Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 5 of about 292 results (0.022 seconds)Biochem Pharmaceutical and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT207; 2005(82)DRJ653
Manju Goel, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm. Petitioners 2 to 4 are partners of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 5 is an employee of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is accused No. 1 in complaint case No. 01/04 of 1998 for offence Section 18(a)(i) punishable under Section 27(d) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short the `Act'). The petitioners are in the business of manufacturing drugs.2. On 25.2.1997, a sample of drug known as Ampilox Dry Syrup, Batch No. AS-74896, with manufacturing date December, 1996 and expiry date May, 1998 was collected by the Drug Inspector from premises of M/s. Galaxy Medicos, A-2, DDA Market, Mata Sundri Road, New Delhi, in the presence of the proprietor of the firm. Intimation in form 17 about the collection of the samples and one sealed sample of the drug was handed over to the proprietor. On 25.2.97 one sealed sample portion of the drug was forwarded to the Government Analyst, Delhi. On analysis the sample of the drug was found to ...
Tag this Judgment!Amarwati Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT574
ORDERGita Mittal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 3rd March, 2005 whereby the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, while hearing an application seeking waiver of condition of predeposit of the penalty as a pre-condition for entertainment of the appeal, directed the petitioner No. 1 to make a pre-deposit of 30% of the amount of penalty within 45 days and other petitioners were directed to make deposit of the full amount of penalty within 45 days failing which it was directed that the appeal would stand dismissed.2. It appears that the Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 11th August 2004 imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,40,000/- on the petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 50,000/- each on the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5. The writ petitioners are stated to be suffering from financial difficulty and hence it has been pleaded on their behalf in the appeal preferred against the order made by the Adjudicating Authority that there may be dispensation o...
Tag this Judgment!Mansoor Ahmed Shah Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT84; 2005(82)DRJ570
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The case for the prosecution is that the petitioner along with two other co-accused were each carrying bags on their left shoulders. From the bag which was carried by the petitioner, two kilograms of charas is said to have been recovered. Since the commercial quantity quantified for charas is one kilogram, Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'the NDPS Act') would be attracted.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has put in written submissions, however, at the time of arguments he restricted his arguments to the point that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 have not been complied with. He drew my attention to the not ice issued to the petitioner at the time of the search. The notice is reproduced at page 15 of the paper book. In particular, he drew my attention to the portion of the notice which says that 'a gazetted officer is also present within the raiding party'. He then referred to the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Maharashtra Vs. G.K. Enterprises and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT655
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12th November, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. S-319/2001 whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2,21,354/-, on account of interest, was dismissed.2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, is that the respondent No. 1, who was defendant No. 1, had opened a bank account with the appellant bank branch. The said respondent/defendant No. 1, along with respondents / defendants 2 and 3 who are the partners of respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1, had also been maintaining a current account /cash credit account and had been conducting their banking business through the branch of the plaintiff bank from time. It is alleged that the a foresaid respondents 1-3 , in connivance with the respondent No. 4 who was working as Branch Manager of the appellant bank at Dr. Mukerjee Nagar Branch, during the period from May, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Rampat Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT643
Mukundakam Sharma, J.CM No. 6859/05Allowed. Delay in filing the deficit Court Fee stands condoned.RFA No. 249/05 and CM 5639/051. This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi on 21st March, 2005 in Suit No. 146/04. The subject matter of the aforesaid suit was the acquisition proceedings in respect of property bearing No. 51, Khasra No. 32 measuring 3 Bighas and 4 bids was and Khasra No. 8, measuring 4 Bighas and 16 Biswas, total measuring 8 Bighas situated in Village Samaipur, Delhi which was allegedly acquired by the respondents on 21st December, 1911 by issuing a notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act). It is also stated that thereafter another notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the respondents/defendants on 24th October, 1961 acquiring the lands in question along with other lands of the same area. Section 6 notification w...
Tag this Judgment!Bahadur Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT586; 2005(83)DRJ433
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi on 10th September, 2004 in Suit No. 73/04, holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the civil suit which is filed by the appellants and also that the suit is not maintainable. On the pleadings of the parties filed before the learned Addl. District Judge, various issues, both on law and facts, were framed out of which two issues were considered as preliminary issues to the following effect:'1. Whether Civil Courts have jurisdiction?2. Whether the suit is maintainable?'Both the aforesaid preliminary issues were heard by the learned Addl. District Judge and after hearing the parties, the plaint was rejected on the basis of the findings recorded against the aforesaid two preliminary issues.2. A few facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid suit require mention. The appellants herein belong to...
Tag this Judgment!Sant Kumar Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4760; 123(2005)DLT136; 2005(84)DRJ140
H.R. Malhotra, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition is to assail the impugned order dated 28th March, 2005 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the Metropolitan Magistrate while giving notice to the petitioner under Section 251 of code of criminal procedure, for commission of offence under Section 279/304A volleyed as many as seven questions to him to find out if he was driving the offending vehicle on 7th June, 2004 at 9.30 P.M. and if so, whether he was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and whether he was responsible for causing the death of one Sanjeev Kumar Sehgal because of driving in rash and negligent manner. 2. The Metropolitan Magistrate by invoking the Provisions of Section 251 Cr.P.C. found that the petitioner accused was under legal obligations to disclose his defense once he pleaded not guilty to the notice.3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed the instant revision petition. 4. Chapter XX deals with the trial of summons c...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Mittal Vs. Ashwani Kapoor and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi323
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This order shall dispose of OMP No. 49/2005 and OMP No. 121/2005 which are petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' only) filed by the partners, who were running a hotel named 'Hotel Ashoka Continental' at. 8370, Arakashan Road, Paharganj, Delhi.2. In OMP No. 49/2005, the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Mittal, who continues to be in possession of the hotel and running its business seeks protection, as an interim measure, restraining the other partner and his son from obstructing him in running the hotel and also seeks to restrain them from getting revoked the license granted to the partnership firm for running the hotel.3. On the other hand, the other two partners Ashwani Kapoor and his son Naresh Kapoor, who are the petitioners in OMP No. 121/2005, seek interim orders to restrain Ashok Kumar Mittal, from running the business of the said hotel and using the goodwill, assets and properties and removal of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Sales P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(188)ELT16(Del)
ORDERC.M. No. 7067/2005 :1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.C.M. stands disposed of accordingly.W.P. (C) Nos. 9632-33/2005 9632-33/2005 :2. Challenge in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 15th April, 2005 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, vide which the stay application filed by the Petitioner was disposed of while directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2.5 crores against the demand of Rs. 5.3 crores, against both the Petitioners. The contention raised is that the various grounds which the Petitioner had taken up in the application filed for grant of stay including the financial hardships have not been appropriately considered by the Appellate Tribunal. It is submitted that the goods were cleared in the year 1996-97 and thereafter the business of the Petitioner has practically slopped because of the heavy demand raised by the respondent which is arbitrary. It is also conten...
Tag this Judgment!Simplex Concrete Piles (i) Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC19
1 Heard both sides. As the issue involved in both the appeals is common, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. These appeals are taken up in pursuance of the remand order passed by the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter and held as under : Appeal above-mentioned alongwith connected matters called on for hearing before this Court on the 11th, ...th and 19th days of April, 2001, upon perusing the ...nd hearing Counsel for the parties herein, This ...th Pass the following order : "It was for the Tribunal to determine, as a fact, whether the structurals that the Department sought to make exigible to excise duty in the various appeals before it were new, identifiable goods which were produced as a result of manufacture or processes and which were marketable. Depending upon its conclusion on these aspects in each of the appeals before it, it was for the Tribunal to determine whether or not the goods in question in eac...
Tag this Judgment!