of packaging tubes which are used in packing cream etc. In some cases the tubes also contain printed art work. The value of such art work is being separately charged by the appellant and no duty was being paid. Duty demand is in regard to such art work. The contention of the appellant is that the charge for art work was also entered in the books of account of the assessee, and therefore, there was no suppression of facts and that the Revenue authorities could not have issued duty demand invoking the extended period. The Counsel has also referred to the audit certificate periodically signed by the Central Excise authorities.3. There could not be any dispute about the includibility of art work.In that view of the matter, on merit, the appellant has no case. The appellant's...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Jamwal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT631
Rekha Sharma, J.1. The petitioners are ex-army officers. Two of them, namely, Shri J.S. Jamwal and Shri P.N. Ghai retired from the rank of Colonel and Lieutenant Colonel respectively while the third Shri Harjeet Singh retired as a Major. Consequent upon their retirement, they were appointed as Managers of the Unit Run Canteens of the Army on contract basis. It is only the appointment letter of Major Harjeet Singh which has been placed on record. It is dated 22nd March, 2002. It shows that he had been appointed to the post of Manager in the Station Canteen, Gurgaon with effect from 1st April, 2002 on a basic pay of Rs. 5500/- and he shall be on probation for a period of one year which was extendable to two years, if considered appropriate. It further shows that he was required to submit a certificate to the effect that he had read and understood the HQ Delhi Area Standing Orders dated 1st April, 1987 and undertakes to abide by the rules, instructions and duties contained therein during ...
Tag this Judgment!Alacs Finanz Ltd. Vs. Oksh Technologies
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi376; III(2006)BC283; 119(2005)DLT585
Rekha Sharma, J.1. The suit has been dismissed on the short ground that it is not proved to have been signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorised person. This point was the subject matter of the first issue framed by the Trial Court. Two other issues were also framed. They were touching the merits of the case. The Trial Court left them open by not discussing the merits or de-merits of the claim set up in the suit or the defense taken in the written statement. The Court felt that there was no need to go into to the said two issues since the suit deserved to be dismissed on account of finding on the first issue.2. The plaintiff in the suit who is appellant before us, has taken the plea that the Trial Court was wrong in its finding on the first issue and that, in any case, it was prepared to lead additional evidence to prove that the plaint had actually been signed and verified and the suit had actually been instituted by a duly authorised person. In that regard, an application u...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirendra Sheth @ Dhirbhai Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Dr ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT127; 2005(82)DRJ575; 2005(192)ELT155(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Mr. Subramaniyam, the learned senior counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the investigation has been going on and the petitioner has already spent 54 days in custody and the 60 days' period is shortly going to be over. He further submitted that the goods imported under the D.E.E.C. Scheme were in fact imported by Gudiya Fashions Private Limited of which the petitioner was acting as a commission agent. However, the case for the prosecution is that the goods were imported at the instance of the present petitioner and he was the master-mind behind this entire fraud. The case against the present petitioner is that polyester fabrics were imported under the scheme under licenses which were with the condition of actual user and were tied with the further condition of an export obligation. Under this scheme, goods imported are entitled to duty concessions/exemptions. The allegation is that these goods were imported availing of duty exemptions ...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Chowdhary and anr. Vs. Veena Chowdhary and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT86; 2005(82)DRJ258
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This petition challenges the Order dated 24th November, 2004 which reads as follows:-'24.11.2004 Suit No. 250/04/85Present : Counsel for the parties.Reply to the application u/o 47 CPC filed on behalf of plaintiff. Copy supplied.Arguments heard. Counsel for the defendant has argued that since the probate proceedings between the parties are pending in the Hon'ble High Court and there was direction of Hon'ble High Court for tagging this file with the probate matter, so this file should be sent to the High Court.Perusal of order sheets shows that vide order dt. 5.11.2003 Ld. Joint Registrar placed the matter before Hon'ble High Court on the same objection raised on behalf of the defendant and vide order dt. 25.3.2004 Hon'ble High Court directed that in terms of Section 2 of Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act 2003, this suit should be transferred to District Courts. Thereaf...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd Aslam Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT63; 2005(82)DRJ597
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The charge against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of 19.9 kg of ganja and, accordingly, he is said to have committed an offence under section 20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act'). The petitioner Along with two co-accused were said to have been found in possession of a total amount of 48.2 kg of ganja. From co-accused, Mohd. Shahid alias Anthony Baba, a recovery of 5.8 kg of ganja is said to have been made and from Abdul Malik a recovery of 22.5 kg of ganja is said to have been made. Initially, when the FIR was registered, Section 29 was also mentioned in the offences as against the present petitioner. However, at the time of framing of charges, the charge has only been framed, in so far as the present petitioner is concerned, under Section 20 of NDPS Act. No charge has been framed under Section 29 insofar as the petitioner is concerned.2. The learned counsel for the State ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jaswanti and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT96; 2005(82)DRJ573
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with others are said to be involved in cross-cases with the complainant party. The disputes pertain to a tract of land along the banks of the Yamuna river. The river is said to have altered its course as a result of which certain portions which were under water became available for cultivation. The dispute is as to who has the right to cultivate the said portion of land. The complainant party claim that it is their right and he party of the accused claim that it is theirs. It is in respect of this dispute that certain heated arguments took place and the petitioners are alleged to have attacked the complainant party. However, the complainant is also alleged to have similarly attacked the petitioners. The petitioners include two ladies Smt. Jaswanti and Krishna and two young boys of the age of 19 years, Vijender and Mukesh. All of them have received injuries at the hands of the complainant p...
Tag this Judgment!