Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 28 of about 292 results (0.021 seconds)Gulshan S/O Ahmed Ali Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2417; 119(2005)DLT676; 2005(82)DRJ722
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order of sentence dated 29th November, 1996 passed by Mr. R.K.Tewari, Addl. Sessions Judge convicting the appellant Gulshan under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, further RI for one month. Appellant had also been charged under Section 201 IPC but was acquitted of the same.2. The appellant was charged with having committed murder of minor Parvez @ Naneh on 29th April, 1995 at Ganda Nala, Kadam Puri, Opp. Yamuna Vihar. It would be relevant at this stage to notice inter se relationship between the appellant, deceased and others who are witnesses in the case.The appellant/accused's father Ahmed Ali (DW2) married Shahida Begam (PW1), a divorcee having daughters Shabana (PW2) and another daughter, from previous marriage. Kabir (PW-3) is the son-in-law of Shahida Begum and husband of her second daughter. Ahmed Ali also has siblings from a previous m...
Tag this Judgment!Bisram Singh Verma Vs. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(82)DRJ281
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The Petitioner Bishram Singh Verma sought voluntary retirement on 22nd December, 1992. This application of the Petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted by the Respondent on 18th January, 1994. In the order of acceptance which was communicated to the Petitioner inter alias it was stated that 'superannuating benefits will be applicable to you from the date of notional retirement viz. 31st March, 1995'. In furtherance to this letter the Petitioner was relieved from his duties which was accepted by him. The Petitioner in normal course would have retired on 1st April, 1995. Prior thereto the Petitioner moved an application to the Respondents for grant of retirement benefits including pension to the Petitioner. This letter was sent by the Petitioner to the Respondents on 23rd December, 1994. Vide letter dated 22nd February, 1995 this request of the Petitioner was declined and the letter dated 18th January, 1994 was clarified by the Respondents. It will be useful...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Vikas Aggarwal Vs. Ms Tripta Mehra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT107; 2005(83)DRJ165
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 7th April 2005 declining the petitioner defendant's application under Order XVI Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for leading additional evidence. The case set up in the application is that due to the mistake of the previous counsel list of of important witnesses were not included in the list of witnesses earlier filed by the defendant inter alias averring that the plaintiff's in collusion with M/s Sharma and Associates had precluded and manipulated a notice dated 20th April 1999 and allegation has also been made of connivance by Shri R.K. Tandon and Karan Bal with the plaintiff by signing the lease deed dated 7th January 1994. The aforesaid plea was vehemently opposed by the respondent contending that the application is misuse of the process of the Court and defendants' evidence was closed by an order dated 18th August 2004 and the challenge to that orde...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT78; 2005(82)DRJ602
ORDER NO.673/26/ 2002-CUS/VIII DATED 14.6.2002.Dear Sir,Sh.Harish Kumar is lodged in your jail under COFEPOSA Order of Detention No.673/26/2002-CUS/VIII DATED 14.6.2002.Kindly find enclosed seven copies of the representation against his detention prepared on his instructions.You are kindly requested to get each copy of the representation signed from the detenue Sh.Harish Kumar at the place marked above my signature on last page of each of the copy of the representation and send a copy of each representation to the detaining authority central government and advisory board on the addresses which are mentioned in the grounds of detention a copy of which is available with you.Thanking you,Yours faithfully,Sd/-(R.K.HANDOO)5. The above letter was received by the Jail Superintendent on 30.9.2002 and after getting the representations signed from the detenue, the Jail Superintendent forwarded copies of the representation of the detenue on 3.10.2002 to the following agencies:-1. Sh. Som Nath Pal...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepa Arya and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: III(2005)ACC543; 122(2005)DLT51; 2005(83)DRJ570
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up today for final hearing.2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the orders of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') dated 5th December 2000, 20th October, 2000 and the Award dated 17th March, 1999 and arises from a fatal accident which occurred in the year 1985 in which accident, the respondent No. 1, Smt. Deepa Arya had lost her 32 years old husband. The claim petition was filed before the MACT by the widow, Deepa Rai, respondent No. 1 along with her then minor daughter, Manisha, the respondent No. 2 in this Court. The final award was passed by the Tribunal on 17th March, 1999. On 11th May, 1999 the Tribunal was moved by the petitioner insurance company by an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte Award dated 17th March, 1999 on the ground that the petitioner company's liabi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Hill Packaging Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT424
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This application is filed by the ex-directors of the company M/s. Hill Packaging Limited (in liquidation) under Section 442 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') and the prayer made in the application is that the proceedings in four cases pending against the company be stayed and the plaintiffs in those suits be restrained from proceeding with the said suits. Particulars of suit/OAs as given in the application are as under:S. OA No. Plaintiff/Applicant Court Purpose NDOHNo. 1. 102/2003 SBI v. Hill Packaging DRT for filing 6/5/2004 Ltd. and Anr. Lucknow of W/s2. 178/99 IFC Ltd. and Ors. v. Hill Packaging DRT Delhi for final 22/4/2004 Ltd. and Anr. Judgment3. Suit No. SCJ Master Batches Court of 4/2004 v. Hill Packaging Smt. Sunita Ltd. and Anr. Gupta ADJ, Tis Hazari for filing Court Delhi W/s 28/4/20044. Suit No. SCJ Plastic Ltd. Court of 54/2004 v. Hill Packaging Sh. Prashant Ltd. and Anr. Kumar for filing CJ Delhi W/s 3/5/20042. On 27th August, 2004, while ...
Tag this Judgment!Rachitech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC82
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Rachitech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. is whether the extended period of limitation is invocable for demanding the duty.2. The Revenue has confirmed the demand of duty by denying the benefit of small scale exemption Notification on the ground that value of clearance during the financial year 1999-2000 exceeded Rs. 3 crores.The show cause notice has been issued on 18.6.2002. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate submitted that Para 3 (a) of Notification No.9/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000 mentions that "for the purpose of determining the aggregate value of clearance for home consumption, clearances which are exempted from the whole of the Excise duty leviable thereon under any other Notification or on which no Excise duty is payable for any other reason shall not to be taken into account. His contention is that the Appellants were under the bona fide belief that as no Excise duty is payable on goods exported to Nepal under bond, the value of such clearan...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Flex Chemical Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC273
1. This is an Appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.221/03 dated 29.5.03 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed Modvat credit on the basis of original copy of invoice and on goods namely MS angles, steel Bars, shape and Sections, copper sheets and joints.2. We heard Shri H.C. Verma. Learned Departmental Representative, and Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate. In respect of Modvat credit taken on the strength of original copy of invoices, it is the contention of the Revenue that the respondents had approached the Assistant Commissioner for permitting them to avail of the credit on the basis of original copy of invoice which has been rejected on 12.12.96 against which no Appeal has been filed. This is no force in the submissions of the learned Advocate of the respondents that this is not an appealable order. They had sought permission of the competent authority for taking the Modvat credit on the basis of original copy which has been rejected. On such a rejection...
Tag this Judgment!Accord Cotsyn Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT123TriDel
1. M/s. Accord Cotspin Ltd. imported second-hand machinery under EPCG Scheme without payment of duty. As the appellants could not fulfil the export obligation, the machinery imported by them was seized on 3-5-2000 and subsequently the Commissioner under the impugned order has confiscated the machinery with option to the Appellants to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 25 lakhs. In addition, the Commissioner has also confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 49,65,561/- besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellants. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate submitted that in 2001 much before passing of the impugned order, the Department had encashed the bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 29 lakhs and duty demand has to be reduced by that amount. He has further, submitted that besides basic customs duty, the department has also confirmed the additional Customs duty levied under the Customs Tariff Act of which MODVAT credit is available to them; that they had requested the Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Ashirwad Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC237
1. Heard learned Senior Departmental Representative as no one appeared on behalf of the Appellant. In this case, the Appellants were availing the benefit of deemed credit under Notification 58/97. The show cause notice was issued to the appellant denying the Modvat credit on the ground that manufacturers of the inputs had not paid appropriate duty.Adjudicating Authority has denied the benefit of deemed credit and imposed a penalty. The Appellants also filed the Appeal and same was dismissed vide impugned order.2. In the Appeal memorandum, contention of the Appellants was that they have received the inputs under the cover of invoices, on which declaration was given by the manufacturer that appropriate duty has been paid. On the basis of this declaration, the deemed credit was taken.3. Contention of the Revenue is that in some of the invoices such as issued by Wazirpur Industries, no declaration in regard to discharge of duty was given and in some other cases, the declaration was given ...
Tag this Judgment!