Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 16 of about 292 results (0.018 seconds)Kumar Bharat Prasand NaraIn Singh Vs. Airports Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT545; 2005(82)DRJ717; [2005(106)FLR580]; (2005)IIILLJ590Del
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. By means of this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a mandamus commanding the Respondent to appoint the Petitioner on an equivalent post in the pay scale of Co-pilot with all consequential, monetary and other benefits, since 1995. In the course of the arguments the Petitioner has prayed that he should be placed in the pay scale of a Co-pilot thereby rendering it unnecessary to locate an equivalent post thereto. It has also been vehemently contended that a fellow officer by the name of Mr. K.P.S. Nair, with a similar medical disability, has been rehabilitated in a post equivalent to that of a Co-pilot and his emoluments and other benefits receivable by him as a Co-pilot have been protected and are continuing. Article 14 has, thereforee, been pleaded.2. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner was promoted as an Aerodrome Officer on 30.1.1980. On the creation of the National Airports Authority in 1986 his services stood transferred from ...
Tag this Judgment!Airports Authority Officers' Association (India) and Anr. Vs. Union of ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT333; 2005(83)DRJ94
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The Airports Authority Officers' Association (India) has filed this petition against Union of India, respondent No. 1 and Airports Authority of India, respondent No. 2, inter alias seeking direction to declare the provisions of Section 12A of the Airports Authority of India (Amendment) Act, 2003 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Amended Act' ) being unconstitutional and hence ultra vires. This is the prayer which is required to be dealt with at the instance of the Association of Officers working at the airport. Other prayers are flowing from the main prayer.2. Our attention was drawn to the original provisions contained in the Act and amended provisions. By amended provisions, the Legislature has authorised to enter into an agreement with the other authorities - maybe private or joint venture. Section 12A of the Amended Act reads as under:'12-ALease by the Authority. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Authority may, in the public interes...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Pushpa Rani Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT68; 2005(82)DRJ713
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application for interim bail on the ground that the petitioner's husband is seriously ill. Earlier, the petitioner had filed an application for interim bail before the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 21.03.2005 dismissed the same. The petitioner is alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy of dealing in one kilogram of Heroin and it is further alleged that 125 grams of Heroin plus 100 grams of Hashish were recovered from the petitioner. This being the position, the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'the NDPS Act') would come into play.2. Normally, this Court would have examined the merits of the application and dealt with the same without any reference to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, since some observations have been made in the order dated 21.03.2005 which are not in consonance with the pos...
Tag this Judgment!Praveen Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(82)DRJ699
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this Petition it has been prayed that a Mandamus may issue directing Respondent No. 2, Hotel Corporation of India, to comply with the Circulars of the Central Vigilance Commission; that a Manadamus should issue quashing the so-called Regulations framed by Respondent No. 2 and that the Inquiry Officer appointed by Respondent No. 2, not being a public servant, should be changed. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has, in terms of its letter dated 18.11.2004, directed Chief Vigilance Officers of Organisations such as Respondent No. 2, to review the service Regulations and amend them to ensure that retired persons are not appointed as Inquiring Authorities. It is quite clear that this letter is predicated on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Malik v. National Film Development Corporation Limited and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4481/2004, which is reproduced below in entirety, since it has not been reported:Leave granted.The respondent National Film De...
Tag this Judgment!Mohit Stanley Vs. Suneet Bala Simon
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT415; II(2005)DMC410
Manju Goel, J.1. The petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge (in short `ASJ') dated 7.10.2004 whereby the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate for payment of interim maintenance to the respondent Smt.Suneet Bala Simon, @ Rs.800/- per month had been upheld. The ground for challenge of the order of Magistrate before the Additional Sessions Judge was that the petitioner was suffering from certain illnesses and that the respondent had left the matrimonial home without any just cause. The learned ASJ observed that the Metropolitan Magistrate passed the order of maintenance @ Rs.800/- per month on the ground that the petitioner was a man of means and had a sound body and, thereforee, could not avoid the responsibility of maintaining his wife. The learned ASJ did not find any infirmity in the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The grounds before this court taken by the petitioner to challenge the impugned order is the same, namely, that the petitioner was suffer...
Tag this Judgment!Narender Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT355; 2005(82)DRJ651
Manju Goel, J.1. The petitioner was facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 356/411 IPC. He was in custody from 6.8.2003 till the case came up before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 5.7.2004. On that date, the petitioner offered to plead guilty. By then six witnesses had already been examined. However, the other accused Vikram was absent on that date. The learned ACMM accepted the plea of guilt and convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 356/411 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for the period he had already undergone in custody during trial. The petitioner subsequently challenged the order of conviction and sentence in a revision petition being No. 125/2004 in the court of Shri Chandra Gupta, Addl. Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The Addl. Sessions Judge decided the revision petition vide the judgment dated 14.12.2004. It appears from the order under challenge that the grounds taken before the Addl. Sessions Judge was that after the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Amitosh Moitra Vs. Ram Prakash
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT278
Manju Goel, J.1. This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. challenges the order dated 6.1.2004 by which the application of the petitioner for recalling the order summoning him as an accused in a complaint case u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed. Before coming to the grounds on which the order is sought to be set aside, it is necessary to recall the case of the respondent as made out in the complaint. Copy of the complaint, which was sought to be quashed, was not filed with the petition. Only at the end of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the copy of the complaint was provided to the court by the respondent. As per this complaint, two cheques issued by the petitioner being cheque No.2 852901 and 852902 were dishonoured with the remarks 'payment stopped by the drawer'. Respondent alleges in the complaint that the petitioner was in occupation of premises of D-9/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi owned by the respondent on a leave and license agre...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Nath Rekhi and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT80
ORDERManju Goel, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeks quashment of the C.C. No. 178/1 of 2005 and order dated 22.1.2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate with FIR No. 29/2005 dated 29.1.2005 registered under Sections 448/380/120B, IPC at P.S. Greater Kailash-1 and the proceedings emanating there from on the ground that a compromise has been arrived at between petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and petitioner No. 4/complainant.2. The complainant No. 4 Shri Rajiv Nath Rekhi is present in person. He is identified by his Counsel Mr. Pratap Sahani who has been representing the complainant in the Trial Court. The accused in this case are Mr. H.D. Singh, Rabindra Nath Rekhi and Joginder Nath Rekhi. All the three accused are present in person. As per the FIR the accused J.N. Rekhi and Rabindra Nath Rekhi along with certain other persons armed with iron rods and hockey sticks entered the hotel of the complainant, disconnected all telephone lines, destroyed the sign board of...
Tag this Judgment!Alps Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC56
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Alps industries Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No.8/97-C E dated 1.3.97 is available to the excisable goods manufactured by them and cleared into Domestic tariff Area.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate mentioned that the Appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking, manufacture cotton yearn fabrics, made ups etc. that in respect of Domestic Tariff Area clearances, they claimed benefit of Notification No. 8/97 which exempts the goods from payment of so much of the duty of excise as is in excess of an amount equal to the aggregate of the duties of excise leviable on like goods produced or manufactured in India, other than in a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking and Free Trade Zone, subject to the condition that the goods are produced or manufactured wholly from the raw material produced or manufactured in India; that the Appellants imported various consumable items, namely lefasol, indigo powder, PVA, discofix DBA, Cera...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. JaIn Steel
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC15
1. The appeal of the Revenue arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has set aside the demand of Service tax of Rs. 2,42,131/- being the tax sought to be levied on amounts received by the respondent herein from M/s. International Amusement Ltd. and M/s.Siti Cable Network Ltd. during the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 as Consulting Engineers, and Rs. 2,78,884/- as Service tax on his market research agency as the respondent had received from three companies, the amounts for Service tax rendered.I agree with the ld. Counsel for the respondent that the provisions of Section 65(13) of the Finance Act, 1994, which defines 'Consulting Engineer', are not attracted against them, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Chartered Accountants Association v. Union of India in which the High Court has held in Para 14 that it is the services rendered by the professional which are taxed. The Court had before it the question of levy of Service ta...
Tag this Judgment!